The fallacy is that you think it will need to be "perfect" to win a conviction.
Time for a reality check. Justice does not exist unless you have the money or notoriety to have a very influential legal team.
Once you are "in the system", the goal of the system operators is NOT to find justice. The goal is to feed the system. Convictions, and a plea bargain counts as a conviction, must be maintained so that someone looks good on a spreadsheet somewhere. So, if there is ever the slightest bit of evidence that you might be have been guilty of something, you are in the system. Barring some political clout to get you out, you will stay in the system until you are convicted or cop a plea bargain to make the pain stop.
A case in point, accusers can call the courthouse and beg off an appearance. You, as the accused, are not allowed to do that. The accusers can do it multiple times. You have to show up at the courthouse with your attorney every time. It is not exactly conducive to holding a job...unless you are the attorney.
Exactly. So often, once an investigation is started there is a need to find a perpetrator somewhere...ANYWHERE...to justify beginning the investigation.
Even worse is juvenile court. They use the justification that the "record is wiped clean" when they turn 16. So suddenly a note from a principal somehow becomes "evidence", and is sufficient to sentence a child to 9 months of probation.
How dare he create the expectation that teachers who claim to be "professionals" should be held to a standard of actually producing results. We can't have that, and unions are there specifically to make sure that it doesn't happen.
If these sensitivities were real (though I very much doubt that they are), he would have a point. Just because something has become socially common doesn't mean it's ok to do if it later turns out that it harms others in their own home.
Er, no offense, but no he wouldn't. He'd have a sensitivity that it would be incumbent upon him to solve. Otherwise what's to stop him from moving into an apartment in the center of a city and demanding that everyone in the building stop using electronics? He's welcome to retrofit his home to make it a Faraday cage if he wishes, but he has no right to restrict the law-abiding behavior of his neighbor in *her* home just because he's (supposedly) a genetic freak who can sense EMF radiation.
You should consult the American's With Disabilities Act. Basically, it says that if you are fucked up, all the rest of us are responsible for accommodating you.
If you tried to apply your "lactose intolerant" analogy, don't you suppose your opponent would point out that the makers of your favorite foods don't project those foods into your home against your wishes?
And yet, consider the American's With Disabilities Act.
You won't get off your fat ass for years, to the point that you become morbidly obese. Now it is my responsibility to ensure that you have a ramp that you can drive your government bought electric wheelchair up to get into my nightclub.
These people are to ignorant to know how stupid they are, but they've read a bit of propaganda and fancy themselves as "informed".
I was staying with a friend this past weekend and got to "enjoy" her father explaining why she should not drink water out of bottles ('cause it produces cancer), and should only drink water out of a ceramic urn with extremely diluted pomegranate juice. "It destroys the neutrons in your brain", he said...over and over. I cringed every time he said it, but bit my tongue out of...politeness?... Oh hell, I just didn't want to tell an old man that he was a mal-informed idiot. The juice in water is an upgrade from her standard diet, and will do no harm until it starts fermenting. Then she'll get a real body flush.
Sure, get get the warm fuzzy when coming home, but would what would Al Gore think of it? He'd have Michael Moore in his front yard telling everyone that he is the reason for global warming.
I predict this will happen in the year 2012, when all the planets get lined up. I just hope I have a dual engine plane to fly between falling skyscrapers.
There is a rarely recognized mentality that the government must provide a cure for every social ill. Very few politicians seem to be willing to stand up and say:
-"That's not something that laws can fix." -"Specific laws to address that issue would be worse than doing nothing." -"That is not a proper application of good governance."
All the politicians seem to be content to add more and more laws on top of more and more laws. "We have to do something, even if it is wrong" is something I use to scream on a construction site as a joke. It ain't funny anymore.
Also, we could set up organisations to tell the general public what has been concluded -- maybe called the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" or something similarly poncy.
I think that would be a great idea. Let's then set up a system such that this panel will be heavily influenced by political concerns so that certain people with vested interest will benefit greatly from it. That way, the data can be massaged to make the recommendation lead one way or the other. We wouldn't want scientist getting their reputations dinged, or people who've invested in cap-n-trade entities loosing their investments. That would be terrible.
So, you're smart and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot? You're data is as pure as the wind driven snow, and those that point out problems with it are just propagandist? The fact that many of the surface stations that all of these 'scientific' models rely on have been demonstrably discredited should just be ignored, because YOU are smarter than the rest of us?
And yet, you haven't figured out why the opposing side doesn't have the least amount of respect for your viewpoint?
They're dying because of they lack any of those things, they lack anything they could use to pay for their care, and it's perfectly correct to blame their death on any specific lack I want to, because if they had that specific thing, they would not be dying.
Thank you for displaying your complete inability to put together a cohesive thought, let alone a simple logical statement. People die, because they're sick. The lack of insurance did not cause them to get sick.
If NASA would fly me to the space station when I'm 80, I might be able to live to 83 due to the reduced gravity. NASA not flying me to the space station would not be the cause of me dying at 81. I do NOT have a right to be flown to the space station. I do NOT have a right to a doctor's time. I DO have a right to purchase a doctor's time. I do NOT have a right to force someone else to pay for me to purchase a doctor's time. I DO have a right to invest my resources into purchasing a doctor's time to attend to someone else's health as I see fit.
You think that it is ok to enslave part of the population and force them to work as you see fit. I think you're wrong, disgustingly so, but that's fine. I live in a country where people are allowed to disagree. But that doesn't mean that completely illogical statements must be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Now, if your claim was that "45000 fewer people would die each year if everyone had a doctor's care", your statement would be logical. It would still be completely wrong, but it would at least be logical.
Still, you might want to do some research to discover where that 45000 number came from.
I know where that number comes from. It comes from basic statistics. People who don't have health insurance have approximately a 60% higher mortality rate. (And this includes people who voluntarily don't have insurance, aka, they consider themselves healthy.)
You're hoping it came from some sort of subjective 'What did people die from, and could it have been prevented if insured?'. It did not.
Thank you for reiterating the democratic talking points and displaying your complete lack of knowledge. The number comes from a study conducted by David Himmelstein, M.D. and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D. It was a completely skewed "study", without any sort of proper controls. The study method did not even make sense. Not that you'll look it up and investigate for yourself, and I'll be damned if I spoon feed it to you. The short story is that it wasn't a study, it was propaganda.
I'm not sure of the question. I think there is some miscommunication going on. Let me try to clarify:
1) There is primary radar. This is the military type of radar that everyone thinks about. It sends out a strong signal and measures reflections. It gives the operator the position of a blip in 3D space. It is extremely expensive to operate, and therefore is limited in deployment.
2) There is secondary radar. This sends out a much weaker signal, which tickles the transponder on the airplane. The airplane's transponder responds by transmitting an encoded signal that can have various information. All transponders send a 4 digit code that the pilot sets. Usually it is a code given by ATC, but the pilot can set it to 1200 for VFR flight (meaning the pilot does not want to be followed by ATC), there is 7400 for the pilot to indicate that his radio is disfunctional, and 7600 to indicate that he has been hijacked. There are other special codes, but I don't have my lookup sheet with me.
Mode-C transponders connect to an encoder that connects to the static probe. The static probe measures the air pressure around the aircraft, which is used to indicate the airplane's altitude. There are errors that can happen with this setup, but you've got to have something.
Mode-S transponders connect to other sensors and transmit more information. I think speed and heading are among them, but the cost has kept me from even worrying about it.
The airspace is marked up, and once you've studied and taken the test you can read the secret markup from a "sectional" map...which costs about $10(US) and get updated every 6mos or so. The sectionals are crammed packed full of information, but a big part of that info (if you know how to read it) is what kind of equipment you have to have to fly in specific areas.
In "Class B" airspace, which surrounds very busy airports like Newark, NJ or Charlotte, NC, you have to have a mode-S transponder. Basically, they don't want me tooling around in my little 100mph airplane, trying to dodge 300mph jetliners. Not a bad idea, IMHO.
"Class C" airspace, around most regional airports, require the use of a Mode-C transponder.
Then there is flight-following. That's where you ask ATC to keep track of you and let you know if anyone is around you. They give you a number, you dial it in to your transponder, and everyone can see and be seen.
When it is operational, Class B and a lot of Class C is covered with primary radar. Flight following will get you secondary radar at best, and then only if you're above 3500ft. If you turn your transponder off while under secondary radar coverage, you disappear from ATC's view. If you drop below 3500ft you will probably disappear from ATC's view. If you dial in 1200, ATC will see you, but they'll ignore you for the most part.
This is a long post to disabuse anyone of the notion that there is a great "eye-in-the-sky" tracking every airplane.
Tell me about it. I'm building a Dyke Delta. Hope to have first engine run in a month or so. I can't count the times that I've been faced with the decision of buying a "certified" something or other vs an uncertified version at half the price. Just look at the battery section of Aircraft Spruce's website. The ultralight and homebuilt batteries are half the price of the certified one...IT'S ALL JUST LEAD IN SULFURIC ACID.
And people try to claim that regulations aren't expensive.
You don't see as many whites glorifying the hip hop gangsta culture, that makes being a thug, wearing bling, dealing drugs and violence as much as you do with young blacks.
In certain areas you do. 'Course, those people are mostly poor and unemployed. 8*)
The other place I disagree with is for the very poor- a doctors visit even at inflation adjusted prices of 30 years ago would be a significant cost to them and any just society would need to at least partially subsidize it.
If nearly every one of the "very poor" you speak of didn't have a cell phone, I might agree with you.
Yes, illegal immigrants should all be rounded up and deported,
Wrong. The should be rounded up and enrolled in a government controlled work program to insure:
1) They get paid. 2) They have safe working conditions. 3) They pay the appropriate taxes. 4) They go home when the job is done. 5) They can receive counseling on proper immigration procedures.
The current situation is ridiculous. As a society, the US wants the immigrants, because they work cheap, but we don't want the immigrants, because they work cheap. I say, bring the whole thing out into the open and make a legal path available.
Wrong. A significant amount of Americans foam at the mouth at the thought of a paternalistic government scheming to control more and more of our lives. It *IS* a slippery slope. Social Security and Medicare *ARE* socialism, and both programs *ARE* falling apart. The bill that just passed *WILL* force the disintegration of social programs to occur faster, and that disintegration *WILL* be used as an excuse to increase control more.
That is what we're foaming at the mouth about. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't care to be European. My feeling for European society can be summed up with the words "sniveling" and "weak". I've never been there. My views are derived from discussions that I've had with Europeans. You don't have to agree with me, but neither do I have to agree with you.
And then, you know, we could like use these computers to consolidate information from a lot of different sources. Then we could transmit all the information as one cohesive stream to everybody. So, like, you could have radar inputting information into the system where it is available. And people who know about weather could have an input about what they know about. Then airplanes could be reporting their own position, and companies like Garmin could input terrain information.
Wouldn't it be neat if someone came up with such a system?
The "inexpensive" ADS-B systems were targetted at a $10,000(US) price point. I really thought it was a joke for a GPS receiver and FM transmitter, but that is the way of the world any time you stick "aviation" next to it.
Slashdot Mirror
The fallacy is that you think it will need to be "perfect" to win a conviction.
Time for a reality check. Justice does not exist unless you have the money or notoriety to have a very influential legal team.
Once you are "in the system", the goal of the system operators is NOT to find justice. The goal is to feed the system. Convictions, and a plea bargain counts as a conviction, must be maintained so that someone looks good on a spreadsheet somewhere. So, if there is ever the slightest bit of evidence that you might be have been guilty of something, you are in the system. Barring some political clout to get you out, you will stay in the system until you are convicted or cop a plea bargain to make the pain stop.
A case in point, accusers can call the courthouse and beg off an appearance. You, as the accused, are not allowed to do that. The accusers can do it multiple times. You have to show up at the courthouse with your attorney every time. It is not exactly conducive to holding a job...unless you are the attorney.
Exactly. So often, once an investigation is started there is a need to find a perpetrator somewhere...ANYWHERE...to justify beginning the investigation.
Even worse is juvenile court. They use the justification that the "record is wiped clean" when they turn 16. So suddenly a note from a principal somehow becomes "evidence", and is sufficient to sentence a child to 9 months of probation.
Most airplanes also have rotary wings.
How dare he create the expectation that teachers who claim to be "professionals" should be held to a standard of actually producing results. We can't have that, and unions are there specifically to make sure that it doesn't happen.
If these sensitivities were real (though I very much doubt that they are), he would have a point. Just because something has become socially common doesn't mean it's ok to do if it later turns out that it harms others in their own home.
Er, no offense, but no he wouldn't. He'd have a sensitivity that it would be incumbent upon him to solve. Otherwise what's to stop him from moving into an apartment in the center of a city and demanding that everyone in the building stop using electronics? He's welcome to retrofit his home to make it a Faraday cage if he wishes, but he has no right to restrict the law-abiding behavior of his neighbor in *her* home just because he's (supposedly) a genetic freak who can sense EMF radiation.
You should consult the American's With Disabilities Act. Basically, it says that if you are fucked up, all the rest of us are responsible for accommodating you.
If you tried to apply your "lactose intolerant" analogy, don't you suppose your opponent would point out that the makers of your favorite foods don't project those foods into your home against your wishes?
And yet, consider the American's With Disabilities Act.
You won't get off your fat ass for years, to the point that you become morbidly obese. Now it is my responsibility to ensure that you have a ramp that you can drive your government bought electric wheelchair up to get into my nightclub.
Funny that. When the EM radiation is enough to melt the chocolate in your pocket, some people can sense it. 8*)
+5 informative.
These people are to ignorant to know how stupid they are, but they've read a bit of propaganda and fancy themselves as "informed".
I was staying with a friend this past weekend and got to "enjoy" her father explaining why she should not drink water out of bottles ('cause it produces cancer), and should only drink water out of a ceramic urn with extremely diluted pomegranate juice. "It destroys the neutrons in your brain", he said...over and over. I cringed every time he said it, but bit my tongue out of ...politeness?... Oh hell, I just didn't want to tell an old man that he was a mal-informed idiot. The juice in water is an upgrade from her standard diet, and will do no harm until it starts fermenting. Then she'll get a real body flush.
Sure, get get the warm fuzzy when coming home, but would what would Al Gore think of it? He'd have Michael Moore in his front yard telling everyone that he is the reason for global warming.
I predict this will happen in the year 2012, when all the planets get lined up. I just hope I have a dual engine plane to fly between falling skyscrapers.
Bravo, schwit1. Simply BRAVO.
There is a rarely recognized mentality that the government must provide a cure for every social ill. Very few politicians seem to be willing to stand up and say:
-"That's not something that laws can fix."
-"Specific laws to address that issue would be worse than doing nothing."
-"That is not a proper application of good governance."
All the politicians seem to be content to add more and more laws on top of more and more laws. "We have to do something, even if it is wrong" is something I use to scream on a construction site as a joke. It ain't funny anymore.
Any passenger using a cell phone for any reason should be okay.
Otherwise you might as well demand everyone in the car to wear gags, including kids and babies, in order to not distract the driver.
WE CAN DO THAT!?! Dang-it! If I had only known. Can we do it to wives?
Also, we could set up organisations to tell the general public what has been concluded -- maybe called the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" or something similarly poncy.
I think that would be a great idea. Let's then set up a system such that this panel will be heavily influenced by political concerns so that certain people with vested interest will benefit greatly from it. That way, the data can be massaged to make the recommendation lead one way or the other. We wouldn't want scientist getting their reputations dinged, or people who've invested in cap-n-trade entities loosing their investments. That would be terrible.
So, you're smart and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot? You're data is as pure as the wind driven snow, and those that point out problems with it are just propagandist? The fact that many of the surface stations that all of these 'scientific' models rely on have been demonstrably discredited should just be ignored, because YOU are smarter than the rest of us?
And yet, you haven't figured out why the opposing side doesn't have the least amount of respect for your viewpoint?
They're dying because of they lack any of those things, they lack anything they could use to pay for their care, and it's perfectly correct to blame their death on any specific lack I want to, because if they had that specific thing, they would not be dying.
Thank you for displaying your complete inability to put together a cohesive thought, let alone a simple logical statement. People die, because they're sick. The lack of insurance did not cause them to get sick.
If NASA would fly me to the space station when I'm 80, I might be able to live to 83 due to the reduced gravity. NASA not flying me to the space station would not be the cause of me dying at 81. I do NOT have a right to be flown to the space station. I do NOT have a right to a doctor's time. I DO have a right to purchase a doctor's time. I do NOT have a right to force someone else to pay for me to purchase a doctor's time. I DO have a right to invest my resources into purchasing a doctor's time to attend to someone else's health as I see fit.
You think that it is ok to enslave part of the population and force them to work as you see fit. I think you're wrong, disgustingly so, but that's fine. I live in a country where people are allowed to disagree. But that doesn't mean that completely illogical statements must be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Now, if your claim was that "45000 fewer people would die each year if everyone had a doctor's care", your statement would be logical. It would still be completely wrong, but it would at least be logical.
Still, you might want to do some research to discover where that 45000 number came from.
I know where that number comes from. It comes from basic statistics. People who don't have health insurance have approximately a 60% higher mortality rate. (And this includes people who voluntarily don't have insurance, aka, they consider themselves healthy.)
You're hoping it came from some sort of subjective 'What did people die from, and could it have been prevented if insured?'. It did not.
Thank you for reiterating the democratic talking points and displaying your complete lack of knowledge. The number comes from a study conducted by David Himmelstein, M.D. and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D. It was a completely skewed "study", without any sort of proper controls. The study method did not even make sense. Not that you'll look it up and investigate for yourself, and I'll be damned if I spoon feed it to you. The short story is that it wasn't a study, it was propaganda.
The confusion is 100% understandable.
I'm not sure of the question. I think there is some miscommunication going on. Let me try to clarify:
1) There is primary radar. This is the military type of radar that everyone thinks about. It sends out a strong signal and measures reflections. It gives the operator the position of a blip in 3D space. It is extremely expensive to operate, and therefore is limited in deployment.
2) There is secondary radar. This sends out a much weaker signal, which tickles the transponder on the airplane. The airplane's transponder responds by transmitting an encoded signal that can have various information. All transponders send a 4 digit code that the pilot sets. Usually it is a code given by ATC, but the pilot can set it to 1200 for VFR flight (meaning the pilot does not want to be followed by ATC), there is 7400 for the pilot to indicate that his radio is disfunctional, and 7600 to indicate that he has been hijacked. There are other special codes, but I don't have my lookup sheet with me.
Mode-C transponders connect to an encoder that connects to the static probe. The static probe measures the air pressure around the aircraft, which is used to indicate the airplane's altitude. There are errors that can happen with this setup, but you've got to have something.
Mode-S transponders connect to other sensors and transmit more information. I think speed and heading are among them, but the cost has kept me from even worrying about it.
The airspace is marked up, and once you've studied and taken the test you can read the secret markup from a "sectional" map...which costs about $10(US) and get updated every 6mos or so. The sectionals are crammed packed full of information, but a big part of that info (if you know how to read it) is what kind of equipment you have to have to fly in specific areas.
In "Class B" airspace, which surrounds very busy airports like Newark, NJ or Charlotte, NC, you have to have a mode-S transponder. Basically, they don't want me tooling around in my little 100mph airplane, trying to dodge 300mph jetliners. Not a bad idea, IMHO.
"Class C" airspace, around most regional airports, require the use of a Mode-C transponder.
Then there is flight-following. That's where you ask ATC to keep track of you and let you know if anyone is around you. They give you a number, you dial it in to your transponder, and everyone can see and be seen.
When it is operational, Class B and a lot of Class C is covered with primary radar. Flight following will get you secondary radar at best, and then only if you're above 3500ft. If you turn your transponder off while under secondary radar coverage, you disappear from ATC's view. If you drop below 3500ft you will probably disappear from ATC's view. If you dial in 1200, ATC will see you, but they'll ignore you for the most part.
This is a long post to disabuse anyone of the notion that there is a great "eye-in-the-sky" tracking every airplane.
Tell me about it. I'm building a Dyke Delta. Hope to have first engine run in a month or so. I can't count the times that I've been faced with the decision of buying a "certified" something or other vs an uncertified version at half the price. Just look at the battery section of Aircraft Spruce's website. The ultralight and homebuilt batteries are half the price of the certified one...IT'S ALL JUST LEAD IN SULFURIC ACID.
And people try to claim that regulations aren't expensive.
You don't see as many whites glorifying the hip hop gangsta culture, that makes being a thug, wearing bling, dealing drugs and violence as much as you do with young blacks.
In certain areas you do. 'Course, those people are mostly poor and unemployed. 8*)
The other place I disagree with is for the very poor- a doctors visit even at inflation adjusted prices of 30 years ago would be a significant cost to them and any just society would need to at least partially subsidize it.
If nearly every one of the "very poor" you speak of didn't have a cell phone, I might agree with you.
Yes, illegal immigrants should all be rounded up and deported,
Wrong. The should be rounded up and enrolled in a government controlled work program to insure:
1) They get paid.
2) They have safe working conditions.
3) They pay the appropriate taxes.
4) They go home when the job is done.
5) They can receive counseling on proper immigration procedures.
The current situation is ridiculous. As a society, the US wants the immigrants, because they work cheap, but we don't want the immigrants, because they work cheap. I say, bring the whole thing out into the open and make a legal path available.
Wrong. A significant amount of Americans foam at the mouth at the thought of a paternalistic government scheming to control more and more of our lives. It *IS* a slippery slope. Social Security and Medicare *ARE* socialism, and both programs *ARE* falling apart. The bill that just passed *WILL* force the disintegration of social programs to occur faster, and that disintegration *WILL* be used as an excuse to increase control more.
That is what we're foaming at the mouth about. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't care to be European. My feeling for European society can be summed up with the words "sniveling" and "weak". I've never been there. My views are derived from discussions that I've had with Europeans. You don't have to agree with me, but neither do I have to agree with you.
I am sure glad that we have Technomonics to keep us all safe.
http://www.itt.com/adsb/adsb-explained.html
And then, you know, we could like use these computers to consolidate information from a lot of different sources. Then we could transmit all the information as one cohesive stream to everybody. So, like, you could have radar inputting information into the system where it is available. And people who know about weather could have an input about what they know about. Then airplanes could be reporting their own position, and companies like Garmin could input terrain information.
Wouldn't it be neat if someone came up with such a system?
http://www.itt.com/adsb/adsb-explained.html
The "inexpensive" ADS-B systems were targetted at a $10,000(US) price point. I really thought it was a joke for a GPS receiver and FM transmitter, but that is the way of the world any time you stick "aviation" next to it.