Yes, except that it's A) The Washington Post, not FOX, and B) between 2002-2006, solidly in Bush's term. FOX is also carrying the story, and they also say--right up front, in the lede--that it was 2002-2006, and goes on to make it explicit in the first sentence: "The FBI violated the law in collecting thousands of U.S. telephone records during the Bush administration, The Washington Post reported Monday [emphasis mine]."
But don't let a silly little thing like fact get in the way of FOX-bashing.
Actually, I was living in the low-rent district for some of them--one complex even accepted Section 8, though I wasn't on that program. And I just bought my first house a few months ago.
The point, though, is that you may not like the terms, but the OP's comment about them being "unconscionable contracts of adhesion" fails on several points.
If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
Stevens, J., in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies, was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government."
Black, J., in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960).
There are others, but this case is an excellent example of the Court's concern in the second case: the "victim" is the child of a politician. Does anybody really think that there's not a chance said elected official wants to use her power to harass somebody who offended her child without actually posing a credible threat?
And how would that be "screwing" you? Seems to me that it would be considering a factor that has a correlation, if not an effect, upon an outcome. That's pretty much the basis of actuarial science.
But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.
Um...the cost of living is (officially) down. Matter of fact, that's been the source of a minor political argument: people whining that they deserve an automatic raise in their SS cheques despite the fact that the cost of living has gone down since last year.
Judge Learned Hand, in Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809 (1934). You should probably note that his was the dissenting opinion, not the majority opinion.
The last administration isn't around any more. This administration could set its self apart from the old one by requiring all voting system code be open-sourced. But I agree; the chances of that happening are not any better than under the old overlord.
He's from Chicago. You'll see open, transparent voting about the same time Earth gets a third moon.
Right now, the chances of dying on a Space Shuttle trip are a bit over one percent. That said, I'll bet if you were to offer rides to the public--knowing full-well that the odds of dying in a fiery hell of hydrazine and liquid oxygen are about two in one-fifty--I'll bet the line would be around the block before the last words were out of your mouth.
And I'd be at the front of that line.
Do you really think there's any shortage of people who wouldn't love to go to space, to explore something new? Even without any reward--hell, even if you didn't pay a salary for their service--you'd have no trouble finding volunteers. Lined up around the block, probably more than a few fist-fighting for one space closer to the head of the line.
And I'd make sure I won that fight.
In fact, you could probably make it a one-way mission--we'll send you to Mars, you'll help us with experiments, and you'll plant a flag with your name at the base, but we can't bring you home--and the volunteers would come.
Oh, yes, they'd come. Just for the chance to touch the soil of a foreign planet. The chance to travel to the great unknown, to be the first to do something truly majestic. Oh, yes, they'd come.
I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today. We (Finns) have had several changes to constitution as we see the world change.
So do we. In fact, we recognized that need early on and built in a process for it.
The problem comes when the legislature ignores the process and says "well, we want to do this, so we're just going to do it, lack of lawful authority be damned." When people accept the government's unauthorized laws on one point, it establishes a precedent that (constitutionally) unauthorized laws are just fine, and ultimately renders the whole document moot.
Want to step into a new function to adapt with the times? You can do that--just follow the procedure to do so. But if you can't garner the support to amend the Constitution, perhaps you ought to reconsider whether it's something you really ought to be doing.
If people should get a break, it's people who drive motorcycles which use far less space on the road. Or compact cars which are lighter and damage the road less.
Wouldn't these be the people who are getting good mileage?
Your crash numbers don't seem to exclude aircraft flown as freighters, a number that would disproportionately include the 737 (older aircraft often end their service lives as freighters--boxes don't care how bad the airplane looks, passengers do), so by looking at "hull-loss" accidents, you're going to have a higher number of accidents. I concede that accounting for this is going to make the fatality-per-crash numbers even worse for Boeing, but again, we have so many confounding variables here that the meaning of your results is unclear without explanation of your data, definitions, assumptions, etc.
Instead of hulls, you need to be looking at flight hours. Yes, looking at per-hull is better than just saying "more deaths on a Boeing," but it doesn't address the (strong) probability that the Boeings have accumulated more flight hours--the 737 series was introduced in 1967, the A320 in 1987.
If you really want to do it right, you need to compare not only for flight hours, but fleet age. If you were to compare a 1967 737 to a 1987 737, you'd find substantial differences between the two, and undoubtedly a commensurate difference in safety record. If you want to compare between the A320 and the 737, you need to account for design changes based on a twenty-year advance in the state of aviation (not to mention the age of the fleet--twenty years and umpteen thousands of cycles does Bad Things to aluminum, so the Boeing is already starting off in negative territory compared to a brand new 'Bus).
Finally, you probably also ought to adjust for passenger loads. If an airline flies Boeings on routes with higher passenger load factor, the number of passengers killed per crash will be higher than if they fly Airbuses at higher load factors.
(Yes, I have done aviation safety studies. Can you tell?)
Oh, and nobody goes on holiday without contact for over 24 hours, do they? I bring a laptop and a smartphone with me wherever I go. Even when I visited Northern Africa, I made sure to get online at least once a day to check, act on, and reply to my email.
Yes. Many of us actually like to get away from the world and relax when we're on vacation. Some of us even go to places where we can't get a signal--I go fishing in the backwoods, for example. Even when I'm going someplace more accessible, I still regularly leave my laptop, cell phone, etc. behind because my vacation is my time, and I don't want to be intruded upon.
Look at the Madoff scandal, SEC didn't want to hear about it.
If by "didn't want to hear about it" you mean "investigated him repeatedly and couldn't pin anything on him." Occasionally, criminals are crafty enough to dupe the police.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, except that it's A) The Washington Post, not FOX, and B) between 2002-2006, solidly in Bush's term. FOX is also carrying the story, and they also say--right up front, in the lede--that it was 2002-2006, and goes on to make it explicit in the first sentence: "The FBI violated the law in collecting thousands of U.S. telephone records during the Bush administration, The Washington Post reported Monday [emphasis mine]."
But don't let a silly little thing like fact get in the way of FOX-bashing.
I suspect this will die in court; the power to regulate interstate commerce is reserved exclusively to the Federal government.
The fact that it hit at a 33* angle suggests that the 54MPH was either groundspeed or total impact velocity, not just the vertical component.
Starting looking for a new job right away, and when you leave, do NOT give any notice. Just leave that same day, to spite them.
Insightful? Really? The mods must be drunk today.
Actually, I was living in the low-rent district for some of them--one complex even accepted Section 8, though I wasn't on that program. And I just bought my first house a few months ago.
The point, though, is that you may not like the terms, but the OP's comment about them being "unconscionable contracts of adhesion" fails on several points.
If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.
Why don't we ask Dan Rather how that worked out?
Stevens, J., in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
Black, J., in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960).
There are others, but this case is an excellent example of the Court's concern in the second case: the "victim" is the child of a politician. Does anybody really think that there's not a chance said elected official wants to use her power to harass somebody who offended her child without actually posing a credible threat?
And how would that be "screwing" you? Seems to me that it would be considering a factor that has a correlation, if not an effect, upon an outcome. That's pretty much the basis of actuarial science.
But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.
Um...the cost of living is (officially) down. Matter of fact, that's been the source of a minor political argument: people whining that they deserve an automatic raise in their SS cheques despite the fact that the cost of living has gone down since last year.
I expect they will be terminated soon enough, but don't you think it's fair to complete the investigation before we go around swinging the axe?
Judge Learned Hand, in Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809 (1934). You should probably note that his was the dissenting opinion, not the majority opinion.
4.01 inches is a fairly long antenna and to large to fit in lots of phones
You realize that antennas don't have to be straight, right? Helical coil is perhaps the most common shape for an antenna....
The last administration isn't around any more. This administration could set its self apart from the old one by requiring all voting system code be open-sourced. But I agree; the chances of that happening are not any better than under the old overlord.
He's from Chicago. You'll see open, transparent voting about the same time Earth gets a third moon.
They also handle like crap to begin with, so the extra unsprung weight isn't really noticeable.
You're kidding, right?
Right now, the chances of dying on a Space Shuttle trip are a bit over one percent. That said, I'll bet if you were to offer rides to the public--knowing full-well that the odds of dying in a fiery hell of hydrazine and liquid oxygen are about two in one-fifty--I'll bet the line would be around the block before the last words were out of your mouth.
And I'd be at the front of that line.
Do you really think there's any shortage of people who wouldn't love to go to space, to explore something new? Even without any reward--hell, even if you didn't pay a salary for their service--you'd have no trouble finding volunteers. Lined up around the block, probably more than a few fist-fighting for one space closer to the head of the line.
And I'd make sure I won that fight.
In fact, you could probably make it a one-way mission--we'll send you to Mars, you'll help us with experiments, and you'll plant a flag with your name at the base, but we can't bring you home--and the volunteers would come.
Oh, yes, they'd come. Just for the chance to touch the soil of a foreign planet. The chance to travel to the great unknown, to be the first to do something truly majestic. Oh, yes, they'd come.
I re-read it periodically
Why?
I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today. We (Finns) have had several changes to constitution as we see the world change.
So do we. In fact, we recognized that need early on and built in a process for it.
The problem comes when the legislature ignores the process and says "well, we want to do this, so we're just going to do it, lack of lawful authority be damned." When people accept the government's unauthorized laws on one point, it establishes a precedent that (constitutionally) unauthorized laws are just fine, and ultimately renders the whole document moot.
Want to step into a new function to adapt with the times? You can do that--just follow the procedure to do so. But if you can't garner the support to amend the Constitution, perhaps you ought to reconsider whether it's something you really ought to be doing.
If people should get a break, it's people who drive motorcycles which use far less space on the road. Or compact cars which are lighter and damage the road less.
Wouldn't these be the people who are getting good mileage?
Your crash numbers don't seem to exclude aircraft flown as freighters, a number that would disproportionately include the 737 (older aircraft often end their service lives as freighters--boxes don't care how bad the airplane looks, passengers do), so by looking at "hull-loss" accidents, you're going to have a higher number of accidents. I concede that accounting for this is going to make the fatality-per-crash numbers even worse for Boeing, but again, we have so many confounding variables here that the meaning of your results is unclear without explanation of your data, definitions, assumptions, etc.
And the scary part is that the government used exactly this reasoning to justify itself.
These days, I'd say .308 is more common that .30-'06. Much to my chagrin, mind you.
Delivered hulls? Raw fatalities?
You're doing it wrong.
Instead of hulls, you need to be looking at flight hours. Yes, looking at per-hull is better than just saying "more deaths on a Boeing," but it doesn't address the (strong) probability that the Boeings have accumulated more flight hours--the 737 series was introduced in 1967, the A320 in 1987.
If you really want to do it right, you need to compare not only for flight hours, but fleet age. If you were to compare a 1967 737 to a 1987 737, you'd find substantial differences between the two, and undoubtedly a commensurate difference in safety record. If you want to compare between the A320 and the 737, you need to account for design changes based on a twenty-year advance in the state of aviation (not to mention the age of the fleet--twenty years and umpteen thousands of cycles does Bad Things to aluminum, so the Boeing is already starting off in negative territory compared to a brand new 'Bus).
Finally, you probably also ought to adjust for passenger loads. If an airline flies Boeings on routes with higher passenger load factor, the number of passengers killed per crash will be higher than if they fly Airbuses at higher load factors.
(Yes, I have done aviation safety studies. Can you tell?)
With a real branding iron! And fire! Lots of fire!
Oh, and nobody goes on holiday without contact for over 24 hours, do they? I bring a laptop and a smartphone with me wherever I go. Even when I visited Northern Africa, I made sure to get online at least once a day to check, act on, and reply to my email.
Yes. Many of us actually like to get away from the world and relax when we're on vacation. Some of us even go to places where we can't get a signal--I go fishing in the backwoods, for example. Even when I'm going someplace more accessible, I still regularly leave my laptop, cell phone, etc. behind because my vacation is my time, and I don't want to be intruded upon.
Usedbook store?
Look at the Madoff scandal, SEC didn't want to hear about it.
If by "didn't want to hear about it" you mean "investigated him repeatedly and couldn't pin anything on him." Occasionally, criminals are crafty enough to dupe the police.