Slashdot Mirror

The pilot was a trainee learning the capabilities and handling of the 777 and his co-pilot, the instructor was merely incompetent? I'll believe that before I believe cultural hierarchies resulted in the crash.

This incident reminded me of another aircraft mishap involving SFO, a Compressor Stall with a somewhat rusty first officer at the stick on a 747

[quote]
On June 28, 1998, a UAL 747-400 that had just taken off from San Francisco International (SFO) experienced a number-three engine compressor stall. The plane shook violently, and the crew shut down the number-three engine. Then, instead of applying rudder, the first officer, who was piloting the plane, used ailerons and spoilers, further slowing the heavily-loaded plane. The stick-shaker stall warning activated, and the F/O pushed the nose over, getting so low that the ground proximity warning activated. The 747 cleared San Bruno Mountain, which is dotted with 600-foot TV towers, by less than 100 feet. At that point, the captain took control, dumped fuel and returned to SFO. In the aftermath of the incident, it was discovered many of the airlines' F/Os were flying for years without making any real-world takeoffs and landings.
[/quote]

What also came out of that incident was the fact that the first officer was getting instructions yelled at him from others in the cockpit while a more experienced captain sat there with his hands off the controls in the left seat. Eventually the more experienced captain finally took control of the plane and landed it back at SFO. Never mind the fact that there's passengers in the back and that you nearly hit a mountain letting the first officer get some experience. It could have been a very bad catastrophe but instead it was a near miss.

The FAA after that mandated that pilots had to do more "real" takeoffs and landings instead of mostly simulator runs.

According to http://www.adversity.net/0_PoliceFireMuni/PFM_intro.htm, which explains why he was rejected, he appealed, but lost.

Now, he seems to work as a prison guard ( http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33193&page=1 )

Mr. Jordan, 48, is a life-insurance salesman who had dreamed of a second career protecting and serving, with an eye on the pension.

...

MR. Jordan said he would appeal the ruling if his lawyers are willing to continue the case now that he has used up his savings. In the meantime, he is supplementing his insurance business by working for $26,000 a year -- $15,000 less than he would make as a New London patrolman -- as a state prison guard. ''In those dormitories, there's 110 inmates and one of you,'' he said. ''Your mouth better be connected to your brain.''

Not just that, I've heard rumours (take them with as much salt as you think such a rumour from someone you've never met babbling on /. deserves) that at least one police force actively discriminates against people who are too smart because such people might start to think for themselves.

A little googling pops up the answer:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html

http://www.adversity.net/policefire_1_connecticut.htm

The Associated Press reported the following case from New London, Connecticut: "A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

                    "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test."

                    In 1996, Jordan scored 33 points on the police exam which is the equivalent of an IQ of 125 (well above average, but 15 points short of the traditional "genius" cutoff of 140).

                    "But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training."

                    Associated Press reports that the national average for police officers is an IQ of 104, or slightly above average.

                    The U.S. District Court ruled the New London police had a reasonable explanation for their policy of rejecting applicants who were too intelligent -- they might get easily bored and leave the job after receiving costly training. On August 23, 2000 the Second Circuit Court agreed.

                    Robert Jordan has been working as a prison guard since his rejection by New London police. Apparently prison authorities don't care of Jordan is too intelligent for the guard job; or maybe prison guards have to be smarter than police recruits. (Associated Press as published by ABC News 09/08/00)

http://www.adversity.net/0_PoliceFireMuni/PFM_intro.htm
'Dumb cop' rule really smarts (09/11/00)

I guess if someone were really smart, in the above situation, they would cheat on the test to seem dumber than normal.

So, if even slashdot users can't remember who caused the original DMCA to happen, what hope is there that any Canadian politicians would be worried?

Wikipedia is at your fingertips... Introduced by Howard Coble. Of course, that illustrates an even more interesting problem. This is his district. Now have a look at district 12. Howard Coble is only in office because of unconstitutional gerrymandering. The only way that bastard is leaving office is in a casket. He can shove whatever shit he wants right down your throat and there's not a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it. Of course, that isn't a problem in Canada, so anyone fool enough to push a DMCA up there can expect to lose their job.

But instead, this story will become a footnote. Precisely because there's an election going on. An election that is threatened by these untrustworthy machines.

Although, indeed, appalling, the threat is overblown. AFAIU, it would still require someone to visit each machine in person in order to affect its results. This simply is not enough to sway the overall results of an important election.

Even if the "swingiest" district of the "swingiest" State is attacked via this exploit, the "winner" would still need to really win in a great many other places. This happened before. For example, in 1960:

[...]

• Fannin County, Texas had only 4,895 registered voters. BUT 6,138 votes were cast, 75% of which went to Kennedy.
• Angelina County, Texas: In one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.
• [...] found a cemetary in one Chicago precinct where the names on the head stones were registered voters who had actually voted!
• [...] visited the Chicago address where 56 Kennedy voters listed their address. What he found was an abandoned, demolished house.

It did affect the outcome, but only because Nixon's real win was razor-thin to begin with... Unless a truly major force (like a foreign government) is financing the nation-wide hacking, the "razor-thin" is still a required quality. And a major force will, likely, find it easier to spend its money and efforts via (largely) legal covert and overt media-campaigning, rather than the highly illegal hacking.

I wish such fraud was completely gone, but that may be impossible. Whether Diebold-machines make the situation worse is not immediately obvious...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ad+hominem

As for the definition of the word "racist": There are only a tiny handful of peoples who are capable of producing a man who can win a Fields Medal or a Nobel Prize in Physics: Largely they are Caucasians [to include the Ashkenazim & the Lebanese Christians], Pacific Rim Asians, and [only] the very highest castes from the Indian Subcontinent; conversely, the finals of the 100 meter dash at the Olympics will always consist almost entirely of men who are descended from the tribes of West Africa [or at least the finals would consist almost entirely of such men if national quotas didn't unfairly and unnaturally limit and restrict the participants at the Olympics].

No one - not even the most ardent marxist academic - bothers to try to convince himself otherwise anymore.

But, of course, the modern definition of "racist" does not identify, as the villain, he who notices these differences - we all notice them - but rather the word "racist" has come to apply to anyone who has the temerity [or foolhardiness] to verbalize the observation.

On the other hand, that's not what the word "racist" is supposed to mean: A racist is supposed to be someone who believes that a government should enforce [with the barrel of a gun] an agenda which:

1) Involves seizing the private property of dis-favored races.

2) Involves setting aside educational appointments and business opportunities for favored races.

3) Involves denying taxpayer-subsidized goodies to dis-favored races.

4) Involves the racialization of criminal arrests, prosecutions, and convictions.

5) Involves the seizure of entire continents from dis-favored races.

6) Involves the enslavement of dis-favored races.

7) Involves the slaughter of dis-favored races.

Etc etc etc.

So it's impossible for any classical liberal - one who believes that men should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by rather the content of their character, and who believes that governments, and their gun barrels, really ought not exist in the first place - it is impossible for him to be a "racist" within the bounds of any meaning which that word was intended to connote.

But, again, as I have said over and over in this little conversation of ours: NONE OF THE SEMANTIC DISTINCTIONS ARE OF ANY IMPORTANCE WHATSOEVER.

What is important is the underlying truth of the matter: Barring some unforseen tragedy [your being struck by lightning, etc], YOU WILL LIVE TO EXPERIENCE THE IMMINENT TRAGEDY [& CATASTROPHE] OF DYSGENIC FERTILITY.

In the meantime, perform your very small - yet almost infinitely important - role in making the future a better place for us all [both we who are already born, and those of us who are yet-to-be-born]: Go find the smartest girl yo

And what about "niggardly"? It's a perfectly innocent word with no relation to racial epithets, but that doesn't stop some people.

The Democrats have done the same kinds of things in the past, but people noticed, and they got angry, and they did somethig about it.

When? Chicago during the Kennedy/Nixon election. Kennedy won by a very small margin... so close that removing a few dead Chicago voters would have made a difference in the election. "The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago results. Not coincidentally, the lawsuit was assigned to the courtroom of a judge known to be friendly to Daley and the Democratic party, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Kluczynski. After predictably dismissing the Republican suit, Kluczynski was rewarded by "President" John F. Kennedy with an appointment to the federal bench." "Following Kennedy's inauguration, the U.S. Department of Justice performed an inconclusive investigation into the accumulated evidence of voter fraud. The head of the DOJ was none other than U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, brother of you-know-who." (From here... good read, I recommend it!)

In other words, I have to call Bullshit on people's anger stopping the Dem's from cheating. With all the tire slashing that happened during this last election, bums given cigarettes and rides to the polls, the retarted taken to the polls with instructions on who to vote for, and of course, I should not mention how many Bush signs were stolen from my front yard, stickers removed from my bumper, keys removing the paint from my car and flyers claiming that the vote has been moved to Wednesday left under my wipers(!!!). I live in Texas BTW, I can't immagine that shit that must go down in Mass, RI, or Ill! Now I'm not saying that Republicans are 100% innocent, but don't give me that bullshit that the Dems don't cheat any more. I've seen them do it first hand. I have never actually seen a Republican cheat, nor read any sustantial proof. (just read about it here, a trusted news source, no doubt)

Some links that shed additional light on the topic as applicable:

Notice info on numbers of electronic resumes coming in and imagine the burden this placed on companies required to comply with the old guidelines
http://www.management-advantage.com/newsletr/apr20 04.htm#APPLICANT

Clearly written, broad discussion of new guidelines
http://www.mondaq.com/i_article.asp_Q_articleid_E_ 37232

A Historical View (may be biased)
http://www.adversity.net/UniformGuidelines/default .htm

Cheers.

If you think its easier for black people to get a job because their black your living in fantasy land

It seems someone is being niggardly with their letters "A".

Gerrymandering is A.O.K according to the Supreme Court. One rigged election, coming right up. No wonder people like Howard Coble and David Price never loose. They just all get together beforehand, draw up the map, and make sure they can't. The only way anyone ever gets steamed is if one party or the other tries to upset the balance. This eliminates competition for office. Two parties forever. No change ever. Bad career politicians never loose their jobs. It's a fix. Split the independents down the center so they can't get funding. Corruption forever. The other two issues merely concern the warring between the two parties, but the real problem resides in BOTH parties. Both are too busy taking bribes from corporate donors to show up for work. Both are foisting laws on The People that the majority of Americans disagree with, and both parties are safe in their little positions of power. The only non-violent means I see left to protest this is a boycott.

My faith in humanity is tempered by what it is that I have faith that they will do.

No surprise there. Police agencies intentionally reject applicants with high intelligence. Don't believe me? Check this out, or this, or this. A cop who can't spell his own name would not surprise me.

What should we expect from a school who said girls were naturally bad at math?

What should we expect from a poster who misquotes and takes something out of context and posts off topic because it's political correct to do so? For some reason it's okay to jump on the hate/intolerance bandwagon if public perception is that the other side is intolerant or bigoted, even if that's not the case. Remember this? Enough PC witch-hunting. It's oppressive.

All the man was talking about was looking at the situation objectively. He explains some of that in his letter and even apologizes for stuff he had no control over, specifically, other peoples' misinterpretations and feelings.

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/wom ensci.html

Or by who wins the most electoral votes, it's simply who is better at cheating. Currently, the Republicans are better. But in history past, the Democrats were quite good.

You need to stop thinking in terms of encyclopedia pages and start thinking in terms of sound bites.

In other words, make it devoid of all true understanding of the material and take the flashy (and let's not forget politically-correct) pulp left behind as all there is to know... great...

I was reading an article the other day that described how the "sound bite" and modern media in general have irreversibly changed politics in the U.S. For example, rather than say anything risky or possibly requiring an in-depth understanding of an issue, most politicians prefer to repeat nearly the same paragraph only slightly changed knowing that: 1. most people AT the speech will already vote for him/her anyway 2. that they can control what appears in network TV as the "sound bite" and 3. that nothing they ever say publicly will ever come back to "niggardly" haunt them in the future.

On the contrary. Most anything can be explained in 30 seconds. You just have to have both the ability and the willingness to tell the person you're talking to what he needs to know by relating it to things he already understands.

Funny... and here I was spending years at college when I could just spent a few minutes sitting down with the right people. Don't I feel like a fool...

I really fail to understand this mentality that every idea in the world can be simplified to a 30 second "sound-bite" without losing or missing anything important. If that's the case: why 30 seconds? Why not 20? Or 10, for that matter? In fact, explain in 10 seconds (beginning *NOW*) why the 30 is a more appropriate number than 10, since you would have us believe that even infinitely complex ideas can already be broken down so easily.

-Grym

You mean Niggardly?

It might just get you fired

Then there's the case of a Washington staffer forced to resign for saying "niggardly", because it sounded like a racial slur, but actually meant "miserly".

Using "kill the Hatians" in the game was probably over the top, but I can't help but look at this and think that if the phrase used was "kill the whites", we'd not have even noticed.

Before you mod me off for trying to troll, I'll just ask you what is more offensive: not paying attention to a "racial slur" because you think people are above the touchiness, or constantly spending your life looking at a certain race as your oppressors without first looking for motivations, or even correct word definitions?

I'm sure we can recall an instance when some Mayor/Newscaster/Governor/Councilwoman/Banker/CEO made some (apparently) anti- (mexican/black/jewish/chinese/mexican/...) remarks and was taken to task to apologise.

You mean like niggardly?

Bias exposed, game over.

it's important to understand that offense is in the eye of the offended, not the offender.

NO NO NO!! Sorry to come off so strongly, but this is completely and TOTALLY wrong.

You cannot define offense by who is offended, because you can ALWAYS find someone who is offended by ANYTHING.

The rational point of view is looking at the intent of what someone is saying. I'm particularly reminded of someone who was fired for using the word "niggardly" in a staff meeting! A black person was offended, even though the word has absolutely nothing to do with the word "nigger", and the person was forced to resign. Is this really the world you want where the idiots who get offended decide who gets lynched (word used intentionally)?

The interesting upshot of all this, though, is that when you get right down to it, to be politically correct one has to avoid not just racism, but the appearance of racism. Which means avoiding words like niggle and niggardly, at least in the U.S., is probably a good idea.

It's a form of social oppression, but that's one of the less onerous consequences of ones ancestors having enslaved people.

--