SingleSeat

Ha, and one last soapbox post, you poo slingers! There isn't really a whole lot of negativity, discrimination, or moral conflict happening in the DoD. I met my first openly gay fighter pilot this year and he's doing just fine, as are his peers and how they treat him...a sign of the times. But for ALL new side issues (issues not directly related to killing people) that are presented to the military, from the lowest level training hindrences to the biggest policy changes, there is a whole lot of "this is too hard and we don't have the time to figure it out," which can be misinterpreted as moral objection, but really is, "no shit, we really don't have the time for this." Technically, aviators aren't allowed to take over-the-counter drugs of their own free will because there are too many and the system doesn't have the time or resources to figure out if one is a risk at 35,000ft. or under G -- too hard, no soup for you. I can't know what politics are happening in the executive branch, but I think that the LGBT community needs to chill out. It'll happen for them. It's only a matter of time and adaptations, ebb and flow. It's one thing to call for equality and fairness, but I get a little pissy when liberals start treating membership in an all-volunteer force as if it's a right. It just adds to the liberal elitism problem because it brings the assumption that anyone who can fog a mirror can serve and that the military is a guaranteed occupational option for those who can't do anything else; i.e. the liberal elite is so enlightened that they themselves never needed to sink to such a level of employment, but are so enlightened that they somehow empathize with those who did *facepalm* -- completely blind to their own bias and lack of credibility on the matter.

I don't know my facts on DoD Viagra expenditures, but I do know that in some circles a diagnosis of hypertension leads to a cheap Rx and a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction magically leads to an insanely expensive pill of the exact same manufacture. Who is behind that? Well, it isn't the military. I've seen those articles about costs of treating active duty transgendered persons vs. erectile dysfunction in retirees. The insanely inflated costs of ED drugs should factor into it and the president probably shouldn't exaggerate for dramatic effect, but they need to make the comparison of 5,000 trans troops vs. 5,000 non-trans troops to be credible. It's generally expensive to take care of retirees in any capacity, so ED drugs for retirees vs. transgendered medical care is a pretty lame comparison. How much do we spend on statins for retirees vs. transgendered people? Who cares, but its probably a metric fcuk-ton. If the argument is that they can live without boners, but not statins, that's a quality of life argument that needs to be for a different discussion among medical professionals. Prescription drugs are giant unseen money eating parasites in the budget.

If we were to go with the mental illness line of thinking, I wouldn't be so afraid of transgendered people handling weapons but I understand the general point of restricting membership in the armed forces to healthy brains. The suicide issue is a much more realistic problem. Military life can create unique circumstances that contribute to service connected suicide. Add on top of that the stressors of transgendered life, and you've got a powder keg. Suggesting a screening process is to imply without evidence that gender dysphoria is "ok" on some level and "not ok" on some other level, which doesn't really match up with how we treat other serious mental illnesses. The military is dealing with depression and PTSD on a graduated scale (and shifting cultural norms) because they are being recognized as persistent illnesses often caused by military service. Those issues can still lead to separation from active duty. The really serious stuff is often screened out or was at least developing in a person before entering service and isn't service connected. There's no, "well you're only sorta' schizophrenic, so..." In the pursuit of basic force effectiveness, they need to draw the lines somewhere and either accept or deny people entry. When I was joining, you didn't see people protesting because they were denied entry for allergies or skin conditions, ala "eczema sufferers are people too!!" Nope, you just were told, sorry, go away because you're either too expensive to manage or too much of a detriment to force effectiveness. There are lists of those simple priorities that exist for a reason, so it becomes a matter of study and research to build a case that proves an illness is definitively not a risk of either dollars or lives. But, things change. I had to have perfect vision with no surgeries and no allergies to fly. It's not because they fully understood that surgeries or allergies cause problems flying, but because they DIDN'T know and the risks of the unknown were too great and the resources too thin to fully research them. Now, there are waivers and surgeries that are fully endorsed and people who would have been disqualified are entering because we understand more problems better. We have a very slippery grasp on gender dysphoria as it is, and we definitely don't know enough to start making life or death decisions in the pursuit of social justice. So, just like allergies or corrective vision surgery, we need to get more knowledge and time under our belts before we go tossing risk factors into combat blindly. To those who would say, gender dysphoric people have existed right under your noses the whole time and haven't caused any problems, I say you're missing the point. I had eczema the whole time too and wasn't about to let that cat out to a flight doc. I was taking a gamble, albeit on a pretty mild problem (which is why I was willing to take it). If I had persistent migraines, heart palpitations, and a sleep disorder, I wouldn't be so willing. It's an entire system that does the best it can to reduce risk and get the job done. It's not perfect and it does to a great extent depend on the people within it, but it's all we can do. If the argument is that there IS science to say that transgenderism is specifically workable and not a risk factor, I'd disagree. Transgendered people have likely existed as long as humanity, but we're only now starting to define it and study it as such. Only recently are we starting to experiment as a society with how to factor it into our lives in the open. I'm not saying let's brush it under the rug and ban the trans forever. I'm just saying lets take a more lasting and serious look at it and let time run its course. It took us a hundred years to figure out that inhaling smoke was bad, so a little patience is in order here because it's not like we NEED everyone to join our volunteer fighting force. The next factor becomes force structure and size. They wouldn't let me do my job if I had bad grades in school either. The smaller the force, the higher the barriers to entry. The size of the force, or the degree to which they want to focus its efforts, dictates who passes the wickets. If the entire force consisted of five people, how intense do you think the screening process would be? As a more realistic example, who do you think they screen to become astronauts out of how many applicants? Using the military as a social engineering program NEVER works out, and it's the unit level people that suck it up and explore the risks. E-1 through E-4 are the little white mice of these social experiments, and it's not right to treat people like that. The military is a great place to isolate a reflection of our society in order to study it, but the key is that it can't start there. What exists in the civilian world can filter into the military world easily, and it does. The military can even serve to clarify what is happening in civilian society. I think people expect the military to be a proving ground because it's so decisive and orderly. Shit gets done there. In the civilian world, it's harder to mandate and measure. Plus, the military has a way of proving or disproving ideas that would remain unclear in the civilian sector -- purifying and validating theory. Thus, weak minds are attracted to using the military as a test bed rather than a fighting force. It is therefore usually those who haven't served who push this use of the military because the military exists outside the confines of their reality as an abstract entity. There are opportunities to get nose jobs, etc. in the military (for free) since there are military surgeons doing the work and they need the practice because the development of their skills becomes more important when they're finally put to the test reconstructing a soldier who lost part of their face in an explosion. I would agree that gender reassignment is tactically irrelevant.

Yes, great in-flight cinematography. Believe it or not, Top Gun taught the lesson to Hollywood on how to do it. The only piece of technical critique I would offer is to make the pilots more dynamic...heads on a swivel looking for the enemy...straining around the cockpit...using the canopy bow for leverage (like in Top Gun). Nobody gets a tally looking straight ahead in their mirror...it's not like looking for tailgaters in car. These guys had no radars and were utterly dependent on SEEING the enemy as soon as possible and then keeping sight. Their job was to look around, constantly. These portrayals were fairly static, heads forward or down, which really slowed down these shots to me. In my eyes, I was in the cockpit with them, but it was so sedate and confined rather than the athletic and extremely busy cockpit I'm used to. They needed to be busier and faster. I didn't really like the amount of dramatic base noise and felt it was overdone, but I was willing to believe it could have just been the theater. However, the sound from the in-cockpit shots was fantastic, with the cockpits being noisy imperfect places full of vibrations and rattling. The guns echoing through the airframe was pretty cool. This flick had virtually zero character development, which was nice because it allowed the story to be more purely represented rather than mired in personal drama. I also liked how suspense and tension were built on the threat of dying from more common means such as drowning rather than being sawed in half ala Saving Private Ryan. It was well worth the price of admission!

http://www.lambopower.com/forum/index.php?...c=47920&hl= http://www.lambopower.com/forum/index.php?...c=51790&hl= http://www.lambopower.com/forum/index.php?...c=58833&hl= http://www.lambopower.com/forum/index.php?...c=65805&hl= http://www.lambopower.com/forum/index.php?...c=66049&hl=

I'm also not a fan. It's obvious they are trying, but they're just not hitting the right marks artistically. This car has a hot body with an ugly face...so...uh...pass. And if it doesn't look incredible, I don't care how fast it is. Every exotic car needs to do both.

I enjoy all the Tranformers flicks. Sure, they're out there on the fringe of realistic, but lots of good popcorn moments, shooting, explosions, robots fighting, and one-liners. Anyone going into these movies expecting some kind of masterpiece war drama in sci-fi context is setting themselves up for disappointment. They're based on frickin' toys for chrise sake. That said, this being the 5th installment, it will likely be over anyone's head who hasn't seen the others. I don't recommend it as a 1st Transformers movie because the character development will be pretty much lost on you and Bay doesn't help you get up to speed on any aspect of the series. The last movie had better one-liners and I didn't much care for the Deceptacon characters being so thick in racial and socioeconomic stereotyping, but everything else was cool. Robots that blow shit up. Cool. Parents, the word shit probably appears 87 times in the script if that's a concern.

Emanon is a smart kitty. He might actually figure out how to bury a turd on a frozen lake with one leg.

Our influence on Best Korea's war timeline is static at best. They are plotting their own course with or without Trump. I also don't see Trump fanning the flames in any way that is different from any past president, democrat or republican.

I say this gets split into another thread or deleted. The Lambo Owners Title Thread is a happy place. Sai, no double standards. If gender is what you're getting at, there are plenty of LP ladies who are owners and came here with their shit in one sock. Your path was unique, regardless of gender, so there's no "double" to be had. I wouldn't think you would want to participate in this fraternity, but if you must...suck it up. You aren't in a position to protest or dictate treatment.

First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. Then some dude named Nick Rienzo had to buy a used Gallardo. And then someone had to start a thread about it on LP. And then things got weird.

I'd be all over that too. Completely outrageous. This is the only car on Earth that can pull that off.

The G's aren't going to make you sick. The combined mismatched inputs from your inner ear and visual references are probably what will make you sick. The average human has a static G tolerance between 4 and 5 G's (4.xx); i.e. how much G you can take just sitting there not doing anything without passing out. The problem is blood draining away from your brain, ultimately leading to unconsciousness ("G-LOC," G-induced Loss Of Consciousness). You can help prevent G-LOC by performing a physical straining maneuver similar to straining on the toilet...contracting all of your muscles on a periodic rhythm and stopping the strain in the back of your throat in an attempt to keep the blood up in the head by pressure (forming a "hick" or "hook" sound). The timing of the rhythm is key. Wearing a G-suit (a set of inflatable bladders that squeeze your body), is thought to give maybe 1-1.5 G of added tolerance, but there's not as much science to really nail down what it gives you. The Blue Angels actually don't wear G-suits because 1) they need to look cool, 2) the G-suit interferes with finesse control of the stick, and 3), they are in excellent physical condition and well trained in anti-G straining techniques. The Thunderbirds wear G-suits because they are wimps ;-). However, the real killer with G-LOC is onset rate rather than total force. The quicker an airframe snaps on the G's, the more dangerous it can be because the occupant (be it at the controls or not) might not be as prepared as they could be. The blood is quickly and efficiently vacated from the skull. If you anticipate the G coming on, you can get ahead of it by pre-straining a few seconds prior. Some small propeller planes can actually snap the G on faster than a MiG-29. However, a MiG-29 can sustain A LOT of G for a greater amount of time, literally beating you down until you ease off or pass out. Flying a 4th or 5th Gen fighter is a highly athletic pursuit and can be quite violent to the unsuspecting guest flyer who thinks that it's supposed to be a video game. After my first full-up 1v1 fight in a jet, I dropped dead asleep for four hours, completely exhausted. Shorter stockier people typically have higher static G tolerance than tall lanky people or thin-blooded long distance runners. But, in the end, it all comes down to training and experience and everyone can find a way to do it.

I know that sometimes the four screws holding the door sill striker plate/block work their way loose and cause trouble on Countachs and Diablos.

What would you like to know about it? Are you guys mainly concerned about the physiological aspects? i.e. What is sex like? If I get sick during sex, will that change how I enjoy sex? Is the sex going to be painful? Will I regret it? Am I right for sex?

Please ban immediately.

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask you about that.

Mine wasn't imagined. It was almost like I had lifts engaged.

I like it both ways. I'm 2WD at the moment. The VT was smooth and predictable, but still quick and stable. The 2WD feels just like a raw '91/92 car. The rear will step out a lot more easily and I don't even consider taking it out on wet roads. It will chatter or buck if you're not smooth with the mid-range throttle inputs. 2WD certainly livens up the chassis, but it's a matter of what you want to work with when you're driving because it's a noticeable change in personality. IIRC, you have other fun cars...so up to you if you want to keep the roadster on the chill side, or if you want to add another demanding ride to the stable. The difference in 0-60 is about a second. Something that didn't get too much talk among the threads is how the conversion necessitated re-lowering the front end considerably without the weight of the front diff' and shafts.

With an infant (or toddler), it's hard to look into the future and see these things, but they will be important. Your time enjoying the car will fluctuate. Your kids' interest in the car will fluctuate, but it's your thing -- exactly as it should be. In the last few decades we've moved to a parenting style in the West that perpetuates an attitude that good parents sacrifice everything for their kids. I've seen how moms are more susceptible to this outlook than dads (maybe because they grew that little baby inside their body!). They might drive dads into it more out of teamwork and dads don't want to disappoint. You might be a forward-thinking dad who is projecting what sacrifices must be made on your own. Sacrifice is a must and is inevitable, but the key word is "everything." Everything is a lot, and what will be left when they're grown? Are you planning on just being a couple of empty husks, but with wonderful well-adjusted children to show for it? Everything includes money, sex, time...your marriage. Because today, it's the car. Tomorrow it will be something else. The next day something else. Parental sacrifice has a snowballing effect, but it's hard to discern which sacrifices are necessary. I know a lot of suburban parents who have this idea that they will go through this phase of their lives where everything gets sacrificed and somehow they will simply resume their lives when it's over. Except that it's never over and this IS life. There's nothing to resume. I'd say your chances of launching well-adjusted young adults into the world is slim if you've sacrificed everything "for them." It's like turning off the engine, lights, and wipers 3/4 of the way home, at night, in the rain, and hoping to coast into your driveway without even as much as a practice run. You might come up short. Like Fortis said, they really just joined your life as it was going. Somehow, the two of you found each other and discovered the wonderful things about each other that you fell in love with. Certainly you see each other as whole people and are confident enough in each other to value the other as a parent. Just think of all the things you both have to offer your children if you are wholly yourselves. You see it in each other, so why would you deny your children of that? Let them see you as adults. Let them see you love each other, and let them see you find your way to enjoy life and bring them along for the ride. When it comes time for them to find their way, they will be ready.

I agree with Fortis, but to build on what he said... I think it's important for your kids to see you how you really are and doing what you enjoy. That's modeling something healthy rather than showering them with 110% attention...teaching them that the world does not revolve around them, that you are not a helicopter, and that you can have a full and loving life together with branching interests. They can then grow up and see you as a whole person rather than as just a face that is always looking at them.

Nice HD vid from the Spanish Harrier dudes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vNzDpOflm0

Not a worry, I wasn't debating LGBT topics either. I only used the example to show that liberals don't have "knowing" suitcased, and liberals are humans who will rely on information as long as it suits their needs just like everyone else. ...that liberalism is not some kind of intellectual utopia where purity and reason flourish and all that is biased is forsaken. It's also not atop a pyramid of growth either, where people pass through various levels of development to reach it as if it's the pinnacle of intellectual maturity.

Nah, still have to disagree with you there, and it's left leaning people who think that way. Sure, there are people on the right who do as you say, but there are also people on the right with very well thought out reasons as to why they think the way they do -- highly intelligent people with no connection to "belief" who also look at every angle and very much "know" things. The left continuously and habitually discounts the right for this and is now in full head-scratching mode as why their candidate didn't get elected. Many chalk it up to their belief that the right is simply overpopulated with clouded thinkers who lack the same mental faculties and are incapable of forming the same opinions. "...because of course anyone with a brain could see the correct answer, amiright?" says the average liberal thinker. Discounting their enemies is the left's biggest mistake today. And it's lighting off like a huge EAT AT JOES sign in American politics right now. The belief that everyone on the other side of the argument is a moron, prohibits dialogue. Both sides are guilty and that's where the respect is lost. It's deeper than having a so-called "respectful" conversation, and you've just described that you will approach a conversation politely but have already written off the conservative as not being as mentally adept. I'd say a lot of conservatives do the same in refusing to speak with liberals since they deem liberals as intellectually inferior. If both sides of the conversation think they're trying to persuade an idiot, how well is that going to go? If we're comparing experiences, the left makes their belief very clear throughout our media and internet that they have the market on knowing stuff cornered. When, in reality, they know nothing more than anyone else. How is that realistic, or even intelligent, to think that way? Everyone has roughly the same gray matter sloshing around. No political movement has suddenly risen to a higher analytical plane. Not in 10,000 years of human history and certainly not in the last 500 days. I went to a funeral once for a family member. I was wearing a military dress uniform. I was called out at the reception for being a "brain-washed baby killer" by some left-leaning extended family members (who I didn't know). It wasn't 1969, it was the year 2001. Am a I brain washed baby-killer? I'm pretty confident that I'm not, others were too, and the left didn't register any points on the intelligence scale with me that day. I was so surprised that my fellow humans would be so utterly fcuking stupid. I was so much more disappointed in their stupidity than their politics. The moral of the story is that poorly formed opinions are deeply rooted regardless of party affiliation and no one group of people has ever dominated the philosophical high ground like you're implying. Take sexual identity issues for example, a fiery debate topic. The liberal thinker can quickly get on board with with idea that people are born with a sexual orientation over which they have no control. The Christian-right thinker can quickly get on board with the idea that environmental or other factors may shape sexual orientation. On a scientific basis, both sides will be able to find credible evidence that favors their perspective. Then it simply devolves into an argument over which science is more credible, which is nothing more than a dog-pile on a 50-yard line fumble. However, to this day, NOBODY knows for sure and there is no singular smoking gun explanation for any of it that closes the case once and for all. However, liberals will, to a head, swear that they KNOW their perspective to be true, when it really is just a level of belief (as you say). I'm not taking a position on this, but it's an example where liberals are convinced that their perspective is irrefutable WITHOUT any such case-closed declaration from science to prove it...no objectivity at all because objectivity doesn't serve their primary desire for people to be treated well (the next logical concern in debating sexual identity). People haven't changed in this respect in eons. Many will simply reference their science of choice and start hammering in that last nail anyway because they have a hard time realizing that they don't know enough, can't know enough, and that the real answer might be too difficult and complicated to work with right now. For this, I have never known this to be true as a principle. The left is the left and they are just as rigid and narrow minded as their counterparts on the right. There's no respect for "new data" as a political movement, ref. the above on sexual identity. Each perspective serves its own needs. No one, right or left has a monopoly on independent thought or objectivity. I went to college in a very left-leaning city and I discovered it to be one of the most harshly discriminatory and un-accepting places on Earth, with less tolerance than a rural Mississippi KKK meeting for anyone who was different. There are many people on the right with delusional tunnel-vision, however, there are at least as many people on the left with exactly the same problem. If your experiences have been recent, I'd say we should all keep in mind that only in fairly recent times has the right become so closely associated with Christianity. Religion in any direction turns a lot of people off from the outset and I can see where this would make you compare belief with knowledge. Conservatism in American politics existed without religious crutches for the majority of its life, so you might take into consideration that many people in the right wing have no such upbringing or decision-making framework at all.

Yet this would be EXACTLY what the right would say about their experience with the left. There is no obvious solution for the two groups that operate on such assumptions and/or have no respect for each other at such a basal level.