Compressor blades / turbines on jets can fly off shredding any one in it's path. If the Engine breaks, the place can crash killing people.If you think of the car or the plane as the whole system, how can you not say that it's failure mode is catastrophic. If something goes wrong with the car or driver it can crash and kill people.
The idea of powering something with a burnable fluid dangersous fluid would not be acceptable today. Tens of thousands of controlled combustions taking place every minute. Planes and cars were engineered before during a time when people were willing to live with a little danger, and common sense prevailed. Over time the systems have become safer and safer. Are you saying that engineering conrtrolls could not be put in place to mitigate the danger of a flywheel rapidly disassembling itself? That is assuming that lawyers could leave you well enough alone to design one.
Think about automobiles. Do you realize they would never make it to the market today. Same with airplanes. Both these have catastrophic failure modes, and would be a liability nightmare. It is very hard to be innovative and completely safe at the same time.
-Your existence depends upon the death of billions of cute tiny fuzzy bacteria, and viruses. Each of them have as much right to live as you.
Hell Yea. Sometimes the best service that you can do for your country is calling into question those who are using the military industrial complex to service their own needs rather then the needs of their country. National security should not be used as a pretense to cover up politically unpopular 'mistakes'
-Not all the enemies of freedom are overseas. Some of them are right here close to home, tightly nestled in a warm blanket political influence and corporate nepotism.
As a former member of the US Coast Guard, I can say they definitely need help with technology. When I was in (6 months ago), we were still using reel to reel tape drives, and teletypewriters (Yes teletypes, like they had in the 1950's) as THE major means of input / output into their fire control computer (A Unisys UYK-7 with a CPU made up of discreet components) I am sure many of you here could design a MUCH better system. However, institutional inertia being what it is they do not / can not. I can tell you many other hilarious stories about unauthorized overflights of Columbia and Counter Narcotic operations that were more Counter common sense then counter narcotics, but I won't. Needless, to say, I do not think these guys are the best people to be handling the crisis. It really bugs me that Admiral Thad is on the TV every night.
Sure. It beats the system we have now, where those with the strongest lawyers get to say / do what they want, and sue all opposition into submission. I would much rather have might make right, then a system where by those with the loudest mouth / political connections decide all the rules.
If we can't have a system based on a meritocracy of ideas, the next best system is a meritocracy of strength.
I seriously want to call this number. My guess is that the would not have a transoceanic sea line, so it would have to be an Iridium phone that picked up on the other end. Anyone have details?
If the penguins could get a pay phone set up in Antarctica they could make a killing calling 1-800 numbers all day.
Ugghh. Let me guess, you have an axe to grind. So the USA has bad beer. Maybe if more microbreweries keep up the creativity, we will eventually get good. beer. I still don't know what was the point of your post though, since it has nothing to do with the OT (creating a great beer from ancient history). Besides pointing out that American beer is bad is kind of like pointing out that many Europeans act kind of faggy. It is just way to obvious.
As for the 1920 thing. It is interesting that the people who profited the most off of prohibition (bootleggers) rose to the very top of the political power structure in the U.S. Those people in political power are still profiting thought the high taxes paid on alcohol. Kind of makes you go 'hmmm'
OK. Then, some hoodlum on the street has a job selling drugs to crack heads. Some Crack addicts have a job breaking into lawyers houses to feed their habit. Lawyers have a job, duping the public into feeling they provide a useful service, when they are robbing them blind (all without a gun, and all of it is legal)
You've lost me on this one.
I was responding to your comment that 'It is the lawyers job' Read my OP. You can not absolve someone of responsibility for their actions because 'It is their dam job'. Plenty of people have been employed doing all manner of things, from selling slaves, to selling drugs, to selling their ones services as a patent troll. Duh.
I agree with you on the free market thing. (sort of). We need more Doctors. As it is the AMA is artificially limiting the number of doctors entering the system. If we get more doctors in the system, prices would go down and quality would go up. (IMHO doctors and nurses are overworked).
However, there is a fundamental difference between doctors and lawyers. Doctors fix problems. Lawyers create them.
As for your point about finding out 'why there is such a 'need' for lawyers, and stopping the demand at it's source', I could not agree with you more. The demand is caused by laziness, greed, and somewhat a decline in societal norms.
People see personal injury lawyers as a path to untold riches. States see tobacco company lawsuits as a quick way to balance the budget (and hardly spend any of the procedes on Tobaco sessation programs like promised). The only solution to this supply problem is though education. Peole should some to see suing as the very last resort, and a cowardly way out. Also poeple should be made to see the tremendous costs that frivoulous lawsuites impose on society.
So in effect the drug dealer analogy is appropiate. How do you combat drugs? By attacking the supply and the demand. The supply side (lawyers and drug dealers) can be fought through police / coast guard, and an official sanctioning body that artificially limits the number of lawyers / drung dealers in the system), and demand side (people addicted to drugs and addicted to a quick buck) through education and treatment.
What do you mean by 'becoming a criminal'? Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger, and his family rose to the height of political power. Crime Does pay. Especially if you live in Massachusetts.
It just doesn't pay if you are a stupid or poor criminal without a network of associates to support you.
Well that one's easy: because it's their damned job!
OK. Then, some hoodlum on the street has a job selling drugs to crack heads. Some Crack addicts have a job breaking into lawyers houses to feed their habit. Lawyers have a job, duping the public into feeling they provide a useful service, when they are robbing them blind (all without a gun, and all of it is legal)
But hey, if they are just doing their job.
Who really KNOWS anything, anyway?
Maybe on an existential level it is impossible to know an absolute truth, but lawyers never bother with truths. They collectively only care about the law. However on a practical level people can know quite a deal. For example: I know that lawyers have become parasites on economy. Not all, but the vast majority. The United States would be a lot better off morally, and financially, if we could 'reeducate' 75% of the lawyers. They could become businessmen, engineers, farmers whatever, just don't 'practice law'.
Why do you want to become a lawyer? Why don't you do something to help humanity, rather then being a parasite.
. It's horrible, but it's not the lawyers' faults. The lawyers are just doing their jobs - advocating for their clients. It's their clients that are assholes and legislators that are idiots.
So you are trying to redirect the blame onto another body? Isn't saying that the lawyers are just doing their job, kind of like saying that drug dealers are just doing their job, and providing a service. When a lawyer uses tricks of the legal system to absolve a client that she KNOWS to be guilty, how can it be said that the lawyer is not supporting the side of evil.
When I can hear adds for lawyers trying to profit of mesothelioma 20 + years after asbestos has been used in construction, how can you support lawyers.
Just because it is not against the law, does not make something right. You say that the legislatures are idiots because they do not understand the intricacies of the laws they write. Well then that make the public doubly idiotic. So the only people who are smart enough to understand the laws, and hence participate, and be full fledged members of this democracy are lawyers. What ever happened to a government by the people for the people.
-Democracy is a suitable form of government only for a just and moral populace. Unfortunately morals and good fashioned horse sense are being replaced by the absolute rule of law. Laws written largely by people attempting to profit of the ignorance of the populace of those laws.
Thank you for sticking up for people like me who talk to trees. I should caveat that I USED talk to trees until some of the trees started calling me crazy and laughing at me behind my back. Now I am just kind of sad.
I stand corrected. However, I don't think these change the original premise (that apple got arrogant, and declined because of it).
The 68K processor was better the the 8088. If I recall the Motorola line of processors was alway considered better the the Intel line (back in the day). The Macintosh just never had the support that the Intel based PC's developed. I would claim that this was because they insisted on 'controlling the scene' rather then let the scene develop and play itself out.
I would say that apple only came back because the competition really sucked, and things were ripe to be shake up. Would Microsoft still be selling some updated version of windows XP, if OSX had not come out?
it is that people will never learn from history. During the good old days, the Apple II came out and revolutionized the industry. Their systems supported a a community of enthusiasts who build great software, and ushered in the revolution. Then they became arrogant. They developed the Macintosh. It was now my way or the high way. You could no longer build / buy expansion cards. People moved over to the IBM PC, which all though it was ugly, did not force you to be what apple wanted you to be.
For a long while after this apple sucked. Mr. jobs was forced out. Then the competition became arrogant and bloated. Mr. Jobs came back, OSX was introduced, and Apple no longer sucked.
Now I am happy to say the tide is once again changing. ITunes used to be a good music player. Now it is a combination Music player, Video play, video game player, shopping store, all wrapped in one file that take up 900 GB of space. Apple is forcing you to program the way they want you to program (witness flash). They are shutting down sites that are better at music then they are. Hence the cycle is complete. It is only a matter or time before someone new (or old comes back into the game).
This cycle corresponds to the cyclical nature of world powers. Once upon a time. China, and Europe with all those kings, emporers, and endless wars sucked. The cool people left and came to the USA, or were kicked out and went to jail. The USA was so great, that we kicked everyones butt. Then we too became arrogant, and allowed to many lawyers into our country. Now China rocks, and Europe is cool. So it is all one big cycle.
Baseless Claims? By you logic, the American natives would have been perfectly justified in believing that all European explorers should be perfectly enlightened because they were not 'stranded on a hunk of rock' called Europe.
Unless that is you have an alien hiding in your refrigerator, there is nothing else to make these 'baseless claims' other then humanities experience with ourselves, the only other space fairing race.
No the truly baseless claim, is to think that aliens are cute and cuddly.
Without any other example in the sample pool you go with the only one you have, which is us.
However, if she hadn't been subjected to the coherent beams of non-ionizing radiation, she would have developed touretts from something else innocuous, like a Bee that buzzes too close to her head, that set off the tics.
Generally touretts develops around that age, however it is more prevailent with boys.
I would suggest that if she really wants to get rid of them she should take up smoking. The Carcinigens in the cigarettes will likely the cells in her brain dispose her to ticing. It will make her a little bit stupider, but such is the price for being normal.
So a body that represents the status quo has given an award to some mainstream journalist who decided to publish their stuff on the web. They completely ignored wiki-leaks, and other sites that are focusing in on issues that will actually affect our society, and instead focus on journalists who worry about such important issues as Papal sex scandals that happed 20 years ago. The reason people are not tuning into TV / newspapers is not because of competition from this newfangled interweby thing, it is because they have been catering to the lowest common denominator so long, that there is no-one left. If it is a choice between watching morning news and watching a Sponge bob Square pants episode, i am you will be better off watching and animated sponge.
We need a real journalistic body that can recognize investigative journalism when it exists. How about giving an award to all the people who predicted the financial melt down 10+ years ahead of time.
In a sense the free market could stop tanks from invading, if the country sponsoring those tanks say went bankrupt due to the spiraling cost of an unneeded and unfunded war half way around the world.
In the short term I agree with you. Sometimes government needs to intervene when there is no other way. Teddy Roosevelt did this effectively. In general, the largest corporations are the very opposite of free market. They do not want the markets to be free. They want monopoly, and control. This way the profit is maximized. I wish we had another Teddy Rosevelt, but since the major corporations pay for the elections, media, and arguably the wars, I do not feel this will happen, until....
"...The US is a Republic based on law. It is not (contrary to common belief) a Democracy... "
I wonder what the British crown would think of this statement. Where the founders of our republic trying to 'uphold the law' when the overthrew the crown. I thought the hole point of rebelling (breaking the law) was to create a new system when the existing laws had become tyranical to the majority of the populuce.
What do Rosa Parks, Ann Frank, Cheif Joseph all have in common? They were all criminals, and violated the law.
OK. So the next time my favorite politician says that he is going to make it all better, and that the only thing i have to do is give him my vote, can we get the state to sue her/him when it does not work out.
When are people going to be held accountable for their own bad decisions. People are adults
OK. Then why is the same state selling lottery tickets to old laddies, and people on welfare, knowing full well there is a greater chance of getting hit by an asteroid, then making a million from the powerball?
Slashdot Mirror
Compressor blades / turbines on jets can fly off shredding any one in it's path. If the Engine breaks, the place can crash killing people.If you think of the car or the plane as the whole system, how can you not say that it's failure mode is catastrophic. If something goes wrong with the car or driver it can crash and kill people.
The idea of powering something with a burnable fluid dangersous fluid would not be acceptable today. Tens of thousands of controlled combustions taking place every minute. Planes and cars were engineered before during a time when people were willing to live with a little danger, and common sense prevailed. Over time the systems have become safer and safer. Are you saying that engineering conrtrolls could not be put in place to mitigate the danger of a flywheel rapidly disassembling itself? That is assuming that lawyers could leave you well enough alone to design one.
Think about automobiles. Do you realize they would never make it to the market today. Same with airplanes. Both these have catastrophic failure modes, and would be a liability nightmare. It is very hard to be innovative and completely safe at the same time.
-Your existence depends upon the death of billions of cute tiny fuzzy bacteria, and viruses. Each of them have as much right to live as you.
This Rocks
Hell Yea. Sometimes the best service that you can do for your country is calling into question those who are using the military industrial complex to service their own needs rather then the needs of their country. National security should not be used as a pretense to cover up politically unpopular 'mistakes'
-Not all the enemies of freedom are overseas. Some of them are right here close to home, tightly nestled in a warm blanket political influence and corporate nepotism.
It was not the case when I was in, and I can not find any mention of it on their website. This is why they have girl and brownie scouts
As a former member of the US Coast Guard, I can say they definitely need help with technology. When I was in (6 months ago), we were still using reel to reel tape drives, and teletypewriters (Yes teletypes, like they had in the 1950's) as THE major means of input / output into their fire control computer (A Unisys UYK-7 with a CPU made up of discreet components) I am sure many of you here could design a MUCH better system. However, institutional inertia being what it is they do not / can not. I can tell you many other hilarious stories about unauthorized overflights of Columbia and Counter Narcotic operations that were more Counter common sense then counter narcotics, but I won't. Needless, to say, I do not think these guys are the best people to be handling the crisis. It really bugs me that Admiral Thad is on the TV every night.
Sure. It beats the system we have now, where those with the strongest lawyers get to say / do what they want, and sue all opposition into submission. I would much rather have might make right, then a system where by those with the loudest mouth / political connections decide all the rules.
If we can't have a system based on a meritocracy of ideas, the next best system is a meritocracy of strength.
I seriously want to call this number. My guess is that the would not have a transoceanic sea line, so it would have to be an Iridium phone that picked up on the other end.
Anyone have details?
If the penguins could get a pay phone set up in Antarctica they could make a killing calling 1-800 numbers all day.
Ugghh. Let me guess, you have an axe to grind. So the USA has bad beer. Maybe if more microbreweries keep up the creativity, we will eventually get good. beer. I still don't know what was the point of your post though, since it has nothing to do with the OT (creating a great beer from ancient history). Besides pointing out that American beer is bad is kind of like pointing out that many Europeans act kind of faggy. It is just way to obvious.
As for the 1920 thing. It is interesting that the people who profited the most off of prohibition (bootleggers) rose to the very top of the political power structure in the U.S. Those people in political power are still profiting thought the high taxes paid on alcohol. Kind of makes you go 'hmmm'
OK. Then, some hoodlum on the street has a job selling drugs to crack heads. Some Crack addicts have a job breaking into lawyers houses to feed their habit. Lawyers have a job, duping the public into feeling they provide a useful service, when they are robbing them blind (all without a gun, and all of it is legal)
You've lost me on this one.
I was responding to your comment that 'It is the lawyers job' Read my OP. You can not absolve someone of responsibility for their actions because 'It is their dam job'. Plenty of people have been employed doing all manner of things, from selling slaves, to selling drugs, to selling their ones services as a patent troll. Duh.
I agree with you on the free market thing. (sort of). We need more Doctors. As it is the AMA is artificially limiting the number of doctors entering the system. If we get more doctors in the system, prices would go down and quality would go up. (IMHO doctors and nurses are overworked).
However, there is a fundamental difference between doctors and lawyers. Doctors fix problems. Lawyers create them.
As for your point about finding out 'why there is such a 'need' for lawyers, and stopping the demand at it's source', I could not agree with you more. The demand is caused by laziness, greed, and somewhat a decline in societal norms.
People see personal injury lawyers as a path to untold riches. States see tobacco company lawsuits as a quick way to balance the budget (and hardly spend any of the procedes on Tobaco sessation programs like promised). The only solution to this supply problem is though education. Peole should some to see suing as the very last resort, and a cowardly way out. Also poeple should be made to see the tremendous costs that frivoulous lawsuites impose on society.
So in effect the drug dealer analogy is appropiate. How do you combat drugs? By attacking the supply and the demand. The supply side (lawyers and drug dealers) can be fought through police / coast guard, and an official sanctioning body that artificially limits the number of lawyers / drung dealers in the system), and demand side (people addicted to drugs and addicted to a quick buck) through education and treatment.
What do you mean by 'becoming a criminal'? Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger, and his family rose to the height of political power. Crime Does pay. Especially if you live in Massachusetts.
It just doesn't pay if you are a stupid or poor criminal without a network of associates to support you.
Well that one's easy: because it's their damned job!
OK. Then, some hoodlum on the street has a job selling drugs to crack heads. Some Crack addicts have a job breaking into lawyers houses to feed their habit. Lawyers have a job, duping the public into feeling they provide a useful service, when they are robbing them blind (all without a gun, and all of it is legal)
But hey, if they are just doing their job.
Who really KNOWS anything, anyway?
Maybe on an existential level it is impossible to know an absolute truth, but lawyers never bother with truths. They collectively only care about the law. However on a practical level people can know quite a deal. For example: I know that lawyers have become parasites on economy. Not all, but the vast majority. The United States would be a lot better off morally, and financially, if we could 'reeducate' 75% of the lawyers. They could become businessmen, engineers, farmers whatever, just don't 'practice law'.
Why do you want to become a lawyer? Why don't you do something to help humanity, rather then being a parasite.
. It's horrible, but it's not the lawyers' faults. The lawyers are just doing their jobs - advocating for their clients. It's their clients that are assholes and legislators that are idiots.
So you are trying to redirect the blame onto another body? Isn't saying that the lawyers are just doing their job, kind of like saying that drug dealers are just doing their job, and providing a service. When a lawyer uses tricks of the legal system to absolve a client that she KNOWS to be guilty, how can it be said that the lawyer is not supporting the side of evil.
When I can hear adds for lawyers trying to profit of mesothelioma 20 + years after asbestos has been used in construction, how can you support lawyers.
Just because it is not against the law, does not make something right. You say that the legislatures are idiots because they do not understand the intricacies of the laws they write. Well then that make the public doubly idiotic. So the only people who are smart enough to understand the laws, and hence participate, and be full fledged members of this democracy are lawyers. What ever happened to a government by the people for the people.
-Democracy is a suitable form of government only for a just and moral populace. Unfortunately morals and good fashioned horse sense are being replaced by the absolute rule of law. Laws written largely by people attempting to profit of the ignorance of the populace of those laws.
http://evilpotatoes.us/
Thank you for sticking up for people like me who talk to trees. I should caveat that I USED talk to trees until some of the trees started calling me crazy and laughing at me behind my back. Now I am just kind of sad.
I stand corrected. However, I don't think these change the original premise (that apple got arrogant, and declined because of it).
The 68K processor was better the the 8088. If I recall the Motorola line of processors was alway considered better the the Intel line (back in the day). The Macintosh just never had the support that the Intel based PC's developed. I would claim that this was because they insisted on 'controlling the scene' rather then let the scene develop and play itself out.
I would say that apple only came back because the competition really sucked, and things were ripe to be shake up. Would Microsoft still be selling some updated version of windows XP, if OSX had not come out?
It is not the people of the U.S. It is the corporate media industrial complex that wants these laws. The people of the U.S. don't want them either.
If we only had a form of government that listened to the people and respected it's wishes. I wonder what we could call it.
it is that people will never learn from history. During the good old days, the Apple II came out and revolutionized the industry. Their systems supported a a community of enthusiasts who build great software, and ushered in the revolution. Then they became arrogant. They developed the Macintosh. It was now my way or the high way. You could no longer build / buy expansion cards. People moved over to the IBM PC, which all though it was ugly, did not force you to be what apple wanted you to be.
For a long while after this apple sucked. Mr. jobs was forced out. Then the competition became arrogant and bloated. Mr. Jobs came back, OSX was introduced, and Apple no longer sucked.
Now I am happy to say the tide is once again changing. ITunes used to be a good music player. Now it is a combination Music player, Video play, video game player, shopping store, all wrapped in one file that take up 900 GB of space. Apple is forcing you to program the way they want you to program (witness flash). They are shutting down sites that are better at music then they are. Hence the cycle is complete. It is only a matter or time before someone new (or old comes back into the game).
This cycle corresponds to the cyclical nature of world powers. Once upon a time. China, and Europe with all those kings, emporers, and endless wars sucked. The cool people left and came to the USA, or were kicked out and went to jail. The USA was so great, that we kicked everyones butt. Then we too became arrogant, and allowed to many lawyers into our country. Now China rocks, and Europe is cool. So it is all one big cycle.
-Time to sell you stock in Apple.
Baseless Claims? By you logic, the American natives would have been perfectly justified in believing that all European explorers should be perfectly enlightened because they were not 'stranded on a hunk of rock' called Europe.
Unless that is you have an alien hiding in your refrigerator, there is nothing else to make these 'baseless claims' other then humanities experience with ourselves, the only other space fairing race.
No the truly baseless claim, is to think that aliens are cute and cuddly.
Without any other example in the sample pool you go with the only one you have, which is us.
However, if she hadn't been subjected to the coherent beams of non-ionizing radiation, she would have developed touretts from something else innocuous, like a Bee that buzzes too close to her head, that set off the tics.
Generally touretts develops around that age, however it is more prevailent with boys.
I would suggest that if she really wants to get rid of them she should take up smoking. The Carcinigens in the cigarettes will likely the cells in her brain dispose her to ticing. It will make her a little bit stupider, but such is the price for being normal.
-Regards
So a body that represents the status quo has given an award to some mainstream journalist who decided to publish their stuff on the web. They completely ignored wiki-leaks, and other sites that are focusing in on issues that will actually affect our society, and instead focus on journalists who worry about such important issues as Papal sex scandals that happed 20 years ago. The reason people are not tuning into TV / newspapers is not because of competition from this newfangled interweby thing, it is because they have been catering to the lowest common denominator so long, that there is no-one left. If it is a choice between watching morning news and watching a Sponge bob Square pants episode, i am you will be better off watching and animated sponge.
We need a real journalistic body that can recognize investigative journalism when it exists. How about giving an award to all the people who predicted the financial melt down 10+ years ahead of time.
Where do you live. It seems like a nice place, with much opportunity. I want to go.
In a sense the free market could stop tanks from invading, if the country sponsoring those tanks say went bankrupt due to the spiraling cost of an unneeded and unfunded war half way around the world.
In the short term I agree with you. Sometimes government needs to intervene when there is no other way. Teddy Roosevelt did this effectively. In general, the largest corporations are the very opposite of free market. They do not want the markets to be free. They want monopoly, and control. This way the profit is maximized. I wish we had another Teddy Rosevelt, but since the major corporations pay for the elections, media, and arguably the wars, I do not feel this will happen, until....
" ...The US is a Republic based on law. It is not (contrary to common belief) a Democracy... "
I wonder what the British crown would think of this statement. Where the founders of our republic trying to 'uphold the law' when the overthrew the crown. I thought the hole point of rebelling (breaking the law) was to create a new system when the existing laws had become tyranical to the majority of the populuce.
What do Rosa Parks, Ann Frank, Cheif Joseph all have in common? They were all criminals, and violated the law.
OK. So the next time my favorite politician says that he is going to make it all better, and that the only thing i have to do is give him my vote, can we get the state to sue her/him when it does not work out.
When are people going to be held accountable for their own bad decisions. People are adults
OK. Then why is the same state selling lottery tickets to old laddies, and people on welfare, knowing full well there is a greater chance of getting hit by an asteroid, then making a million from the powerball?