Nicer screen than the Ti-Book? Also, the Ti-Book has a 100MHz bus, not 66. Apple may also update the machines(faster processor or something) at Seybold in about a week. It's been awhile.
CNN, via someone who heard the air-traffic control tapes, because one of the pilots left it broadcasting so everything said in the cockpit was heard by air-traffic control
Fist of all, you can not prove that the cars belonged to the highjackers.
I believe the passengers on the PA plane told their families the terrorists seat numbers. This was tracked back to their credit cars, identities, and cars in the airport parking lot.
Secondly from what I hear you have to train for a pretty long time to learn how to fly an 757/67 in a flight simulator. You can not fly it by reading a book.
I didn't say they learned from a book, but there is certainly some form of text reference for flying the plane.
Where are the pictures? How do you know? Have you seen footage from within the flight? I haven't.
It was in one of the terrorist's luggage, which did not make it onto the flight.
This is an assumption.
No it's not. The people had passports from Arab countries. I believe Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others, were mentioned.
This brings up the interesting point that any security checks put in place in the US will not be completely effective, because international flights come into the country constantly. What's to stop a terrorist from getting on a plane headed to Washington from a country with lax security regs, taking over the plane as they near the city, and driving it right into the white house?
Re:It's been said before...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
but i also think another defense is to lock down the cockpits and train pilots NEVER to open the door in these situations. supposedly cockpit doors are locked and the terrorists lured the pilots out by killing passengers and flight attendents (god that is horrible). as awful as that is, control of the planes should NEVER be given over- no matter what.
As has been said by many others, before 9/11/01, the absolute worse case scenario someone could imagine in a hijacking was that all people on board the plane would die. So for the military to consider shooting the plane out of the air, or the pilot to consider keeping the doors locked as terrorists killed all the passengers, was an absurd idea.
Now we know better. I agree with the other poster who said at this point I don't think anyone will be able to do this with knives again. The passengers would easily be able to overwhelm the terrorists if they knew they would lose their lives either way(and even perhaps save them by killing the terrorists).
It's very arrogant IMO to be so sure that whoever did this horrible attack wasn't right from the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that this was the case. Hell, it could even be the pilots themselves and the planes never were highjacked to begin with (although I guess some cellphone calls that occured from within the planes show evidence to support a highjack).
Lets see:
a) the hijackers were heard speaking in Arab-accented broken English
2) there were flight manuals, in Arabic, in one of their car's
3) at least one had a Koran
4) they were apparently from Arab countries
...yeah, lets not jump to conclusions here. Sure, it could've been the pilots, who the passengers told their family were lured out when the hijackers killed flight attendants one by one, and then were locked out of the cockpit(and/or killed?)
Re:Drop the paralyzing posturing
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
That the democratically elected (yes) government of Iran...
Bullshit. Hitler was democratically elected. A democracy without protections of fundamental liberties is just tyrannical mob rule. I would much rather live in Communist Cuba than Democratic Iran.
That same article says the Aussie Muslims were watching the news about this and cheering. I'm not saying throwing stuff at the buses is all right, but some of these people are fucking sick! There is no country on earth where if this happened I would celebrate. Fuck, if I was living in the US in 1944 and some US bomb accidently hit an enormous German office building and killed 5000 innocent civilians I would not celebrate.
Celebrating the deaths of innocent people is simply despicable. I know that many/most Muslims do not support terrorism, but the ones that do are making the entire group look bad. It is a horrible, horrible message to send to the world.
put on FDR's "day of infamy" speech. Now listen to Bush's speech. There's just no comparison.
I don't like to launch partisan attacks on this day, and I really did want to like Bush's speech, but it just couldn't bear the burden of this tragedy.
Read more carefully - I didn't say "useful members of society",
"The difference, to me at least, is that there are societal reasons as well to prohibit murder - namely, that it removes useful members of society..." - you
I think you had better talk to some Air Force veterans and find out how much those experiments helped them.
Actually, according to rotten:
"This atrocity was performed by the U.S. military during World War II to theoretically help save the lives of American aircrew after they suffered burns. But from scientific research completed more than a decade prior, it was totally unnecessary: 'Preliminary work soon demonstrated that a burn on the skin of an experimental animal produced results differing from those commonly encountered in man' (American Journal of Physiology, 1930)."
OK, well fetuses at 8.5 months aren't useful members of society. Hell, babies at 2 years aren't either. Can we just kill them according to this utilitarian morality? Or at some point does morality break for always having a good logical foundation, and just mean knowing on a pretty instinctive level that certain things are wrong?
You can just do every mad scientist thing you want, and then after you've got black people infected with syphallis ask whether it was moral(yes the US gov did this). You have to ask the tough questions first, even if they slow "progress"(because I think progress that comes at the price of giving up our ethical isn't progress at all)
And again back to cloning, one of the big questions is will these clones be given the same rights as all of us, will we prevent people from using them as slaves/organ donors, will they be able to live any kind of normal life(apparently with current cloning technology the clones are unnaturally "old", and don't have normal lifespans), and if not is it fair for us to create them, etc.
I just saw a video on rotten.com(heh) of US gov experiments in the 50's where they tied down pigs, shaved their hair off, and burnt their skin with a blowtorch for minutes, just to do "science" on how to treat pilots who had burns from a plane crash. Do you really think things like this should be legal?
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that you can't just pretend moral questions are irrelevant because you happen to disagree with the moral objections being made on this particular issue.
We cannot just say do whatever science we want without any ethical basis in choosing what we should do from what we can.
To say "No, government has no business taking those moral choices away from researchers, academics, and everyday joes." or "It still hasn't dawned on conservatives (and many liberals, to be fair) that *there may be no one "proper" moral code*." is just absurd.
No proper moral code? I know he doesn't go around protesting for the repeal of murder as a crime, so saying something like that is just a complete copout on the fact that when someone raises a moral objection you have to give some counter-argument, not just some BS about how there really are no morals in the first place, so how about we just let everyone do anything they want, and give them federal funding for it while we're at it.
I agree with going full-speed ahead with stem-cell research, but some people believe it's murder, and if you think that you can't just let people make their own decisions.
You don't let serial killers decide whether they want to kill people or not, and if you think stem cell research is murder, you don't just take an anything goes attitude either.
It seems a lot of people who's general position(that we should do stem cell research) I agree with, justify it in ways that are patently absurd. What happens when someone says "you know I could make a clone of myself, and keep it locked in a cage, and then use it for organs when mine start to fail"? Sounds like good science to me. I don't see why the government should stop me from making that moral decision. Don't want to hold back progress.
Actually they weren't dead, they just just scheduled to be disposed of. I really don't see what the problem with using them is.
It really is similar to doing medical tests on cadavers. The person is dead whether you do the tests or not. And these embryos would be too. The only difference is whether you want them dead in a garbage can, or dead in a garbage can minus a few stem cells.
Notice that there is 1 year backlog on tetanus shots?
Umm...no? I got one early in life, I got another when I smashed my finger at around age 12, and then I got another a few years after that("just to be sure")
This sure does sound like bullshit FUD when you consider what a small percentage of their revenue goes to R&D, and what huge profits they make. So what if the shareholders get a few less $, you really think they'll stop making drugs?
What you don't seem to understand is that they weren't making jack of Brazil in the first place. Brazil can't pay it. It's like when Adobe goes around saying how they lost $10 trillion from all the fucking college kids who pirate Photoshop. Wrong. None of those kids have the money or desire to pay the $700 for Photoshop, and if they weren't able to warez it they'd just use MS Paint and deal with it. Adobe lost nothing. And neither did this drug company.
So stop your damn chicken little act and open your eyes to the fact that Brazil is extending/improving the lives of millions of its citizens with essentially no negative consequences for the poor mistreated multinational pharm corps.
Logical fallacies are so much fun. You are arguing that we throw away the lives of millions for some hypothetical dystopian future where all pharm corps go out of business.
There are already many countries around the world with more socialized health care, and apparently drug companies still feel it profitable to sell their wares in those countries. I don't recall hearing that Pfizer was pulling out of Canada, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Nicer screen than the Ti-Book? Also, the Ti-Book has a 100MHz bus, not 66. Apple may also update the machines(faster processor or something) at Seybold in about a week. It's been awhile.
toggled them all on? have you even used OS X? ever?
Whats your source?
CNN, via someone who heard the air-traffic control tapes, because one of the pilots left it broadcasting so everything said in the cockpit was heard by air-traffic control
Fist of all, you can not prove that the cars belonged to the highjackers.
I believe the passengers on the PA plane told their families the terrorists seat numbers. This was tracked back to their credit cars, identities, and cars in the airport parking lot.
Secondly from what I hear you have to train for a pretty long time to learn how to fly an 757/67 in a flight simulator. You can not fly it by reading a book.
I didn't say they learned from a book, but there is certainly some form of text reference for flying the plane.
Where are the pictures? How do you know? Have you seen footage from within the flight? I haven't.
It was in one of the terrorist's luggage, which did not make it onto the flight.
This is an assumption.
No it's not. The people had passports from Arab countries. I believe Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others, were mentioned.
This brings up the interesting point that any security checks put in place in the US will not be completely effective, because international flights come into the country constantly. What's to stop a terrorist from getting on a plane headed to Washington from a country with lax security regs, taking over the plane as they near the city, and driving it right into the white house?
but i also think another defense is to lock down the cockpits and train pilots NEVER to open the door in these situations. supposedly cockpit doors are locked and the terrorists lured the pilots out by killing passengers and flight attendents (god that is horrible). as awful as that is, control of the planes should NEVER be given over- no matter what.
As has been said by many others, before 9/11/01, the absolute worse case scenario someone could imagine in a hijacking was that all people on board the plane would die. So for the military to consider shooting the plane out of the air, or the pilot to consider keeping the doors locked as terrorists killed all the passengers, was an absurd idea.
Now we know better. I agree with the other poster who said at this point I don't think anyone will be able to do this with knives again. The passengers would easily be able to overwhelm the terrorists if they knew they would lose their lives either way(and even perhaps save them by killing the terrorists).
It's very arrogant IMO to be so sure that whoever did this horrible attack wasn't right from the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that this was the case. Hell, it could even be the pilots themselves and the planes never were highjacked to begin with (although I guess some cellphone calls that occured from within the planes show evidence to support a highjack).
Lets see:
a) the hijackers were heard speaking in Arab-accented broken English
2) there were flight manuals, in Arabic, in one of their car's
3) at least one had a Koran
4) they were apparently from Arab countries
...yeah, lets not jump to conclusions here. Sure, it could've been the pilots, who the passengers told their family were lured out when the hijackers killed flight attendants one by one, and then were locked out of the cockpit(and/or killed?)
That the democratically elected (yes) government of Iran...
Bullshit. Hitler was democratically elected. A democracy without protections of fundamental liberties is just tyrannical mob rule. I would much rather live in Communist Cuba than Democratic Iran.
That same article says the Aussie Muslims were watching the news about this and cheering. I'm not saying throwing stuff at the buses is all right, but some of these people are fucking sick! There is no country on earth where if this happened I would celebrate. Fuck, if I was living in the US in 1944 and some US bomb accidently hit an enormous German office building and killed 5000 innocent civilians I would not celebrate.
Celebrating the deaths of innocent people is simply despicable. I know that many/most Muslims do not support terrorism, but the ones that do are making the entire group look bad. It is a horrible, horrible message to send to the world.
Look at NYC now. It was much worse the day of the bombing. It was not some natural formation around all cities, it was a massive cloud of smoke.
put on FDR's "day of infamy" speech. Now listen to Bush's speech. There's just no comparison.
I don't like to launch partisan attacks on this day, and I really did want to like Bush's speech, but it just couldn't bear the burden of this tragedy.
We are a liberal democracy - IOW democratic rule, with our rights protected by a Constitution.
the point is that jim crowe laws wouldn't pass on a federal level, because the majority of the country(read: North) was against it
same with slavery
Read more carefully - I didn't say "useful members of society",
"The difference, to me at least, is that there are societal reasons as well to prohibit murder - namely, that it removes useful members of society..." - you
I think you had better talk to some Air Force veterans and find out how much those experiments helped them.
Actually, according to rotten:
"This atrocity was performed by the U.S. military during World War II to theoretically help save the lives of American aircrew after they suffered burns. But from scientific research completed more than a decade prior, it was totally unnecessary: 'Preliminary work soon demonstrated that a burn on the skin of an experimental animal produced results differing from those commonly encountered in man' (American Journal of Physiology, 1930)."
"morality break for always"
break from
"You can just do every"
can't
"giving up our ethical isn't"
giving up our ethical foundation
OK, well fetuses at 8.5 months aren't useful members of society. Hell, babies at 2 years aren't either. Can we just kill them according to this utilitarian morality? Or at some point does morality break for always having a good logical foundation, and just mean knowing on a pretty instinctive level that certain things are wrong?
You can just do every mad scientist thing you want, and then after you've got black people infected with syphallis ask whether it was moral(yes the US gov did this). You have to ask the tough questions first, even if they slow "progress"(because I think progress that comes at the price of giving up our ethical isn't progress at all)
And again back to cloning, one of the big questions is will these clones be given the same rights as all of us, will we prevent people from using them as slaves/organ donors, will they be able to live any kind of normal life(apparently with current cloning technology the clones are unnaturally "old", and don't have normal lifespans), and if not is it fair for us to create them, etc.
I just saw a video on rotten.com(heh) of US gov experiments in the 50's where they tied down pigs, shaved their hair off, and burnt their skin with a blowtorch for minutes, just to do "science" on how to treat pilots who had burns from a plane crash. Do you really think things like this should be legal?
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that you can't just pretend moral questions are irrelevant because you happen to disagree with the moral objections being made on this particular issue.
We cannot just say do whatever science we want without any ethical basis in choosing what we should do from what we can.
To say "No, government has no business taking those moral choices away from researchers, academics, and everyday joes." or "It still hasn't dawned on conservatives (and many liberals, to be fair) that *there may be no one "proper" moral code*." is just absurd.
No proper moral code? I know he doesn't go around protesting for the repeal of murder as a crime, so saying something like that is just a complete copout on the fact that when someone raises a moral objection you have to give some counter-argument, not just some BS about how there really are no morals in the first place, so how about we just let everyone do anything they want, and give them federal funding for it while we're at it.
At five days old, it is not called a fetus. It is an embryo or even pre-embryo. It's like 30 cells IIRC.
Actually IIRC a fairly large(40%? higher?) amount off women's first pregnancies are miscarriages.
I agree with going full-speed ahead with stem-cell research, but some people believe it's murder, and if you think that you can't just let people make their own decisions.
You don't let serial killers decide whether they want to kill people or not, and if you think stem cell research is murder, you don't just take an anything goes attitude either.
It seems a lot of people who's general position(that we should do stem cell research) I agree with, justify it in ways that are patently absurd. What happens when someone says "you know I could make a clone of myself, and keep it locked in a cage, and then use it for organs when mine start to fail"? Sounds like good science to me. I don't see why the government should stop me from making that moral decision. Don't want to hold back progress.
Yeah but:
a) you have gravity in between those two trips for however long you stay on Mars
b) Russian astronauts have done this and kept their teeth
Actually they weren't dead, they just just scheduled to be disposed of. I really don't see what the problem with using them is.
It really is similar to doing medical tests on cadavers. The person is dead whether you do the tests or not. And these embryos would be too. The only difference is whether you want them dead in a garbage can, or dead in a garbage can minus a few stem cells.
Notice that there is 1 year backlog on tetanus shots?
Umm...no? I got one early in life, I got another when I smashed my finger at around age 12, and then I got another a few years after that("just to be sure")
This sure does sound like bullshit FUD when you consider what a small percentage of their revenue goes to R&D, and what huge profits they make. So what if the shareholders get a few less $, you really think they'll stop making drugs?
What you don't seem to understand is that they weren't making jack of Brazil in the first place. Brazil can't pay it. It's like when Adobe goes around saying how they lost $10 trillion from all the fucking college kids who pirate Photoshop. Wrong. None of those kids have the money or desire to pay the $700 for Photoshop, and if they weren't able to warez it they'd just use MS Paint and deal with it. Adobe lost nothing. And neither did this drug company.
So stop your damn chicken little act and open your eyes to the fact that Brazil is extending/improving the lives of millions of its citizens with essentially no negative consequences for the poor mistreated multinational pharm corps.
Logical fallacies are so much fun. You are arguing that we throw away the lives of millions for some hypothetical dystopian future where all pharm corps go out of business.
There are already many countries around the world with more socialized health care, and apparently drug companies still feel it profitable to sell their wares in those countries. I don't recall hearing that Pfizer was pulling out of Canada, do you?
That time Randal Schwartz's account was hacked remains one of the funniest things I've ever read. That post, and the others, were works of art.