#over budget

[jerzwriter]

One month…. Five shopping trips…. Countless dresses…. Three or four minor breakdowns…. But we FINALLY have a graduation dress 👗!!!

[perrysoup]

Going out now to say I overbudgeted commissions, and as such, save for the two I have already paid for, I won’t be able to do any additional ones at this time. I hope to get back to them soon, but if you are on the lookout for it, I’d suggest looking at the tons of amazing artists on Tumblr.

I have told the commissions I had to cancel they are free to make it if they want for themselves, and if they decide to make it for themselves I’ll reblog immediately, but I have told them there is no obligation or expectation.

[casorasi]

EU transport 'megaprojects' are behind schedule, over budget

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union's external auditor says poor coordination between member states is severely delaying the development of transports projects worth billions euros aimed at improving connections between national networks across the continent. EU transport 'megaprojects' are behind schedule, over budget

[introvertguide]

Bringing Up Baby (1938); AFI #88

The current film on the AFI list is touted as the most screwball of all screwball comedies: Bringing Up Baby, (1938). It is a film that was adapted for the screen with the great Katharine Hepburn in mind. According to the writers, it fit her personality and sense of humor well and, with the addition of a lovable Cary Grant, was the perfect comedy vehicle. And audiences at the time hated it. It was a total flop during its initial box office run, director Howard Hawkes was fired from the studio, and Katharine Hepburn was labeled box office poison to the point that she had to buy out her contract because the studio would not give her any more work. Now the film is celebrated as favored comedy from the old Hollywood era. AFI listed it as the #88 greatest American film and the #14 best comedy film. So is this movie any good? Audiences in different eras disagree so I wanted to find out for myself. First I want to do the usual review of the plot (although this is a screwball comedy and it isn’t intended to make any sense) so let’s get the bold warnings out of the way...

SPOILER ALERT!!! THERE REALLY ISN’T A LOT TO SPOIL IN A SCREWBALL COMEDY BUT I DON’T WANT TO GET YELLED AT!!! PER USUAL, YOU SHOULD JUDGE A MOVIE FOR YOURSELF SO CHECK THE FILM OUT BEFORE READING FURTHER!! Alright, moving on...

The film begins with a bumbling paleontologist named David Huxley (Cary Grant). He is a man consumed by his work, yet he is somehow engaged to be married to a woman that is seemingly obsessed with taking second fiddle to his job. For the past four years, he has been trying to assemble the skeleton of a Brontosaurus but is missing one bone: the "intercostal clavicle". He is also tasked with impressing a potential patron named  Elizabeth Random (May Robson), who is considering a million-dollar donation to his museum.

The day before his wedding, David meets Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn) while attempting to solicit donations from the lawyer of Ms. Random. Susan callously plays the wrong ball which distracts David from attending to his potential patron and then she stubbornly wrecks David’s car while she tries to get to her own vehicle. Later that night, she distracts David again while he attempts to have a drink with the man from the golf course and the encounter ends up with both characters tending to ripped clothes in public. Susan seems to like to cause trouble and believes that her traits are fun. These qualities soon embroil David in several frustrating incidents.

The next day, Susan's brother Mark has sent her a tame leopard named Baby from Brazil. Its tameness is helped by hearing "I Can't Give You Anything But Love". Susan ignorantly thinks David is a zoologist and manipulates him into thinking she is being attacked by the animal. He does not call the police but goes to Susan and she bullies him into joining her in moving the leopard to her country home. Complications arise when Susan falls in love with him and tries to keep him at her house as long as possible, even hiding his clothes, to prevent his imminent marriage.

David's prized intercostal clavicle is delivered, but Susan's aunt's dog George takes it and buries it somewhere. When Susan's aunt arrives, she discovers David in a negligee. To David's dismay, she turns out to be potential donor Elizabeth Random. A second message from Mark makes clear the leopard is for Elizabeth, as she always wanted one. Baby and George run off. The zoo is called to help capture Baby. Susan and David race to find Baby before the zoo and, mistaking a dangerous leopard from a nearby circus for Baby, let it out of its cage. 

David and Susan are jailed by a befuddled town policeman, Constable Slocum (Walter Catlett), for acting strangely at the house of Dr. Fritz Lehman (Fritz Feld), where they had cornered the circus leopard. When Slocum does not believe their story, Susan decides the best cover would be to tell the police that they are members of gang. This distracts the police long enough to allow her to escape to go and find Baby to prove she and David are innocent. The potential patron Ms. Random comes to the jail to free Susan and is embroiled in the plot when she talks about her leopard and is locked up. Eventually, the lawyer/golf partner  shows up to verify everyone's identity. Susan thinks she found the correct leopard but unwittingly drags the highly irritated circus leopard into the jail. David saves her, using a chair to shoo the big cat into a cell.

Some time later, Susan finds David working on his dinosaur skeleton alone. He was dumped by his fiancée because of Susan and he is now single. He did not get the donation but finds that Random gave the money to Susan and now Susan wants to donate the money to the museum. David confesses that his time with Susan was the best time he has ever had and that he loves her. At this point, Susan inadvertently destroys the dinosaur that David has worked on for 4 years because she won’t listen to David’s warnings. He gives up and kisses Susan, resigned to the life that will come with loving this woman. The end.

After watching this film, I did some research and I can see why Hepburn was labeled box office poison following this movie. She apparently ruined many of the takes for this film which cost a lot of money. What is more, the director and the lead actors had overtime clauses in their contracts so everyone was paid about double what was initially agreed upon because of the actors fooling around. The film might have broken even or perhaps had a modest gain, but Hepburn caused extra costs to the production to the point of major financial loss. This was a point of lean times in America, so an actor that commanded hefty pay, caused expensive delays, and did not draw in a big audience was poison to a studio. She obviously went on to do great things for film and this work was eventually embraced by audiences, but Katharine Hepburn needed to be humbled and the reaction to this movie did just that. 

I was surprised that there was a real leopard (tame of course, but still) on set with the actors. There were some shots in which the actors were filmed separately from the animal and everything was overlaid, but there were many scenes with the actors directly interacting with the leopard. Most famously, Hepburn’s character was talking on the phone while the leopard walked around her legs and the animal started to get rough with her feet. If you watch Hepburn’s face closely, she is not smiling but has darting eyes watching closely over the big cat. Apparently, the leopard lunged at Hepburn at first meeting and she did not really like the animal.

So let me get to the point of my personal feelings about the movie. I have watched it twice for this review: once straight forward and once with commentary by Peter Bogdanovich. I have looked at the reviews as well. It didn’t help. I and both my parents hated this movie. We have watched 41 movies on the AFI top 100 so far and this has been unanimously our least favorite. We do not like screwball comedies and this is famously “the most screwball of all screwball comedies.” I will not say that this film is bad because it obviously has a ton of fans, but I subjectively hated it. Let me explain before I get the hate mail.

Susan Vance is my kryptonite. She is a bullying socialite that does not care about anyone but herself and only does what she wants. She is manipulative towards a guy that just wants to build his dinosaur, and she wrecks his relationship, affects his job, ruins his car, endangers his life, and destroys his work. For some reason, in the movie world he falls in love with her for it. Susan Vance is the kind of person that has affected people negatively since forever. I guess it is funny because it is relatable? “Yeah, I have had my life ruined by human bulldozers like that. Wouldn’t it be funny if that person took a personal interest in plaguing me at every turn?” I am an introverted nerd and I have been harassed by the Susan Vances of the world. I don’t find them funny and actively avoid people like Susan Vance. I don’t want to see them in my movies, especially as the hero/love interest.

What hurt me was that Katharine Hepburn was apparently like this in her behavior at the time. She would talk off camera during filming and ruin takes. She would ad lib lines that she thought were funny and goof around with Cary Grant costing the studio hundreds of thousands and lots of lost time. It sounds like she was simply oblivious to the efforts of others. Her behavior as an actress and the character in the movie should not be rewarded. In film world, this bull in a china shop still gets her man. In the real world where a nation is recovering from a devastating financial crisis and facing a possible world war, nobody wants to see that garbage. As was appropriate, everybody got fired and the audience did not want to shell over their money. I am glad the film flopped and say it was deservedly so.

OK. I got that off my chest so let me now set aside my personal bias and answer the standard questions more objectively. Does this film belong on the AFI 100? Yes. It is maybe the best example of the screwball comedy of the 30s and, according to the Bogdanovich commentary, is a great example of the quick pace dialogue with double meaning that defined the time. I also think it is good to remember what happens when actors completely disregard their employers and their audience. Even the great Katharine Hepburn had to make a comeback when her audience turned on her. The placement of the film very low on the list seems appropriate to me as well. So then...would I recommend it? Subjectively, heck no. I found the movie frustrating to the point of being angry. Objectively, yes. A lot of people find whacky antics funny and any fan of shows like The Honeymooners or I Love Lucy and movies with The Three Stooges or The Marx Bros would likely enjoy this film. It has a 90% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes and Roger Ebert called it one of the 102 movies to see before you die since it is a perfect example of the genre. It seems like a movie most people would enjoy. Let me back pedal slightly and note that I have full respect for people who enjoy the film and I am glad cinema brings you some laughs. However, I hate the film with a passion and never plan on watching it again.

[science-criticaltheory]

NASA's SLS Megarocket Over Budget, Behind Schedule, Report Finds by Mike Wall

Artist's illustration of NASA's huge Space Launch System rocket in flight.Credit: NASA

It'll cost several billion dollars more than originally planned to get NASA's huge Space Launch System (SLS) rocket off the ground, and that already-delayed first flight will probably end up being pushed back yet again, a new report by the agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) finds.

NASA is counting on the two-stage SLS to launch astronauts toward deep-space destinations such as the moon and Mars. The giant rocket will also aid planetary exploration, helping robotic spacecraft reach distant targets in much less time than has hitherto been possible, agency officials have said.

Aerospace titan Boeing is responsible for the SLS' first, or core, stage. In 2012, NASA contracted with Boeing to build two SLS first stages, as well as one Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), an advanced second stage that will boost the rocket's payload-lofting capability. [Photos: NASA's Space Launch System for Deep Space Flights]

The space agency originally aimed to launch the first SLS flight — an uncrewed test called Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), which will send NASA's also-in-development Orion crew capsule around the moon — in December 2017. The first crewed SLS-Orion flight, EM-2, was targeted for mid-2021.

Those schedules have slipped, however: NASA now aims to launch EM-1 in mid-2020 and EM-2 in the middle of 2022. And there will be cost overruns as well. The "Boeing Stages" contract runs through 2021, but NASA forecasts that the company will spend all of the allocated money by early next year, without the final delivery of a core stage or the EUS.

Which brings us to the new OIG report, which was released today (Oct. 10). It crystallizes the findings of a four-month-long audit (from April through August 2018) of Boeing's performance under the Stages contract, as well as NASA's "compliance with acquisition regulations, policies, and procedures supporting the SLS Program."

Those findings suggest that there will be additional bumps in the road for SLS development.

"At its current rate, we project that Boeing will expend at least $8.9 billion through 2021 — double the amount initially planned — while delivery of the first Core Stage has slipped 2.5 years from June 2017 to December 2019 and may slip further," the OIG report states.

As a result of such issues, NASA will not be able to launch EM-1 in the currently targeted window, which runs from December 2019 through June 2020, the report's authors predict.

These cost increases and schedule slips "can be traced largely to management, technical and infrastructure issues driven by Boeing's poor performance," the OIG report adds. "For example, Boeing officials have consistently underestimated the scope of the work to be performed and thus the size and skills of the workforce required."

In addition, the hardware and software required for core-stage testing is two years behind schedule. Equipment-related problems and "an extreme weather event" — presumably 2017's Hurricane Harvey — have contributed to the delays and cost overruns, according to the report.

The OIG report makes seven recommendations to improve the "sustainability, accountability, and transparency" of core-stage and EUS development. NASA concurs with six of the seven recommendations, the report states; the only exception is Recommendation 6, which involves setting up a system whereby "technical monitors" rate the contractor's performance.

"To its credit, the SLS Program has taken positive steps to address management and procurement issues related to the Boeing Stages contract, including making key leadership changes; requesting reviews of Boeing's management, financial, and estimating systems; adding routine, in-depth performance reviews; and changing the procurement process to improve internal controls," the OIG report says. "However, the impact of these actions on improving Boeing's future contract performance is uncertain."

In a statement emailed to Space.com, NASA officials said that the SLS is the most complex launch system the agency has ever developed, and they acknowledged the challenges related to its design and manufacture.

But the officials also stressed the importance of the SLS to the agency's human-spaceflight plans. And they added that NASA fully supports Boeing, saying that the company has "already overcome many challenges" and continues "to show major improvements in efficiency and management."

"The recent report from NASA's Office of the Inspector General, along with other reviews, helps the agency improve performance," the NASA statement adds. "NASA and Boeing are well underway in implementing the report's recommendations, several of which are already yielding steady and significant improvements. NASA continues to carefully monitor SLS performance as the teams make significant progress on final assembly, outfitting and joining of the five major structural pieces of the SLS core stage at the agency's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans for the first flight."

You can read the full OIG report here: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-001.pdf

[thoughtlessarse]

Sellafield nuclear decommissioning work ‘significantly’ delayed and millions over budget, report reveals

Waste facility due to be fully decommissioned by 2120 at cost of £121bn

Nuclear fuel reprocessing and decommissioning site Sellafield is running behind schedule with most major projects and is on track to record an overspend of £913m, according to an official report. The site, previously described by its own management as one of Europe’s most hazardous facilities, is used for cleaning up stored nuclear waste. The plant opened in 1956 and has been state-run since 2016. It is due to be fully decommissioned by the year 2120 at a cost of £121bn.

Cutting subsidies for renewables and building more nuclear power plants is the Tory answer. I’d like to know what the power companies who profited from the nuclear plants have paid towards the decommissioning since they are responsible for much of the waste in Sellafield. 

[dragoni]

Pentagon postpones Trump's military parade

The Department of Defense says the military parade originally scheduled for Veterans Day will be postponed.

Trump’s low ball estimates are going to send America into bankruptcy. So over budget #GrabYourWallet 

Trump Parade was supposed to cost $12 million. Now it’s $92 million.

Trump Wall was supposed to cost $4 billion. Now it’s $25 BILLION.

"We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019.",  Defense Department spokesman Col. Rob Manning 

Coincidence? Trump originally invited Putin to the White House for this fall but pushed it to 2019. #TreasonSummit2

Trump's military parade is now estimated to cost $92 million – $80 million more than earlier estimate, CNBC

The #StableGenius is proving he’s an #UnstableIdiot. Republicans COMPLICIT. #VoteThemAllOut

[investmart007]

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico | Puerto Rico to sue control board over budget differences

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/AWZAh5

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico | Puerto Rico to sue control board over budget differences

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Puerto Rico’s governor says he will sue a federal control board to resolve budget differences as the U.S. territory battles an 11-year recession.

Ricardo Rossello said in a statement Thursday that he seeks an injunction to stop the board from imposing an $8.76 billion budget that contains various austerity measures. He accused the board that oversees the island’s finances of trying to dictate public policy. A board spokesman did not immediately return a message for comment.

Two competing budgets are being wrangled over in Puerto Rico: One was approved by the board and another was approved by legislators and signed by Rossello earlier this week.

The island is struggling to recover from Hurricane Maria as it tries to restructure a portion of its $70 billion public debt load.

By  Associated Press