If it was flight 808 wouldn't it have been low like the passenger plane in the video? Why was it so much higher? Why was it leaving an enormous unusual contrail while the other plane wasn't?
I think that's because the other "plane" in the video was a helicopter. It actually looked like a Chinook. Regardless, 808 would have been at cruising altitude still because it wasn't landing in LA. Anything lower was probably entering or departing LA.
How about this: since flight 808 was in fact in the area at the time, maybe someone should get the pilot on the horn and ask him if he saw anything on his way in, or anything on radar behind him.
Actually, I'm more worried about the fact that Nader was even refused entry to the debate floor, the contributions from Phillip Morris, and the fact that the commission is lead by lobbyists.
That the CPD has been able to raise millions of dollars in corporate contributions is not surprising. Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, who co-chair and control the CPD, are registered lobbyists for multinational corporations. Kirk has collected $120,000 for lobbying on behalf of Hoechst Marion Roussel, a German pharmaceutical company. Fahrenkopf earns approximately $900,000 a year as the chief lobbyist for the nation's $54-billion gambling industry. As president of the American Gaming Association, Fahrenkopf directs enormous financial contributions to major party candidates and saturates the media with "expert" testimony extolling gambling's "many benefits." "We're not going to apologize for trying to influence political elections," said Fahrenkopf.
Kirk and Fahrenkopf's lobbying practices demonstrate a willingness to protect corporate interests at the expense of voters' interests. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that the co-chairs of the CPD are willing to protect major party interests at the expense of voters' interests.
All this info is on opendebates.org...
You sound very obstinate, are you of the opinion that the way elections are held is perfectly in line with the interests of voters? Is the status quo acceptable to you?
Yeah, they won't make that mistake again, unless it's in their interest, of course. Bad things happen once you start bringing corporate influence into government:
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank described the first 2000 presidential debate:
The whole campus is closed -- (ostensibly) to thwart terrorists, more likely to thwart Nader and Buchanan. Nader gets kicked out of the debate audience, even though he got himself a ticket from a student. He's threatening lawsuits. But I'm not worried about such things. I am inside the debate area, and I am delighted to find an Anheuser Busch refreshment tent, where there is beer flowing, snacks, Budweiser girls in red sweaters, the baseball playoffs on television, ping pong and fusbol.
I vote straight ticket 3rd party every election just out of the hope that a 3rd party candidate gets enough votes that the next time around they might get equal footing in a debate, or news coverage and maybe some other people might wake up and realize that there are more than 2 choices.
The number of votes isn't going to get anyone into a debate. On their website, the Commission on Presidential Debates describes themselves as a non-partisan non-profit organization. Somewhere along the line, the definition of "non-partisan" changed from "not associated with any political party" to "associated with both republicans and democrats, as opposed to only one". The Commission decides which presidential candidates debate each other on prime time TV. The wiki page on them includes a little history:
The Commission sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.
In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."
At a press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Kirk said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.
You're not going to see third-party candidates in the debates, because republicans and democrats pick who gets to debate.
It's a nice little system they have set up, isn't it?
Plus, people remember Ross Perot (and to a lesser degree Ralph Nader) as a third-party electoral spoiler.
The problem is that third party candidates are seen as spoilers at all. They are the only candidates not spoiling everything. I saw an article about the governor race in Illinois, and how it went to a republican, and the author of the article blamed Green party voters for letting the republican take office. Well fuck you, Mr. Political Analyst guy, the Green party voters were the only sane ones. Maybe if the democratic voters had voted for the Green candidate, then the republican wouldn't have taken office either, huh?
I really don't see what Android has to do with any of this.
Like Opera, it's an example of a system with intelligent handling of plugins built-in. With all of the anti-Flash hype from Apple, I'm surprised they wouldn't just go ahead and add an option to load plugins on-demand instead of always-on.
Everyone knows, and has always known, that Flash taxes the CPU. If you're building a system where battery power is a concern (like a laptop, or phone), why would you set it up so that either the plugins always load, or you need to uninstall them? Why not load-on-demand?
Why do you even need to install something to do that? That's a checkbox option on my Android phone and my Opera browser. When I discovered that on my phone it sped up the browser quite a bit, just leaving placeholders with push-to-activate buttons where all of the Flash content used to be.
Since the U.S. (and many other countries) uses the name "Burma", due to not recognizing the Military Junta that currently rules this country, should/. not follow suit?
Should the US government dictate what countries are called? Maybe we should ask the residents of Chinese Taipei.
it would seem logical that Internet Explorer users would trend lower incomes than anyone else.
Yeah, like that penniless a-hole Bill Gates! And anyone else who doesn't have time to research browsers because they're running a company! Right? Right?
I can agree with blocking network access only as a preventative measure, although I don't think we would have all of these insightful mods if we were talking about ISPs instead of cell phone carriers.
Nor an iPhone, nor an Android device, nor a Palm webOS device, nor a BlackBerry (assuming you're on a BES system). Indeed, when your world is black and white many decisions are easy.
You're saying that it's better to disable the entire device instead of remove the one offending application? I'm not sure how you made that conclusion, but how would the owner recover their device if Microsoft shut the entire thing down? Should Microsoft or any handset vendor be allowed to simply disable the entire device?
Because it's utter crap. IE8 (I have not tested IE9) makes me wait until the "tab home" is loaded before I'm allowed to open my bookmarks and click on a site to go there. If I open the bookmarks before that tab is loaded, it loads the bookmark in the now non-active tab.
This is why my home page in IE has always been about:blank.
Slashdot Mirror
What about a plane coming toward you viewed from 30 miles out at an oblique angle? Will you be able to identify exhaust from individual engines?
If it was flight 808 wouldn't it have been low like the passenger plane in the video? Why was it so much higher? Why was it leaving an enormous unusual contrail while the other plane wasn't?
I think that's because the other "plane" in the video was a helicopter. It actually looked like a Chinook. Regardless, 808 would have been at cruising altitude still because it wasn't landing in LA. Anything lower was probably entering or departing LA.
How about this: since flight 808 was in fact in the area at the time, maybe someone should get the pilot on the horn and ask him if he saw anything on his way in, or anything on radar behind him.
most airliners I see have distinct trails per engine or at least per wing.
Most, or all?
Didn't this appear to rise from the Pacific?
How would a plane ... produce a contrail that rises from the Pacific heading west?
Wait, did it actually rise, or did it appear to rise?
Where, legally speaking, is the line between a threat and a joke, assuming all you're seeing is text and no body language?
That would be awkward if there was a starving chinese dude by the front door
It's not so awkward when it's self-inflicted. At that point it's just stupid.
Right, Microsoft was sitting on this goldmine for the past 9 years just waiting to cash it in.
Exactly, which is why I can't see how the DMCA would apply to this.
Actually, I'm more worried about the fact that Nader was even refused entry to the debate floor, the contributions from Phillip Morris, and the fact that the commission is lead by lobbyists.
That the CPD has been able to raise millions of dollars in corporate contributions is not surprising. Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, who co-chair and control the CPD, are registered lobbyists for multinational corporations. Kirk has collected $120,000 for lobbying on behalf of Hoechst Marion Roussel, a German pharmaceutical company. Fahrenkopf earns approximately $900,000 a year as the chief lobbyist for the nation's $54-billion gambling industry. As president of the American Gaming Association, Fahrenkopf directs enormous financial contributions to major party candidates and saturates the media with "expert" testimony extolling gambling's "many benefits." "We're not going to apologize for trying to influence political elections," said Fahrenkopf.
Kirk and Fahrenkopf's lobbying practices demonstrate a willingness to protect corporate interests at the expense of voters' interests. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that the co-chairs of the CPD are willing to protect major party interests at the expense of voters' interests.
All this info is on opendebates.org...
You sound very obstinate, are you of the opinion that the way elections are held is perfectly in line with the interests of voters? Is the status quo acceptable to you?
I had better be sure th'isn't some strange dream.
FTFY
How is an image taken by this device a "protected work"? Is MS claiming to own the copyright on the images captured with this device?
What? No. The image is not the interesting part, the conversion of the image to control data is the interesting part.
Yeah, they won't make that mistake again, unless it's in their interest, of course. Bad things happen once you start bringing corporate influence into government:
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank described the first 2000 presidential debate:
The whole campus is closed -- (ostensibly) to thwart terrorists, more likely to thwart Nader and Buchanan. Nader gets kicked out of the debate audience, even though he got himself a ticket from a student. He's threatening lawsuits. But I'm not worried about such things. I am inside the debate area, and I am delighted to find an Anheuser Busch refreshment tent, where there is beer flowing, snacks, Budweiser girls in red sweaters, the baseball playoffs on television, ping pong and fusbol.
I vote straight ticket 3rd party every election just out of the hope that a 3rd party candidate gets enough votes that the next time around they might get equal footing in a debate, or news coverage and maybe some other people might wake up and realize that there are more than 2 choices.
The number of votes isn't going to get anyone into a debate. On their website, the Commission on Presidential Debates describes themselves as a non-partisan non-profit organization. Somewhere along the line, the definition of "non-partisan" changed from "not associated with any political party" to "associated with both republicans and democrats, as opposed to only one". The Commission decides which presidential candidates debate each other on prime time TV. The wiki page on them includes a little history:
The Commission sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.
In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."
At a press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Kirk said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.
You're not going to see third-party candidates in the debates, because republicans and democrats pick who gets to debate.
It's a nice little system they have set up, isn't it?
Plus, people remember Ross Perot (and to a lesser degree Ralph Nader) as a third-party electoral spoiler.
The problem is that third party candidates are seen as spoilers at all. They are the only candidates not spoiling everything. I saw an article about the governor race in Illinois, and how it went to a republican, and the author of the article blamed Green party voters for letting the republican take office. Well fuck you, Mr. Political Analyst guy, the Green party voters were the only sane ones. Maybe if the democratic voters had voted for the Green candidate, then the republican wouldn't have taken office either, huh?
I really don't see what Android has to do with any of this.
Like Opera, it's an example of a system with intelligent handling of plugins built-in. With all of the anti-Flash hype from Apple, I'm surprised they wouldn't just go ahead and add an option to load plugins on-demand instead of always-on.
Everyone knows, and has always known, that Flash taxes the CPU. If you're building a system where battery power is a concern (like a laptop, or phone), why would you set it up so that either the plugins always load, or you need to uninstall them? Why not load-on-demand?
Offtopic indeed... way to go, mods.
Why do you even need to install something to do that? That's a checkbox option on my Android phone and my Opera browser. When I discovered that on my phone it sped up the browser quite a bit, just leaving placeholders with push-to-activate buttons where all of the Flash content used to be.
Fine. It's a magazine for (or by) a single cook.
I think by "Cook's Magazine" they meant "a magazine for cooks". Hard to tell when every word is capitalized, but that's the impression I got.
Someone doesn't know what he's talking about, but I don't think it's @asukasoryu.
Maybe you're seeing something I'm not, but I'm pretty sure his name doesn't start with an "at" symbol.
Since the U.S. (and many other countries) uses the name "Burma", due to not recognizing the Military Junta that currently rules this country, should /. not follow suit?
Should the US government dictate what countries are called? Maybe we should ask the residents of Chinese Taipei.
it would seem logical that Internet Explorer users would trend lower incomes than anyone else.
Yeah, like that penniless a-hole Bill Gates! And anyone else who doesn't have time to research browsers because they're running a company! Right? Right?
I can agree with blocking network access only as a preventative measure, although I don't think we would have all of these insightful mods if we were talking about ISPs instead of cell phone carriers.
Now I have no need to even consider getting one.
Nor an iPhone, nor an Android device, nor a Palm webOS device, nor a BlackBerry (assuming you're on a BES system). Indeed, when your world is black and white many decisions are easy.
You're saying that it's better to disable the entire device instead of remove the one offending application? I'm not sure how you made that conclusion, but how would the owner recover their device if Microsoft shut the entire thing down? Should Microsoft or any handset vendor be allowed to simply disable the entire device?
Because it's utter crap. IE8 (I have not tested IE9) makes me wait until the "tab home" is loaded before I'm allowed to open my bookmarks and click on a site to go there. If I open the bookmarks before that tab is loaded, it loads the bookmark in the now non-active tab.
This is why my home page in IE has always been about:blank.