I disagree but hey, we DON'T really know what this kid was doing in English class as only one side of the story is out. Who knows, he could have been doing a live count down followed by yelling "boom" when the alarm went off for all you and I know. All I can say is that the school and police cannot discuss the events in detail without written permission from this kid's guardian, who has refused to give consent.
So, perhaps your imagination is a bit limited, you have a bias to distrust authority, or you have made your own set of assumptions for political reasons and don't wish to revisit them, but there ARE possible scenarios here where this whole think played out properly and everybody followed the process as they should. Even ones where the kid didn't do or say anything really wrong but just did something stupid and naïve.
They are not that different considering how far out of habitable they both are. I would consider the moon less habitable, given that there is literally NOTHING there in the vacuum of space over Mars where it's just really thin atmosphere. They are both dusty, it's hard to land large objects on them, they are both going to require a pressurized habitat, to grow their own food and manage their own CO2 and O2 levels, recycle waste water and be self contained. We will need portable energy supplies, contingency medical options and processes and procedures to deal with emergencies. We will need to develop and deploy communications networks and learn to deal with significant latency. Then there is the necessity of a heavy lift ability and economically viable ways of getting to and from orbit with people and materials.
Yes they are different destinations, but if you look at the difficulties they both present, it is a similar problem with one destination being in the backyard and the other being on another cotenant..
Re:It's not just about going to Mars
on
Let's Not Go To Mars
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's about going everywhere else. The tech developed going to Mars will undoubtedly be useful when going other places. You crawl before you walk, you walk before you run.
Then go to the moon first.... Colonize it where the technology can be perfected in a place where help is perhaps a week away and not at least a year away like Mars would be a lot of the time. IMHO we will kill less people this way and still get much of the same technologies developed we will need to keep expanding our reach. Take smaller steps. It's not as glamorous because we've been there before, but it gets us into technology development.
Both are necessary in balance or NOTHING gets done...
All leftists and you get emotional decisions that lack technical vision and proper engineering... Left to themselves, leftists are going to go out with a half baked solution that *might* work if they are lucky because the attempt is the reward and the possible success is valued above all.
Righties when left alone, never take risks, never try anything new, never leave their comfort zones until they are *sure* it will work. They figure, engineer, test and re-test until their resources and schedule are exhausted and always choose the least risky, less reward route.
Leftists/realists didn't make the world we live in today. The only thing they're good at is whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining.
Actually, the "leftist" mentality is more about emotions and less about the cold hard reality. The revel in the pride and accomplishment that "going to Mars" would bring them and look at the folks who are talking about how many problems have to be overcome as the complainers....
It's cold, it's distant, landing mass on the surface safely is really difficult, there are no natural resources to utilize once we are there etc, pale in comparison to the "We went there and left footprints" (and piles of useless garbage), at least to the leftist... They are about instant gratification, and not into all the hard slogging that it takes to accomplish their goal... But they are the dreamers that push the righties out of their comfort zones, encourage them to take risks. Both are necessary.
there was a toilet float attached to a switch to prevent a fluid fill, plus the foil, plus vibration switches, plus boobytrapped screws, plus decoy switches, plus shape charge defeating explosives in the detonator housing. McGuyver couldn't have stopped this one from happening.
But Chuck Norris could have...... McGuyver is a wimp....
It takes *intent* to make a "hoax bomb". If you look at that briefcase with nothing in it and try and convince somebody it's going to blow up, you are trying to create a "bomb hoax" which is a crime. Heck, it doesn't even take a briefcase, just an anonymous phone call to 911 is enough....
Don't make this hard, it really isn't.
Now if you build something that looks the part of a "hoax bomb" and go flashing it around in a pencil case, you might want to think about what others are going to think when they see it. It might be a really bad idea to plug it in during English class and let it "go off" like the 80's alarm clock it is, if for no other reason than you English teacher might not welcome the distraction to the class, is going to confiscate the distraction and then see what could be construed as a "hoax bomb" that went off during class. It's not a huge leap from there to "possible bomb hoax" which is a serious kettle of fish....
14 year old boys are notorious for not thinking ahead and if I'm any indication, the geeky ones tend to enjoy disrupting English class. Could it be he just did something stupid with his "clock" which got totally misinterpreted, but understandably so? That the English teacher and Administrators had no choice but to follow their "possible bomb hoax" policy? I think so...
Hmmm... And in Irving we had some kid's "clock" getting plugged in and going off in third period after his first period teacher says "Wow, nice. Some might think it looks like a bomb so put it away, don't show it to anybody, just take it home and don't bring it back to school." After which, this thing went off in English class. One would assume this boy knew it could/would go off when he plugged it in so IMHO it's likely this bright kid INTENDED it to disrupt English class, I know I would have loved to do that when I was his age. Hindsight says he didn't intend to do the Hoax Bomb thing, but how's the English teacher know that? She doesn't so she reported it per policy, and the process starts....
There is at least *some* justification for a bit of alarm on the part of the third period English teacher who reported it. The school administrator shows up, looks at the device and says (that sure looks like a hoax bomb) and at that point we where all victims of the process, regardless of what young 14 year old boy *says* he build or intended. The school has to run the "possible bomb hoax" process which goes something like, isolate the student, collect the device, and call the cops. Then the Cops have *their* procedures, "Bomb hoax complaint" with the Juvenile addendum which goes something like: Detain suspect, confiscate the device, Question suspect and witnesses, gather evidence and determine if a "bomb hoax" actually took place, then follow the evidence until you figure out what really happened. Which in this case was nothing so you release the suspect.
I'd like to remind everybody, before my karma get's tanked further on this topic, that we only have heard ONE side of this story from the boy's family. The Cops and the School both are prohibited by their policy from discussing the details of exactly what happened because it involves a minor. They have stated that they have additional information on this story that they'd like to release, but they need the family's permission to do so. So far, their requests for permission have not been even acknowledged by the press of the family.
IMHO this whole thing is being used as a PR campaign, not because anybody did anything actually wrong (including the kid) but because it advances a specific narrative...
Buy a new system. Power down every system in turn and try to power it up again. If it will not start, replace it.
NEVER power down old hardware on purpose unless you have backup plan for the system... Old hardware has a habit of not coming back when you power off and if it dies, you created an emergency for yourself...
There are going to be enough unforced errors in the process, you needn't go out and look to create them.
We don't know what this young kid said or did because his parents have so far refused to release the school and the police to disclose this information. The school and police are bound by their policy not to discuss such matters without a release from his guardians, and the boy's parents have yet to allow it.
So, my point here is that there is possibly a valid reason for what happened to this boy and his "clock" but we are only getting one side of the story so it's really hard to know. I choose not to jump to conclusions either way, but there just MIGHT be a bit of fault to lay at this boy's feet.... It just MIGHT be that the authorities acted totally properly and within their policy...
Naw, we just need a law that carriers must AUTOMATICALLY unlock a phone that was paid for. So when your contract is up, your phone gets unlocked w/o you having to ask for it.
Personally, I would demand the phone be unlocked upon final payment.... And I have done that a couple of times.. Keeping the receipt is nice, but having the phone already unlocked is better...
LOL... Well, I know a guy..... He reprogramed the ECM of the Chrysler V8 he shoe horned under the hood of the Mazda Miata he owned so the reported VIN was that of the Miata and thus avoided having to argue about the car passing emission inspections via ODBII scans... How that thing passed the safety inspections was beyond me, it idled at 40MPH and touching the gas was not for the faint of heart. Not sure if that was illegal, but it sure kept him getting his yearly inspection stickers w/o the debate... Sometimes you gota do what you gota do....
Still, giving away resources to folks who can otherwise support themselves is a bad idea for a government. Once you accept the argument that it's the government's job to make sure everybody is at some minimum level, regardless of their ability to support themselves, there is literally no way to keep what I call "Scope Creep" from happening.... "Well, if you provide this service, we should provide this additional service too because it makes sense..." The problem is, we end up having to provide a long list of services to people who could otherwise support themselves just fine and blowing though more money than the Bureau of Engraving can print.
Right now 60+% of the money spent by the Federal government goes to entitlements which is totally out of line with reality and unsustainable. Adding some other entitlement won't help that for sure, won't really help anybody out of poverty and will likely cause more folks to fall into poverty as welfare becomes more comfortable.
Now, if you want to start a program to produce jobs for people, retrain people with marketable skills, provide employer tax credits for hiring the chronically unemployed and stuff like that, we can talk... But this minimum standard of living talk is a non-starter in my book.
They didn't fine them? I understand it will be expensive for them to reprogram all the cars again, but you'd think they'd levy a fine on top of everything for knowingly defying the law.
They didn't fine them... YET.... You can bet the fines will be forthcoming and that VW and the government are currently spit-balling over the amount though their respective lawyers...
First things first.. You have to determine exactly how many cars are involved, how hard the "fix" will be and get the cars fixed... Oh, and you need to make sure you have time for the bribes and back room deals to happen...
No, but history is a pretty good indication that failure is likely...
It is the height of hubris to think that we somehow in this more unlighted age can somehow manage a previously failed concept better when we do it over what happened historically. Sorry, but we are NOT smarter than the people from history...
But the argument from history is about principles that guide the idea, and not necessarily the details of the program in question. Historically, just giving away a minimum living has not worked out well in principle OR in practice...
The kid was arrested on suspicion of committing a "bomb hoax" which implies they suspected that the device he built was INTENDED to look like a bomb and that he was trying to act like it was a bomb.
So, by virtue of the fact the device looked the part of a hoax bomb, the authorities had to act per their process in these cases which is CALL THE POLICE, who acted in accordance to their process as well. None of this seems unreasonable if you do a bit of thinking about what each of the decision makers might have seen and what we all can imagine the process says they have to do in these cases.
I would like to remind EVERYBODY that we are only getting one side of this story and that comes from the kid and his parents. The school and the police have clearly indicated that there is more to this, but they are unable to discuss it because of their policy. In hindsight it sure looks like these people overreacted, but we don't have all the facts and there are some pretty plausible scenarios that might put this in a whole different light.
Capitalism implies taking risks and having personal freedom to do so. But it also implies that we ENCOURAGE such behaviors as personal responsibility, hard work, and investment by allowing big rewards. Where a minimum income is a laudable goal, and I'm not opposed to helping people who cannot help themselves, providing a comfortable living for those who could otherwise support themselves by working is cruel in the long run and stifles economic growth and productivity. People naturally become more lazy and dependent when they are not expected to take responsibility for themselves which is counter to the way capitalism works.
Communism is working very well for China - it seems to be beating capitalism....
Not really.. Where China is doing so well is where they've instituted free market reforms... Oh, and let's not forget that China doesn't care about the environment, has cheap labor because they don't provide much pay or benefits, and energy prices are rock bottom because they don't care how the produce it.
China is actually a textbook example of how capitalistic free markets can produce great increases in wealth over the other systems out there, such as the Communism system it is slowly replacing.
Dude, he was arrested for a possible "bomb hoax". Given the device's appearance and the events leading up to what happened in the middle of English class, it doesn't seem outside of the realm of reason that authorities acted properly, or at least within their established procedures.
I'm saying that there is another side to this story that we are NOT hearing because the authorities are following their procedures and are not allowed to discuss the actual events, all we have is what the kid and his activist parents are saying. The school is saying that there is more information, but without written permission from the boy's parents they cannot discuss it.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly....
I disagree but hey, we DON'T really know what this kid was doing in English class as only one side of the story is out. Who knows, he could have been doing a live count down followed by yelling "boom" when the alarm went off for all you and I know. All I can say is that the school and police cannot discuss the events in detail without written permission from this kid's guardian, who has refused to give consent.
So, perhaps your imagination is a bit limited, you have a bias to distrust authority, or you have made your own set of assumptions for political reasons and don't wish to revisit them, but there ARE possible scenarios here where this whole think played out properly and everybody followed the process as they should. Even ones where the kid didn't do or say anything really wrong but just did something stupid and naïve.
They are not that different considering how far out of habitable they both are. I would consider the moon less habitable, given that there is literally NOTHING there in the vacuum of space over Mars where it's just really thin atmosphere. They are both dusty, it's hard to land large objects on them, they are both going to require a pressurized habitat, to grow their own food and manage their own CO2 and O2 levels, recycle waste water and be self contained. We will need portable energy supplies, contingency medical options and processes and procedures to deal with emergencies. We will need to develop and deploy communications networks and learn to deal with significant latency. Then there is the necessity of a heavy lift ability and economically viable ways of getting to and from orbit with people and materials.
Yes they are different destinations, but if you look at the difficulties they both present, it is a similar problem with one destination being in the backyard and the other being on another cotenant..
It's about going everywhere else. The tech developed going to Mars will undoubtedly be useful when going other places. You crawl before you walk, you walk before you run.
Then go to the moon first.... Colonize it where the technology can be perfected in a place where help is perhaps a week away and not at least a year away like Mars would be a lot of the time. IMHO we will kill less people this way and still get much of the same technologies developed we will need to keep expanding our reach. Take smaller steps. It's not as glamorous because we've been there before, but it gets us into technology development.
Both are necessary in balance or NOTHING gets done...
All leftists and you get emotional decisions that lack technical vision and proper engineering... Left to themselves, leftists are going to go out with a half baked solution that *might* work if they are lucky because the attempt is the reward and the possible success is valued above all.
Righties when left alone, never take risks, never try anything new, never leave their comfort zones until they are *sure* it will work. They figure, engineer, test and re-test until their resources and schedule are exhausted and always choose the least risky, less reward route.
It takes both types....
Leftists/realists didn't make the world we live in today. The only thing they're good at is whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining.
Actually, the "leftist" mentality is more about emotions and less about the cold hard reality. The revel in the pride and accomplishment that "going to Mars" would bring them and look at the folks who are talking about how many problems have to be overcome as the complainers....
It's cold, it's distant, landing mass on the surface safely is really difficult, there are no natural resources to utilize once we are there etc, pale in comparison to the "We went there and left footprints" (and piles of useless garbage), at least to the leftist... They are about instant gratification, and not into all the hard slogging that it takes to accomplish their goal... But they are the dreamers that push the righties out of their comfort zones, encourage them to take risks. Both are necessary.
Now you've done it... I wasted a LOT of my karma making this argument last week.... Have fun...
there was a toilet float attached to a switch to prevent a fluid fill, plus the foil, plus vibration switches, plus boobytrapped screws, plus decoy switches, plus shape charge defeating explosives in the detonator housing. McGuyver couldn't have stopped this one from happening.
But Chuck Norris could have...... McGuyver is a wimp....
It takes *intent* to make a "hoax bomb". If you look at that briefcase with nothing in it and try and convince somebody it's going to blow up, you are trying to create a "bomb hoax" which is a crime. Heck, it doesn't even take a briefcase, just an anonymous phone call to 911 is enough....
Don't make this hard, it really isn't.
Now if you build something that looks the part of a "hoax bomb" and go flashing it around in a pencil case, you might want to think about what others are going to think when they see it. It might be a really bad idea to plug it in during English class and let it "go off" like the 80's alarm clock it is, if for no other reason than you English teacher might not welcome the distraction to the class, is going to confiscate the distraction and then see what could be construed as a "hoax bomb" that went off during class. It's not a huge leap from there to "possible bomb hoax" which is a serious kettle of fish....
14 year old boys are notorious for not thinking ahead and if I'm any indication, the geeky ones tend to enjoy disrupting English class. Could it be he just did something stupid with his "clock" which got totally misinterpreted, but understandably so? That the English teacher and Administrators had no choice but to follow their "possible bomb hoax" policy? I think so...
Hmmm... And in Irving we had some kid's "clock" getting plugged in and going off in third period after his first period teacher says "Wow, nice. Some might think it looks like a bomb so put it away, don't show it to anybody, just take it home and don't bring it back to school." After which, this thing went off in English class. One would assume this boy knew it could/would go off when he plugged it in so IMHO it's likely this bright kid INTENDED it to disrupt English class, I know I would have loved to do that when I was his age. Hindsight says he didn't intend to do the Hoax Bomb thing, but how's the English teacher know that? She doesn't so she reported it per policy, and the process starts....
There is at least *some* justification for a bit of alarm on the part of the third period English teacher who reported it. The school administrator shows up, looks at the device and says (that sure looks like a hoax bomb) and at that point we where all victims of the process, regardless of what young 14 year old boy *says* he build or intended. The school has to run the "possible bomb hoax" process which goes something like, isolate the student, collect the device, and call the cops. Then the Cops have *their* procedures, "Bomb hoax complaint" with the Juvenile addendum which goes something like: Detain suspect, confiscate the device, Question suspect and witnesses, gather evidence and determine if a "bomb hoax" actually took place, then follow the evidence until you figure out what really happened. Which in this case was nothing so you release the suspect.
I'd like to remind everybody, before my karma get's tanked further on this topic, that we only have heard ONE side of this story from the boy's family. The Cops and the School both are prohibited by their policy from discussing the details of exactly what happened because it involves a minor. They have stated that they have additional information on this story that they'd like to release, but they need the family's permission to do so. So far, their requests for permission have not been even acknowledged by the press of the family.
IMHO this whole thing is being used as a PR campaign, not because anybody did anything actually wrong (including the kid) but because it advances a specific narrative...
Saavik: On the test, sir... will you tell me what you did? I would really like to know.
McCoy: Lieutenant, you are looking at the only Starfleet cadet who ever beat the no-win scenario.
Saavik: How?
Kirk: I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible......
Saavik: What?
David Marcus: He cheated.
Kirk: I changed the conditions of the test; got a commendation for original thinking. I don't like to lose.
Buy a new system. Power down every system in turn and try to power it up again. If it will not start, replace it.
NEVER power down old hardware on purpose unless you have backup plan for the system... Old hardware has a habit of not coming back when you power off and if it dies, you created an emergency for yourself...
There are going to be enough unforced errors in the process, you needn't go out and look to create them.
We don't know what this young kid said or did because his parents have so far refused to release the school and the police to disclose this information. The school and police are bound by their policy not to discuss such matters without a release from his guardians, and the boy's parents have yet to allow it.
So, my point here is that there is possibly a valid reason for what happened to this boy and his "clock" but we are only getting one side of the story so it's really hard to know. I choose not to jump to conclusions either way, but there just MIGHT be a bit of fault to lay at this boy's feet.... It just MIGHT be that the authorities acted totally properly and within their policy...
Naw, we just need a law that carriers must AUTOMATICALLY unlock a phone that was paid for. So when your contract is up, your phone gets unlocked w/o you having to ask for it.
Personally, I would demand the phone be unlocked upon final payment.... And I have done that a couple of times.. Keeping the receipt is nice, but having the phone already unlocked is better...
LOL... Well, I know a guy..... He reprogramed the ECM of the Chrysler V8 he shoe horned under the hood of the Mazda Miata he owned so the reported VIN was that of the Miata and thus avoided having to argue about the car passing emission inspections via ODBII scans... How that thing passed the safety inspections was beyond me, it idled at 40MPH and touching the gas was not for the faint of heart. Not sure if that was illegal, but it sure kept him getting his yearly inspection stickers w/o the debate... Sometimes you gota do what you gota do....
Still, giving away resources to folks who can otherwise support themselves is a bad idea for a government. Once you accept the argument that it's the government's job to make sure everybody is at some minimum level, regardless of their ability to support themselves, there is literally no way to keep what I call "Scope Creep" from happening.... "Well, if you provide this service, we should provide this additional service too because it makes sense..." The problem is, we end up having to provide a long list of services to people who could otherwise support themselves just fine and blowing though more money than the Bureau of Engraving can print.
Right now 60+% of the money spent by the Federal government goes to entitlements which is totally out of line with reality and unsustainable. Adding some other entitlement won't help that for sure, won't really help anybody out of poverty and will likely cause more folks to fall into poverty as welfare becomes more comfortable.
Now, if you want to start a program to produce jobs for people, retrain people with marketable skills, provide employer tax credits for hiring the chronically unemployed and stuff like that, we can talk... But this minimum standard of living talk is a non-starter in my book.
They didn't fine them? I understand it will be expensive for them to reprogram all the cars again, but you'd think they'd levy a fine on top of everything for knowingly defying the law.
They didn't fine them ... YET.... You can bet the fines will be forthcoming and that VW and the government are currently spit-balling over the amount though their respective lawyers...
First things first.. You have to determine exactly how many cars are involved, how hard the "fix" will be and get the cars fixed... Oh, and you need to make sure you have time for the bribes and back room deals to happen...
Now THAT would be illegal...
OH, so they purchased a VW Bug back in 1965? Damn oil cooler seals....
No, but history is a pretty good indication that failure is likely...
It is the height of hubris to think that we somehow in this more unlighted age can somehow manage a previously failed concept better when we do it over what happened historically. Sorry, but we are NOT smarter than the people from history...
But the argument from history is about principles that guide the idea, and not necessarily the details of the program in question. Historically, just giving away a minimum living has not worked out well in principle OR in practice...
The kid was arrested on suspicion of committing a "bomb hoax" which implies they suspected that the device he built was INTENDED to look like a bomb and that he was trying to act like it was a bomb.
So, by virtue of the fact the device looked the part of a hoax bomb, the authorities had to act per their process in these cases which is CALL THE POLICE, who acted in accordance to their process as well. None of this seems unreasonable if you do a bit of thinking about what each of the decision makers might have seen and what we all can imagine the process says they have to do in these cases.
I would like to remind EVERYBODY that we are only getting one side of this story and that comes from the kid and his parents. The school and the police have clearly indicated that there is more to this, but they are unable to discuss it because of their policy. In hindsight it sure looks like these people overreacted, but we don't have all the facts and there are some pretty plausible scenarios that might put this in a whole different light.
Under who's definition?
Capitalism implies taking risks and having personal freedom to do so. But it also implies that we ENCOURAGE such behaviors as personal responsibility, hard work, and investment by allowing big rewards. Where a minimum income is a laudable goal, and I'm not opposed to helping people who cannot help themselves, providing a comfortable living for those who could otherwise support themselves by working is cruel in the long run and stifles economic growth and productivity. People naturally become more lazy and dependent when they are not expected to take responsibility for themselves which is counter to the way capitalism works.
Communism is working very well for China - it seems to be beating capitalism....
Not really.. Where China is doing so well is where they've instituted free market reforms... Oh, and let's not forget that China doesn't care about the environment, has cheap labor because they don't provide much pay or benefits, and energy prices are rock bottom because they don't care how the produce it.
China is actually a textbook example of how capitalistic free markets can produce great increases in wealth over the other systems out there, such as the Communism system it is slowly replacing.
Dude, he was arrested for a possible "bomb hoax". Given the device's appearance and the events leading up to what happened in the middle of English class, it doesn't seem outside of the realm of reason that authorities acted properly, or at least within their established procedures.
I'm saying that there is another side to this story that we are NOT hearing because the authorities are following their procedures and are not allowed to discuss the actual events, all we have is what the kid and his activist parents are saying. The school is saying that there is more information, but without written permission from the boy's parents they cannot discuss it.