I read the blog entry...
It appears that Mr. Gagne got hit with more secret rules on that trip to the airport. The ones he triggered seem to include "Don't wear sunglasses in the airport," "Allow yourself to be checked at both ends of the staircase," "Don't bring bottled water onto the plane" (all right, we already knew this one), "Don't drink bottled water at the checkpoint: after all, if it could be an explosive, you could be a suicide bomber," and "Don't make us handle your 'explosive' water bottles."
Gagne thought that if the TSA couldn't name the rules, the rules didn't exist. The Supreme Court seems to think otherwise.
We don't know how many secret rules there already are. It's possible that every single airline regulation the TSA has either is secret or has a secret extension...
After TWA Flight 800?
Great. I don't know what made that plane go down and disintegrate, but if it wasn't a missile, then it was a structural flaw in the airplane. IDs of people boarding won't help prevent either of those from happening.
Do you seriously think that the prime motive of the current TSA directives, insofar as they are any good for security at all, is protect aircraft? Do you think that the hundreds of people that fly mean less to that branch of the government than the airplanes?
You could be right, of course. It's possible, even likely, that every single TSA directive involving airplanes has secret details, so we'll never know for sure. But I find the thought somewhat depressing...
"this is already a risk - car engines fail all the time, without the help of an alcohol detection system."
Yes, I understand that. But do we need to give car engines more ways to invoke Murphy's Law?
I'm fond of automatic transmissions myself, but I have profound respect for anyone who knows how to work a manual.
I think you should know that the Wiki brake article includes a link to an article on "engine braking." http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Engine_braking
Apparently, every single non-hybrid car out there, regardless of transmission, is designed to use engine braking if your foot's off the pedal, the clutch isn't being used, and the car isn't in neutral. (And when cruise control is off, natch.) It seems that true brakes & tires alone aren't quite enough to stop a vehicle going, say, 55 mph, because there is so much friction that brakes and tires can melt. (You think fast cars burn rubber now?)
Of course, deliberately downshifting to brake is recommended only for special circumstances if you're not an automatic transmission. But engine braking is real.
Your cell-phone stats are (as everyone has noted) for Texas only.
Fortunately, alcoholalert.com has Texas-only stats as well. Let's use them.
Total driving fatalities in Texas: 3583
Alcohol-related driving fatalities in Texas: 1642
Cell-phone-related driving fatalities in Texas: 1032
Just for fun: 1642+1032=2674
So in Texas, we probably have alcohol-related as #1 and cell-phone-related as #2...
How do you remove the driver's crumple zone without also removing the passenger's crumple zone?
If drivers didn't have airbags and seatbelts, many of them would probably act the same as they already do. You never really notice airbags until they go off.
I believe that many drivers only wear seatbelts because of the seatbelt laws; take away their seatbelts, and they would be relieved at losing that nuisance and go on as before.
Your method of improving the roads seems a little draconian.
But I'll try to think positively. Your plan will definitely get people to use public transportation! Maybe it'll even get cities and states to implement public transportation.
"If stopping distance is a problem on a sandy road, you are going too fast for that surface."
If you are aware that there is a problem with stopping distance on that surface, you are probably already trying to stop or slow down.
Catch-22?
Okay, but then McDonalds should've had options for its drive-through steaming-hot coffee other than "black."
The only safe places for a full cup in a car is a cupholder or your hand. This suit is old enough that's it's possible the car in question didn't have a cup-holder. The lady was trying to add creamer to her coffee; doing that with only one hand free would be almost as likely to create a burning-hot coffee spill as what she actually did. Even removing a plastic lid from a styrofoam cup isn't necessarily a one-handed operation.
Of course, I live dangerously. I've held cold soft drinks between my legs in cars, even while knowing that there is a risk of spillage or (for many cups) disintegration. There tend to be more drinks than cup-holders in the cars I travel in, and sometimes the cupholders provided are more likely to create spills than my legs are. (Admittedly, I've had practice.) I dare any of you to try to buckle a seat belt with only one hand free.
No. I do not expect people to understand that coffee just served to them is supposed to be hot enough to cause third-degree burns. I don't believe that they believe that coffee, tea, or cocoa is supposed to be that hot when it's served, though they may be used to it actually being that hot. I didn't know about those ANSI regulations until you cited them yesterday. I'm guessing most Americans who haven't made restaurant coffee or tried cases about hot coffee don't know those regulations either.
When were those regulations written? They say that coffee is supposed to be extremely hot when being stirred in the dispensing vessel because it'll cool down after it's poured into the cup and has cream and sugar added. The ANSI rules do work for sit-down restaurants. The coffee is 170 degrees or more in the carafe (aka the dispensing vessel) but then gets poured into a real cup; assuming decent service, the coffee ends up being hot but not intolerable.
But can't adjustments be made if there is no dispensing vessel--just the coffee maker and the cup for drinking? (Since that's how it works at McDonalds.) Can't more adjustments be made if that cup prevents the coffee from cooling down?
I'm not saying that the lady shouldn't have known better than to hold a hot cup of coffee between her legs--though if her car didn't have cupholders, then there wouldn't have been many other good places to put the coffee. (Trust me, I've handled cold soft drinks in such situations.) I'm just saying that it should be wrong for a corp. to deliberately serve coffee that produces third degree burns directly to customers, and to do it in cups that both insulate heat and crumble under pressure. That's asking for trouble.
Okay. I for one will accept that all accidents involving alcohol in any way, shape, or form are alcohol-related.
The problem is that there are people who think alcohol-related accidents are the same as accidents directly related to drunk driving, and then use the "alcohol-related" number to tell you that there are still zillions of drunk drivers out there.
Likely the number of accidents simply involving drunk drivers is high enough: we don't need to include ones where only passengers or pedestrians are drunk. Also, let's leave out cases with open containers but no blood alcohol in anyone in the car; open containers in cars may be illegal these days, but we have no way of knowing who emptied the can.
If there are in fact "alcohol-related accidents" that involve a driver impaired on something that isn't alcohol, each other substance should fall under its own category. What if there turns out to be a need to stop people from driving under the influence of Valium? How can we fight that problem if we lump Valium in with alcohol?
BTW, I thought that if five people refused breathalyzers out of X people, the police counted all five as drunk. Refusing to take breathalyzer tests is legally equivalent to failing them.
Disclaimer: I am against driving under the influence of alcohol, benzodiazepates, anti-seizure drugs, or seizures.
I have taken rides with drunk drivers in the past; some of them may be better at it than others of us sober.
Compromise:
Tell them that there is metal in the cell phones. After all, there is.
Remind them that they are not supposed to microwave metal. After all, microwaving metal can destroy the microwave oven as well as anything in it. If they ask for specifics, tell them about lightning created inside the oven or electrical fires.
Ah, now I'm starting to understand this burning coffee case.
So, the recommended lower temperature limit is 170 degrees Fahrenheit, because it assures that the coffee is a decent temperature when it's poured into a cold cup and has cream and sugar and a spoon added.
McDonalds didn't use cold cups. They used to use styrofoam cups for coffee. Not only were those cups never cooler than room temperature, but styrofoam also insulated the coffee and kept it hot.
The people who wrote the coffee guidelines expected the coffee to cool significantly once it was served; the coffee in formal-restaurant coffee mugs isn't 170 degrees when you get it, even if it was when they made it. Styrofoam cups prevented the coffee from cooling and kept it near 170 degrees Fahrenheit even after the customer got it. This is too hot to drink, and even the people writing those coffee guidelines knew it.
I'll raise you one.
The M-Law "Wacky Warning" site includes a warning label from a fireplace lighter.
It says something like, "Warning: do not use near fire or flame."
So, we are not to use that fireplace lighter near fires or flames? Doesn't it make flames?
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA for short) is messy. It certainly isn't old-fashioned. But it is copyright law.
What this person wants blocked is a screenshot of an embarrassing PR conference in a virtual world.
Given a choice of copyright acts, it's logical to assume that she's using the draconian act with special digital provisions. I'm guessing that she's claiming that reproducing pix of her avatar in this situation "illegitimately" copies the property that is her avatar...
You are confusing the RIAA and the MPAA.
The MPAA was once like you say it is. But television did for the MPAA much of what we hope the 'Net might do for the RIAA. Directors have a union, screenwriters have a union, and actors have a union. Few people who are directly involved with films make a fortune, and film corps. still cheat where they can. Theater owners are losing blood. But almost anyone actually making films makes a living.
Ah, but that is why this tech is news. This new tech is supposed to burn DVDs that do play in normal DVD players. I mean, if the kiosk DVDs didn't play in normal DVD players, would Walgreens dare use the kiosks?
I don't think these DVDs expire. I don't see Walgreens stocking DVDs that expire. Common people got burned with self-destructing DVDs before; if these self-destructed too, there would be no repeat biz at the kiosks.
http://www.walgreens.com/
That corp. also has brick&mortar stores all over America, inc. many with actual bricks and mortar. Some cities get carpeted with Walgreens stores.
This bill, had it passed, would not have stopped at Myspace. It would have banned almost any board which had both comments and info on those posting the comments.
It would have banned Slashdot from libraries.
We invaded both places. I think North Africa came first: the Italians and Germans controlled much of it at the time.
"Somewhere in North Africa" is not a country. As far as I know, we don't have soldiers in any of the countries that we fought in over there. It's not like there are European colonies in that area anymore.
We've plenty of soldiers in Italy, though.
It wasn't deliberate. America didn't shoot Skylab down like Mir was shot down. The US gov. thought Skylab was in a parking orbit safe for eight years; unfortunately, it left orbit about three years early. They wanted a Space Shuttle to move it to a higher orbit, but the Shuttles weren't ready in time. (Two years late.) They even considered using a unmanned satellite to try to move Skylab, but that wasn't even built.
Skylab wasn't brought down deliberately. It just fell out of the sky.
That said, the gov. should've paid that fine for littering. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Skylab
Slashdot Mirror
I read the blog entry...
It appears that Mr. Gagne got hit with more secret rules on that trip to the airport. The ones he triggered seem to include "Don't wear sunglasses in the airport," "Allow yourself to be checked at both ends of the staircase," "Don't bring bottled water onto the plane" (all right, we already knew this one), "Don't drink bottled water at the checkpoint: after all, if it could be an explosive, you could be a suicide bomber," and "Don't make us handle your 'explosive' water bottles."
Gagne thought that if the TSA couldn't name the rules, the rules didn't exist. The Supreme Court seems to think otherwise.
We don't know how many secret rules there already are. It's possible that every single airline regulation the TSA has either is secret or has a secret extension...
After TWA Flight 800?
Great. I don't know what made that plane go down and disintegrate, but if it wasn't a missile, then it was a structural flaw in the airplane. IDs of people boarding won't help prevent either of those from happening.
Do you seriously think that the prime motive of the current TSA directives, insofar as they are any good for security at all, is protect aircraft? Do you think that the hundreds of people that fly mean less to that branch of the government than the airplanes?
You could be right, of course. It's possible, even likely, that every single TSA directive involving airplanes has secret details, so we'll never know for sure. But I find the thought somewhat depressing...
"this is already a risk - car engines fail all the time, without the help of an alcohol detection system."
Yes, I understand that. But do we need to give car engines more ways to invoke Murphy's Law?
When I said "the foot's off the pedal," I did mean the gas pedal/accelerator.
I'm fond of automatic transmissions myself, but I have profound respect for anyone who knows how to work a manual.
I think you should know that the Wiki brake article includes a link to an article on "engine braking." http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Engine_braking
Apparently, every single non-hybrid car out there, regardless of transmission, is designed to use engine braking if your foot's off the pedal, the clutch isn't being used, and the car isn't in neutral. (And when cruise control is off, natch.) It seems that true brakes & tires alone aren't quite enough to stop a vehicle going, say, 55 mph, because there is so much friction that brakes and tires can melt. (You think fast cars burn rubber now?)
Of course, deliberately downshifting to brake is recommended only for special circumstances if you're not an automatic transmission. But engine braking is real.
Your cell-phone stats are (as everyone has noted) for Texas only.
Fortunately, alcoholalert.com has Texas-only stats as well. Let's use them.
Total driving fatalities in Texas: 3583
Alcohol-related driving fatalities in Texas: 1642
Cell-phone-related driving fatalities in Texas: 1032
Just for fun: 1642+1032=2674
So in Texas, we probably have alcohol-related as #1 and cell-phone-related as #2...
How do you remove the driver's crumple zone without also removing the passenger's crumple zone?
If drivers didn't have airbags and seatbelts, many of them would probably act the same as they already do. You never really notice airbags until they go off.
I believe that many drivers only wear seatbelts because of the seatbelt laws; take away their seatbelts, and they would be relieved at losing that nuisance and go on as before.
I've a feeling that if you put opaque tape over the camera of an drunk-detecting car, it would guarantee that the vehicle wouldn't start.
Your method of improving the roads seems a little draconian.
But I'll try to think positively. Your plan will definitely get people to use public transportation! Maybe it'll even get cities and states to implement public transportation.
"If stopping distance is a problem on a sandy road, you are going too fast for that surface."
If you are aware that there is a problem with stopping distance on that surface, you are probably already trying to stop or slow down.
Catch-22?
Okay, but then McDonalds should've had options for its drive-through steaming-hot coffee other than "black."
The only safe places for a full cup in a car is a cupholder or your hand. This suit is old enough that's it's possible the car in question didn't have a cup-holder. The lady was trying to add creamer to her coffee; doing that with only one hand free would be almost as likely to create a burning-hot coffee spill as what she actually did. Even removing a plastic lid from a styrofoam cup isn't necessarily a one-handed operation.
Of course, I live dangerously. I've held cold soft drinks between my legs in cars, even while knowing that there is a risk of spillage or (for many cups) disintegration. There tend to be more drinks than cup-holders in the cars I travel in, and sometimes the cupholders provided are more likely to create spills than my legs are. (Admittedly, I've had practice.) I dare any of you to try to buckle a seat belt with only one hand free.
Is that warning label on that Holy Bible real, or is it photoshopped?
No. I do not expect people to understand that coffee just served to them is supposed to be hot enough to cause third-degree burns. I don't believe that they believe that coffee, tea, or cocoa is supposed to be that hot when it's served, though they may be used to it actually being that hot. I didn't know about those ANSI regulations until you cited them yesterday. I'm guessing most Americans who haven't made restaurant coffee or tried cases about hot coffee don't know those regulations either.
When were those regulations written? They say that coffee is supposed to be extremely hot when being stirred in the dispensing vessel because it'll cool down after it's poured into the cup and has cream and sugar added. The ANSI rules do work for sit-down restaurants. The coffee is 170 degrees or more in the carafe (aka the dispensing vessel) but then gets poured into a real cup; assuming decent service, the coffee ends up being hot but not intolerable.
But can't adjustments be made if there is no dispensing vessel--just the coffee maker and the cup for drinking? (Since that's how it works at McDonalds.) Can't more adjustments be made if that cup prevents the coffee from cooling down?
I'm not saying that the lady shouldn't have known better than to hold a hot cup of coffee between her legs--though if her car didn't have cupholders, then there wouldn't have been many other good places to put the coffee. (Trust me, I've handled cold soft drinks in such situations.) I'm just saying that it should be wrong for a corp. to deliberately serve coffee that produces third degree burns directly to customers, and to do it in cups that both insulate heat and crumble under pressure. That's asking for trouble.
Okay. I for one will accept that all accidents involving alcohol in any way, shape, or form are alcohol-related.
The problem is that there are people who think alcohol-related accidents are the same as accidents directly related to drunk driving, and then use the "alcohol-related" number to tell you that there are still zillions of drunk drivers out there.
Likely the number of accidents simply involving drunk drivers is high enough: we don't need to include ones where only passengers or pedestrians are drunk. Also, let's leave out cases with open containers but no blood alcohol in anyone in the car; open containers in cars may be illegal these days, but we have no way of knowing who emptied the can.
If there are in fact "alcohol-related accidents" that involve a driver impaired on something that isn't alcohol, each other substance should fall under its own category. What if there turns out to be a need to stop people from driving under the influence of Valium? How can we fight that problem if we lump Valium in with alcohol?
BTW, I thought that if five people refused breathalyzers out of X people, the police counted all five as drunk. Refusing to take breathalyzer tests is legally equivalent to failing them.
Disclaimer: I am against driving under the influence of alcohol, benzodiazepates, anti-seizure drugs, or seizures.
I have taken rides with drunk drivers in the past; some of them may be better at it than others of us sober.
Compromise:
Tell them that there is metal in the cell phones. After all, there is.
Remind them that they are not supposed to microwave metal. After all, microwaving metal can destroy the microwave oven as well as anything in it. If they ask for specifics, tell them about lightning created inside the oven or electrical fires.
Ah, now I'm starting to understand this burning coffee case.
So, the recommended lower temperature limit is 170 degrees Fahrenheit, because it assures that the coffee is a decent temperature when it's poured into a cold cup and has cream and sugar and a spoon added.
McDonalds didn't use cold cups. They used to use styrofoam cups for coffee. Not only were those cups never cooler than room temperature, but styrofoam also insulated the coffee and kept it hot.
The people who wrote the coffee guidelines expected the coffee to cool significantly once it was served; the coffee in formal-restaurant coffee mugs isn't 170 degrees when you get it, even if it was when they made it. Styrofoam cups prevented the coffee from cooling and kept it near 170 degrees Fahrenheit even after the customer got it. This is too hot to drink, and even the people writing those coffee guidelines knew it.
I'll raise you one.
The M-Law "Wacky Warning" site includes a warning label from a fireplace lighter.
It says something like, "Warning: do not use near fire or flame."
So, we are not to use that fireplace lighter near fires or flames? Doesn't it make flames?
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA for short) is messy. It certainly isn't old-fashioned. But it is copyright law.
What this person wants blocked is a screenshot of an embarrassing PR conference in a virtual world. Given a choice of copyright acts, it's logical to assume that she's using the draconian act with special digital provisions. I'm guessing that she's claiming that reproducing pix of her avatar in this situation "illegitimately" copies the property that is her avatar...
You are confusing the RIAA and the MPAA.
The MPAA was once like you say it is. But television did for the MPAA much of what we hope the 'Net might do for the RIAA. Directors have a union, screenwriters have a union, and actors have a union. Few people who are directly involved with films make a fortune, and film corps. still cheat where they can. Theater owners are losing blood. But almost anyone actually making films makes a living.
Ah, but that is why this tech is news. This new tech is supposed to burn DVDs that do play in normal DVD players. I mean, if the kiosk DVDs didn't play in normal DVD players, would Walgreens dare use the kiosks?
I don't think these DVDs expire. I don't see Walgreens stocking DVDs that expire. Common people got burned with self-destructing DVDs before; if these self-destructed too, there would be no repeat biz at the kiosks.
http://www.walgreens.com/
That corp. also has brick&mortar stores all over America, inc. many with actual bricks and mortar. Some cities get carpeted with Walgreens stores.
This bill, had it passed, would not have stopped at Myspace. It would have banned almost any board which had both comments and info on those posting the comments.
It would have banned Slashdot from libraries.
We invaded both places. I think North Africa came first: the Italians and Germans controlled much of it at the time.
"Somewhere in North Africa" is not a country. As far as I know, we don't have soldiers in any of the countries that we fought in over there. It's not like there are European colonies in that area anymore.
We've plenty of soldiers in Italy, though.
It wasn't deliberate. America didn't shoot Skylab down like Mir was shot down. The US gov. thought Skylab was in a parking orbit safe for eight years; unfortunately, it left orbit about three years early. They wanted a Space Shuttle to move it to a higher orbit, but the Shuttles weren't ready in time. (Two years late.) They even considered using a unmanned satellite to try to move Skylab, but that wasn't even built.
Skylab wasn't brought down deliberately. It just fell out of the sky.
That said, the gov. should've paid that fine for littering.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Skylab