It's been proposed to name the entire (currently unnamed) mountain after her, but IAU rules require a person to be dead for at least three years before you can name an astronomical feature after someone. Ms Ride has priority, but must wait.
I think they've got it backwards. Better to feed the doomsday hysteria. Could Earth/civilisation end? Oh let Aunty NASA tell you a story so terrifying that you'll never sleep again. Of asteroid/comet impacts, solar flares/CME's, nearby super-nova explosions, nearby gamma-ray bursts, the galactic core going active, or Earth's magnetic field reversing, or super-volcanoes, or...
And treat the doomsday scenarios created by the non-scientific idiots seriously, actually work out what would be required for specific events, along the lines of Randall Munroe's What-If series, sneaking in a bit of science and historical context (and maybe some fucking perspective).
For example, Nibiru: Any planet-sized body would be visible to telescopes before it passed the orbit of Neptunet. Naked eye visible for a decade before it crossed Saturn's orbit. And orbital mechanics means it can't "hide behind the sun".
Aaaand that's where debunkers stop. Wouldn't it be better to show what you have to add to move the "detection" date to later than today for an impact/gravitational disturbance on 21 Dec 2012. How far out would a moon-size/Earth-size/Jupiter-size body be seen by someone not in The Conspiracy To Hide The Truth, for varying levels of conspiracy (the final one being naked eye observation by untrained observers.) And what extra properties would be required to hide it up 'til now, for each scenario. And the ways such an event could actually affect Earth (from impact, to changing Earth's orbit, to ejecting the moon, to ejecting Earth from the solar system, to Jovian/Martian/Venusian impact, to crashing straight into the sun...), with sly digs at how worthless your silly little bomb shelter is in each of those cases.
When kids & dumb people get interested in dinosaurs, it's the biggest and fiercest that attract them. People interested in science watch David Attenborough's Life On Earth. People not interested in science watch Shark Week on Discovery Channel. People actually opposed to science watch Ancient Astronauts on History Channel. You want to spread a pro-NASA, pro-Science message, you start by introducing them to the universes actual monsters on Apocalypse Week on NASA TV every time these stupid scares pop up.
Hell, it's not as if you're going to calm the nutters down, so why no use their stupidity against them. Jiu Jitsu baby. Bait'n'switch. Con the conmen.
The service provider must enable the use of telemedia and payment for them to occur anonymously or via a pseudonym where this is technically possible and reasonable. The recipient of the service is to be informed about this possibility.
It's a funeral for children killed in a shooting spree. Leave the dick signs at home.
Large white blank banners, silent counter-protest. Simple force of numbers to physically block the WBC "protesters" signs from line-of-sight of the parents attending the funeral; without adding to the noise, and without giving the WBC grounds to sue the county (which is their primary purpose).
Focusing on the guns instead of the whole event makes it sound as if there was a guy who sincerely wanted to murder his mother and a bunch of children, did not care about the consequences, and everything was just fine until he found a gun.
Read up about the Australian example I mentioned earlier. A ten-fold reduction in mass-shootings immediately following a nation-wide restriction on certain gun-types. Do you think that we somehow also reduced the number of nutters, the number of wanna-be mass-killers, by 90%?
I know people in the US have this idea that somehow the nutters will always find another way, that the guns are irrelevant. "The causes are more complex." But it's simply, and with the Australian case, demonstrably untrue. Guns increase the killing rate of mad bastards. Guns increase the efficiency of killers.
The Brady Campaign use the criteria: Public place/event or business, minimum 4 dead (excluding the gunman). And they get over 45 per year for the last 8 years, on average. So 1 mass-killing every 7 point something days.
(The point of using a specific criteria is that it takes the emotion out of it, where you only including what "feels" like a mass shooting then having everyone argue over that. In the Australian studies, the criteria was lower, multiple targets, but not necessarily multiple dead. You can argue over the criteria chosen, but as long as the before and after measurements are the same, it is still showing a ten-fold reduction from restricting selected gun-types.)
Specifically, harvested from a third party who has both the poster and his uncle's email address.
In other words, the poster, veganboyjosh, should be looking into his other relatives. His aunt, his nan & pop, his mum & dad, etc. First to see if they are receiving spam from each others' addresses, and to try to narrow down who has been compromised. Start with the oldest relative and work your way down.
I was replying to a someone who wrote "Correlation is not causation", and they made that comment regarding the earlier comment that "in countries where there are strict gun laws, there appear to be less shootings by criminals than int he U.S."
When I wrote "this one", I was referring to that correlation.
However:
It was a grown man in a room with few small exits filled with small children. Anything from history that has ever been called a weapon, baseball bats included, would have resulted in comparable devastation.
9 adults, 18 children. Given the typical adult:child ratio in schools, that means a lot of adults tried to attack the gunman. If 9 adults tried to tackle a guy with a baseball bat, he would have to be extraordinarily lucky or skilled to not be disarmed. Likewise iron bar, knife, sword, bow, cross-bow, or anything except guns. (A sword would be the most effective on that list. But few people would have the skill these days to defend themselves from a group of determined attackers.)
Modern guns are fundamentally different weapons. That's why they were invented, why they fundamentally changed the battlefield. A stand-off weapon; rapid rate of fire; simple to use, with no real training required at the range we're talking about. That makes it extraordinarily difficult for unarmed bystanders, however brave, to take down even a single shooter. No other weapon has the same tactical effectiveness. Again, that's why they were invented.
I will concede that the gun may have aided in deterring and stopping other adults from intervening
And that is a vile libel, given the stories of individual and group heroism that have emerged. The adults who died, according to reports, specifically put themselves in the line of fire to protect children.
Because someone can't buy a 30 round clip for his gun you're somehow safer?
Yes. Most mass shootings end with either the gunman killing himself, or unarmed bystanders tackling the gunman when he stops to reload.
A memorable example is the Tucson shooting. He was brought down during a reload. Hence, it would have ended sooner if the gunman didn't have easy access to extended clips.
This is why I support measures to keep professionally made, highly efficient, easily used, military-style anti-personnel charges from being sold over the counter. If you restrict bombings to people with the skill and patience to manufacture and deploy their own, you severely limit the number of people who will take that option.
In reality, even in the US, hell even in open carry states, these shootings tend to end by either the police shooting the gunman, the gunman shooting himself, or unarmed bystanders tackling the gunman when he stops to reload. In the Tucson shooting, for example, someone with a concealed-carry at the scene helped tackle the gunman when he finally paused to reload. The bystander didn't, however, draw his weapon. He stated afterwards that he believed it would have made things worse.
And indeed there were also reports from CCW-holders about almost opening fire on other CCW's who had drawn their weapons, believing them to be the gunman. The reason they didn't fire was purely because the other CCW wasn't shooting. Had the second CCW-holder been firing at the original gunman, it's likely that the first CCW would have then opened fire on him. You drastically underestimate the chaos at these shootings. In the Norway shooting, the gunman wore a police uniform, he walked around calling for groups of people to come out, when they did, he killed them, rinse, repeat. Single shooter and yet people couldn't tell what was happening enough to not run towards the bad-guy.
Even professionally trained uniformed troops in combat zones will open fire on each other, due to similar misunderstanding. IIRC, it became a tactic of insurgents in Iraq early in the occupation, try to get two allied units to open fire on each other.
But it can be a bloody big hint. And this one is a neon sign two stories high flashing "IT'S THE GUNS!"
For example: Australia severely restricted certain classes of firearms after a particularly bad mass shooting. The number of mass shootings in the 16 years since the change dropped by at least an order of magnitude. Prediction, experiment, result.
There were no significant complicating factors, we didn't have a major reduction in poverty, or improvements in mental health, nor changes in law enforcement which could explain the result. This is demonstrated by other crime rates not changing significantly during the same period.
Same country, same culture, same crime rate; single change in the law, single result.
After the 1996 gun ban in Australia, there was a buy-back program. Given the reduction in mass shootings, it would seem to have had the desired effect. I'm sure a few conspiracy gimps buried their guns under their shed floors, but in general, no you don't need to kick in people's doors.
Most guns on the black market seem to be stolen from the homes of legitimate gun owners. Indeed, guns are a highly sought after item for thieves because they are one of the few items that holds their legal retail value on the black market. Reduce the number of legal guns in the community and you gradually reduce the number of illegal guns. (This is partly because they are often discarded after use, to avoid being linked to the crime. That increases the rate of churn.) This rule, of course, breaks down when you border a high-gun area. So it doesn't work in individual states within a country, or countries with porous borders neighbouring the US.
[That said, I had the same reaction to the "huddling in the corner of the gym" part. That's just retarded.]
In Australia, after a mass shooting in 1996, the conservative government banned certain classes of rifles and handguns, and severely restricted others. There was a buy-back program to encourage owners to voluntarily surrender newly illegal types of guns. You'll note that this can only possibly affect law abiding gun owners...
And yet, in the 16 years since, the rate of mass shootings dropped by at least an order of magnitude.
(IMO, this may be the clearest and most effective single-purpose anti-crime law in history. I didn't expect it to make the slightest bit of difference, at the time I dismissed it as knee-jerk feel-good crap, and I remain stunned that it actually did what it said on the tin.)
In Australia, after a particularly bad mass shooting, the conservative government banned many types of guns, severely restricted other types. Before the ban, the rate of mass shootings was roughly one every 18 months. In the sixteen years since there has been a single shooting that fits the same criteria. That's a significant reduction.
They could also point out that past DoD studies have shown that a single orbital platform is highly inefficient offensively, due to the limits of orbital mechanics and the horizon problem, and vulnerable defensively.
My guess is that the White House is going to respond a little bit seriously
No they won't. But they should. So much nerd humour is in taking a ridiculous idea seriously and pedantically debating its implications. [See the classic Dante/Randal roofers discussion quoted elsewhere.]
Your statement that an atheist does not believe is accurate.
Actually, he said an atheist does not believe "in deities."
I think you are confusing "belief" with "religion". People can believe and disbelieve a lot of things without that being in any way a "religious belief".
"Atheism" speaks only of a belief in god(s). An atheist can still believe in UFOs, Atlantis, reflexology, or any number of nonsensical beliefs and not believe in god(s) or religions. Or an atheist can believe none of those things, and instead believe in objective reality and science. Still a "belief", a very pragmatic one, and still not in any way a religion.
The other thing is that I think you are allowing the loudest, most aggressively obnoxious anti-theists define your idea of what atheism "really means". It would be like defining "religion" solely by behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" family). In the UK example, "No religion" was around 40% of respondents; so allowing for people who believe in god but not in religion, that still leaves probably more than ten million people in England and Wales who are atheists. Millions. You think they are all aggressively anti-theists? Or maybe most just live their lives day to day as if there is no god. And that's all atheism means.
Aside: Most people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheist-type agnostics. They don't believe in god or gods because they don't have any knowledge of god or gods, and they don't accept that anyone does. People who say "I guess I believe in god, but I don't go to church or anything" are theist-type agnostics. They do believe in god(s), but don't have any knowledge of what god is/isn't, hence they don't practice any religion.
A UK court ruled that Assange was to be extradited. Presumably that order required him to surrender himself at some point. He failed to obey the court order, putting him in contempt of court. There may also be a "failure to appear" depending on the wording of the order. There's certainly enough for him to be arrested. At the very least he's likely in breach of his bail conditions.
[Disclaimer: I consider several recent UK extradition rulings to be quite bizarre. Assange's being one of them.]
It's called a Mars Cycler. More generally a "free return trajectory".
AND the trajectory is sufficiently short that people would tolerate travelling in such a fashion
You can tunnel out a pair of rings inside the asteroid, each a couple of hundred metres across, create a ring of habitats and counter-spin them for gravity. A bit of maglev to stabilise the spins. Gravity from the habs, radiation and thermal shielding from the asteroid. Pick the right asteroid and you've also got fuel, air and water. Add sunlight and you've got fresh food. People could live comfortably for years, gradually expanding through the asteroid; as Mars crews visit, refuel, depart, visit, refuel, depart...
Slashdot Mirror
It's been proposed to name the entire (currently unnamed) mountain after her, but IAU rules require a person to be dead for at least three years before you can name an astronomical feature after someone. Ms Ride has priority, but must wait.
Yeah, but how much is that in kilograms?
I think they've got it backwards. Better to feed the doomsday hysteria. Could Earth/civilisation end? Oh let Aunty NASA tell you a story so terrifying that you'll never sleep again. Of asteroid/comet impacts, solar flares/CME's, nearby super-nova explosions, nearby gamma-ray bursts, the galactic core going active, or Earth's magnetic field reversing, or super-volcanoes, or...
And treat the doomsday scenarios created by the non-scientific idiots seriously, actually work out what would be required for specific events, along the lines of Randall Munroe's What-If series, sneaking in a bit of science and historical context (and maybe some fucking perspective).
For example, Nibiru: Any planet-sized body would be visible to telescopes before it passed the orbit of Neptunet. Naked eye visible for a decade before it crossed Saturn's orbit. And orbital mechanics means it can't "hide behind the sun".
Aaaand that's where debunkers stop. Wouldn't it be better to show what you have to add to move the "detection" date to later than today for an impact/gravitational disturbance on 21 Dec 2012. How far out would a moon-size/Earth-size/Jupiter-size body be seen by someone not in The Conspiracy To Hide The Truth, for varying levels of conspiracy (the final one being naked eye observation by untrained observers.) And what extra properties would be required to hide it up 'til now, for each scenario. And the ways such an event could actually affect Earth (from impact, to changing Earth's orbit, to ejecting the moon, to ejecting Earth from the solar system, to Jovian/Martian/Venusian impact, to crashing straight into the sun...), with sly digs at how worthless your silly little bomb shelter is in each of those cases.
When kids & dumb people get interested in dinosaurs, it's the biggest and fiercest that attract them. People interested in science watch David Attenborough's Life On Earth. People not interested in science watch Shark Week on Discovery Channel. People actually opposed to science watch Ancient Astronauts on History Channel. You want to spread a pro-NASA, pro-Science message, you start by introducing them to the universes actual monsters on Apocalypse Week on NASA TV every time these stupid scares pop up.
Hell, it's not as if you're going to calm the nutters down, so why no use their stupidity against them. Jiu Jitsu baby. Bait'n'switch. Con the conmen.
Yeah, because German courts and regulators love that sort of open contempt for the law.
I'm curious (really) if German ecommerce sites have to accept nicknames along with credit card numbers
User rgbrenner covered this further down in the thread:
"
http://www.cgerli.org/fileadmin/user_upload/interne_Dokumente/Legislation/Telemedia_Act__TMA_.pdf
The important section is 13.6:
The service provider must enable the use of telemedia and payment for them to occur anonymously or via a pseudonym where this is technically possible and reasonable. The recipient of the service is to be informed about this possibility.
"
Mods: Reward the original post, not me. rgbrenner did the research.
It's a funeral for children killed in a shooting spree. Leave the dick signs at home.
Large white blank banners, silent counter-protest. Simple force of numbers to physically block the WBC "protesters" signs from line-of-sight of the parents attending the funeral; without adding to the noise, and without giving the WBC grounds to sue the county (which is their primary purpose).
Focusing on the guns instead of the whole event makes it sound as if there was a guy who sincerely wanted to murder his mother and a bunch of children, did not care about the consequences, and everything was just fine until he found a gun.
Read up about the Australian example I mentioned earlier. A ten-fold reduction in mass-shootings immediately following a nation-wide restriction on certain gun-types. Do you think that we somehow also reduced the number of nutters, the number of wanna-be mass-killers, by 90%?
I know people in the US have this idea that somehow the nutters will always find another way, that the guns are irrelevant. "The causes are more complex." But it's simply, and with the Australian case, demonstrably untrue. Guns increase the killing rate of mad bastards. Guns increase the efficiency of killers.
Ten times.
The Brady Campaign use the criteria: Public place/event or business, minimum 4 dead (excluding the gunman). And they get over 45 per year for the last 8 years, on average. So 1 mass-killing every 7 point something days.
(The point of using a specific criteria is that it takes the emotion out of it, where you only including what "feels" like a mass shooting then having everyone argue over that. In the Australian studies, the criteria was lower, multiple targets, but not necessarily multiple dead. You can argue over the criteria chosen, but as long as the before and after measurements are the same, it is still showing a ten-fold reduction from restricting selected gun-types.)
This was my first thought.
Specifically, harvested from a third party who has both the poster and his uncle's email address.
In other words, the poster, veganboyjosh, should be looking into his other relatives. His aunt, his nan & pop, his mum & dad, etc. First to see if they are receiving spam from each others' addresses, and to try to narrow down who has been compromised. Start with the oldest relative and work your way down.
I was replying to a someone who wrote "Correlation is not causation", and they made that comment regarding the earlier comment that "in countries where there are strict gun laws, there appear to be less shootings by criminals than int he U.S."
When I wrote "this one", I was referring to that correlation.
However:
It was a grown man in a room with few small exits filled with small children. Anything from history that has ever been called a weapon, baseball bats included, would have resulted in comparable devastation.
9 adults, 18 children. Given the typical adult:child ratio in schools, that means a lot of adults tried to attack the gunman. If 9 adults tried to tackle a guy with a baseball bat, he would have to be extraordinarily lucky or skilled to not be disarmed. Likewise iron bar, knife, sword, bow, cross-bow, or anything except guns. (A sword would be the most effective on that list. But few people would have the skill these days to defend themselves from a group of determined attackers.)
Modern guns are fundamentally different weapons. That's why they were invented, why they fundamentally changed the battlefield. A stand-off weapon; rapid rate of fire; simple to use, with no real training required at the range we're talking about. That makes it extraordinarily difficult for unarmed bystanders, however brave, to take down even a single shooter. No other weapon has the same tactical effectiveness. Again, that's why they were invented.
I will concede that the gun may have aided in deterring and stopping other adults from intervening
And that is a vile libel, given the stories of individual and group heroism that have emerged. The adults who died, according to reports, specifically put themselves in the line of fire to protect children.
Because someone can't buy a 30 round clip for his gun you're somehow safer?
Yes. Most mass shootings end with either the gunman killing himself, or unarmed bystanders tackling the gunman when he stops to reload.
A memorable example is the Tucson shooting. He was brought down during a reload. Hence, it would have ended sooner if the gunman didn't have easy access to extended clips.
This is why I support measures to keep professionally made, highly efficient, easily used, military-style anti-personnel charges from being sold over the counter. If you restrict bombings to people with the skill and patience to manufacture and deploy their own, you severely limit the number of people who will take that option.
In reality, even in the US, hell even in open carry states, these shootings tend to end by either the police shooting the gunman, the gunman shooting himself, or unarmed bystanders tackling the gunman when he stops to reload. In the Tucson shooting, for example, someone with a concealed-carry at the scene helped tackle the gunman when he finally paused to reload. The bystander didn't, however, draw his weapon. He stated afterwards that he believed it would have made things worse.
And indeed there were also reports from CCW-holders about almost opening fire on other CCW's who had drawn their weapons, believing them to be the gunman. The reason they didn't fire was purely because the other CCW wasn't shooting. Had the second CCW-holder been firing at the original gunman, it's likely that the first CCW would have then opened fire on him. You drastically underestimate the chaos at these shootings. In the Norway shooting, the gunman wore a police uniform, he walked around calling for groups of people to come out, when they did, he killed them, rinse, repeat. Single shooter and yet people couldn't tell what was happening enough to not run towards the bad-guy.
Even professionally trained uniformed troops in combat zones will open fire on each other, due to similar misunderstanding. IIRC, it became a tactic of insurgents in Iraq early in the occupation, try to get two allied units to open fire on each other.
This is the problem with ranged weapons.
I'd also prefer that any teacher that wanted to be armed be armed,
These are primary school teachers. Think about the personality type that chooses to teach in a primary school.
and that any student that wanted to be armed be armed.
Students aged 5-10 years?
PROTIP: Correlation is not causation.
But it can be a bloody big hint. And this one is a neon sign two stories high flashing "IT'S THE GUNS!"
For example: Australia severely restricted certain classes of firearms after a particularly bad mass shooting. The number of mass shootings in the 16 years since the change dropped by at least an order of magnitude. Prediction, experiment, result.
There were no significant complicating factors, we didn't have a major reduction in poverty, or improvements in mental health, nor changes in law enforcement which could explain the result. This is demonstrated by other crime rates not changing significantly during the same period.
Same country, same culture, same crime rate; single change in the law, single result.
You can kill a person just as easily with a knife - you can kill a lot of people just as easily with a knife.
"Can", yes. "Just as easily", no.
After the 1996 gun ban in Australia, there was a buy-back program. Given the reduction in mass shootings, it would seem to have had the desired effect. I'm sure a few conspiracy gimps buried their guns under their shed floors, but in general, no you don't need to kick in people's doors.
Most guns on the black market seem to be stolen from the homes of legitimate gun owners. Indeed, guns are a highly sought after item for thieves because they are one of the few items that holds their legal retail value on the black market. Reduce the number of legal guns in the community and you gradually reduce the number of illegal guns. (This is partly because they are often discarded after use, to avoid being linked to the crime. That increases the rate of churn.) This rule, of course, breaks down when you border a high-gun area. So it doesn't work in individual states within a country, or countries with porous borders neighbouring the US.
[That said, I had the same reaction to the "huddling in the corner of the gym" part. That's just retarded.]
In Australia, after a mass shooting in 1996, the conservative government banned certain classes of rifles and handguns, and severely restricted others. There was a buy-back program to encourage owners to voluntarily surrender newly illegal types of guns. You'll note that this can only possibly affect law abiding gun owners...
And yet, in the 16 years since, the rate of mass shootings dropped by at least an order of magnitude.
(IMO, this may be the clearest and most effective single-purpose anti-crime law in history. I didn't expect it to make the slightest bit of difference, at the time I dismissed it as knee-jerk feel-good crap, and I remain stunned that it actually did what it said on the tin.)
But the catch 22 (the literal catch 22 from the novel Catch 22) is that if you're sane enough to get checked and treated, you're probably not a risk.
In Australia, after a particularly bad mass shooting, the conservative government banned many types of guns, severely restricted other types. Before the ban, the rate of mass shootings was roughly one every 18 months. In the sixteen years since there has been a single shooting that fits the same criteria. That's a significant reduction.
They could also point out that past DoD studies have shown that a single orbital platform is highly inefficient offensively, due to the limits of orbital mechanics and the horizon problem, and vulnerable defensively.
My guess is that the White House is going to respond a little bit seriously
No they won't. But they should. So much nerd humour is in taking a ridiculous idea seriously and pedantically debating its implications. [See the classic Dante/Randal roofers discussion quoted elsewhere.]
So basically, when it comes to the internet, China is like my nan?
Your statement that an atheist does not believe is accurate.
Actually, he said an atheist does not believe "in deities."
I think you are confusing "belief" with "religion". People can believe and disbelieve a lot of things without that being in any way a "religious belief".
"Atheism" speaks only of a belief in god(s). An atheist can still believe in UFOs, Atlantis, reflexology, or any number of nonsensical beliefs and not believe in god(s) or religions. Or an atheist can believe none of those things, and instead believe in objective reality and science. Still a "belief", a very pragmatic one, and still not in any way a religion.
The other thing is that I think you are allowing the loudest, most aggressively obnoxious anti-theists define your idea of what atheism "really means". It would be like defining "religion" solely by behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" family). In the UK example, "No religion" was around 40% of respondents; so allowing for people who believe in god but not in religion, that still leaves probably more than ten million people in England and Wales who are atheists. Millions. You think they are all aggressively anti-theists? Or maybe most just live their lives day to day as if there is no god. And that's all atheism means.
Aside: Most people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheist-type agnostics. They don't believe in god or gods because they don't have any knowledge of god or gods, and they don't accept that anyone does. People who say "I guess I believe in god, but I don't go to church or anything" are theist-type agnostics. They do believe in god(s), but don't have any knowledge of what god is/isn't, hence they don't practice any religion.
A UK court ruled that Assange was to be extradited. Presumably that order required him to surrender himself at some point. He failed to obey the court order, putting him in contempt of court. There may also be a "failure to appear" depending on the wording of the order. There's certainly enough for him to be arrested. At the very least he's likely in breach of his bail conditions.
[Disclaimer: I consider several recent UK extradition rulings to be quite bizarre. Assange's being one of them.]
It's called a Mars Cycler. More generally a "free return trajectory".
AND the trajectory is sufficiently short that people would tolerate travelling in such a fashion
You can tunnel out a pair of rings inside the asteroid, each a couple of hundred metres across, create a ring of habitats and counter-spin them for gravity. A bit of maglev to stabilise the spins. Gravity from the habs, radiation and thermal shielding from the asteroid. Pick the right asteroid and you've also got fuel, air and water. Add sunlight and you've got fresh food. People could live comfortably for years, gradually expanding through the asteroid; as Mars crews visit, refuel, depart, visit, refuel, depart...