I agree -- otherwise we'll soon be catering to every possible issue that anyone has, and nothing will be allowed except staying in your bubble. Someone up above wrote an excellent post on where to draw the line.
As to the cited crash -- it seems reasonable to me that since planes DO weigh and tally up baggage and cargo, they should do the same for passengers -- especially since the "obesity epidemic" has made the old average weight-per-person obsolete. There is nothing 'discriminatory' about weighing everyone, keeping a running total, and cutting off the influx of warm bodies at the point where the plane is fully loaded. Or would the fat folks rather they ALL got on board based on the headcount alone, and the plane then went down??
Some years ago I had to take a really vile-tasting medicine (calling it merely "vile" is the same grade of understatement as calling the ocean "damp"). A couple years after that I had to take the same stuff again. So I dutifully poured it into the spoon, raised the spoon to my mouth -- and found my arm would not move any further, regardless of how much willpower I exerted. My body had decided for itself that it was having nothing to do with this poisonous-tasting stuff, and there was no convincing it to cooperate!
Must suck to be that radically allergic to a common substance.:(
But $90 per dose for epinephrine? Good grief, that's extortionate. You can buy a 30ml bottle of epinephrine (dosage level 1 ml per 100 lbs) for about $7.00 from any veterinary supply house, and a needle/syringe combo is 25 cents. Make your own shock kits for next to nothing. The drug comes from the same sources, it's just labeled for animals. Sure would beat being dead if money was short.
Actually, that's not a bad idea -- instead of inconveniencing whole planeloads of people and making it uneconomical for the airline to keep flying, why not issue a disposable hazmat suit to anyone who wants it? wouldn't have to be the full gear, just sufficiently tough to survive one flight. Material similar to exam gloves should be adequate, and is not expensive (exam gloves cost under 10 cents apiece). Better yet, the same breatheable-barrier material now used in snowmobile gloves.
And if it hasn't helped the situation (indeed, it is much worse now than ever) in all these decades, what makes you think more of same will help??
And why is one sort of meddling inherently better than another? As 10Ghz pointed out, foreign aid has done as much to destroy their agricultural base as drought and war. (And remember, they've had aid every year for decades; they haven't always had drought and war. Well, drought anyway.)
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
-- attrib. Albert Einstein
I swear, the whole liberal welfare-mentality isn't a political stance, it's a learning disability.
Are you trying to claim there were no wars in Africa before that? Methinks your historical perspective is a trifle short.
I'm reminded that one of the reasons ancient Egypt wound up overrun with illegal immigrants (hebrew tribes etc) is because they also had perhaps the first public welfare system. Why work hard on your own farm when someone else is willing to do it for you??
What's the estimated total aid the U.S. alone has sent to Africa in the past few decades -- something like 500 BILLION dollars? a great deal of which was already "agricultural" aid (do you have any idea how much farm equipment we've ALREADY sent to Africa? When investigated, it was discovered that most of it was allowed to go to rust and wasn't even used. Same with seed, fertilizer, etc.) If that didn't help, another $3.5B isn't going to make one whit of difference.
But it does go to illustrate what 10Ghz and I are saying.
If they couldn't get the U.S. to arm and train them, they got it from the USSR, or France, or whoever else was in the arms-and-meddling business. And if no one was... sharp sticks will still do the job, as African genocidal campaigns stretching back into prehistory should amply illustrate.
And if providing aid to the sick and starving works so well -- we've been providing aid to Africa for (counting British efforts) close on 200 years, so why is Africa now more full of sick and starving people than ever? And that despite being more *peaceful* today than it has typically been in all its history.
I doubt it was being considerate; rather, a way of preventing the talent from jumping ship and maybe benefiting another studio instead.
Similar to how today some music producers go around offering contracts to new bands -- with the sole objective of preventing them from becoming competition (either for that producer's existing acts or as a success for some other producer).
The movie moguls of yesteryear were equally interested in swindling their artists (which equates to actors, writers, etc.) out of their fair share. A few got rich but most were lucky to get paid at all. Studios have ALWAYS been creative at getting out of paying royalties, no matter the venue.
It seems to be the nature of the industry, all the way back to the earliest productions (I remember reading something from Shakespeare's era about how when a play was put on the actors always got the shaft, and I doubt the concept of "creative financials" was new then either).
However, welfare has never increased anyone's standard of living over the long haul, as both the billions poured into foreign aid in Africa and our own welfare states can attest.
And since the miners' unions managed to mostly commit suicide, you'd think (barring excessive interference from the EPA) that with reduced labour costs, mining in the U.S. should become cost-effective again in the near future.
Of course, given our current infatuation with "free trade" with China, we'd probably then stupidly export the raw materials and import the refined product, at a net loss to ourselves.:/
And I'm thinking... wind turbines, WTF? Wind power is fundamentally old technology; why is the new supposedly-greener generation dependent on stuff the old generation wasn't??
"Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous."
Or another postition -- "There are Things Out There (which we don't yet fully understand) that have some of the attributes of a god, but I don't believe that any of them are a supreme being per se, and I'm not required to believe in any of them that I don't wish to."
This is approximately the position of people who manage to be both pagans and atheists at the same time. More akin to the practical view of Greek/Roman polytheism than to modern religion.
Much of that area will NEVER have cell service, because mountains get in the way -- and this affects even some fair-sized cities, not just types like you and me who believe "if you can SEE the neighbours, they're too close!"
As to privatizing infrastructure... Police? Mafia. Education? Illiteracy, unless you're a monk. Roads? Mudholes from end to end. But otherwise... gov't, butt out!! Methinks we're in total agreement there:)
But the kind I'm talking about just had a single large U over the whole fixture, rather than separate shields for each lamp. So there was no bottom made by another top at all. Nothing for snow to rest on.
But come to think of it, I haven't seen that type in 30-some years, not since the previous shift to a newer type of traffic light.
I've pulled MT highway patrol cars out of the ditch twice, which I suppose goes to show that anyone can make a mistake on an icy road:) But in general people who drive larger vehicles are more aware of their size, weight, and inertia, while drivers of little vehicles are more used to scooting around and driving 'abruptly'. So when inertia on ice comes into play, it's more likely to hit those not used to routinely accounting for it (and they tend to forget that bigger vehicles have more inertia, too, and get in the way more often in bad conditions). Same seems to apply for intersections -- when in doubt, the little cars are a lot more likely to try to scoot on through, thinking they're always quick enough to make it.
At least, such is my observation. Of course it's not universal... the most drastic example of "OMFG IT'S ICE!!" I've ever seen involved two 18-wheelers about 30 miles north of West Yellowstone, on wet ice. The best of us, with chains on, were creeping along at 10mph and having enough trouble at that. These two apparently didn't realise what they were getting into... fortunately everyone else was on the side of the road chaining up when first one, and 30 seconds later the other, came ripping through at high speed (about 30mph, which was way too fast for conditions), eyes wide and britches a-brownin'.... Amazingly, when they both jackknifed just around the next corner, they didn't hit ANYTHING else, and wound up nestled against each other (facing in opposite directions) like they'd been placed that way on purpose, without even a dent to show for it. Damned lucky all around.
And next time I trekked southward in winter, I went through Dillon instead, thank you very much.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree -- otherwise we'll soon be catering to every possible issue that anyone has, and nothing will be allowed except staying in your bubble. Someone up above wrote an excellent post on where to draw the line.
As to the cited crash -- it seems reasonable to me that since planes DO weigh and tally up baggage and cargo, they should do the same for passengers -- especially since the "obesity epidemic" has made the old average weight-per-person obsolete. There is nothing 'discriminatory' about weighing everyone, keeping a running total, and cutting off the influx of warm bodies at the point where the plane is fully loaded. Or would the fat folks rather they ALL got on board based on the headcount alone, and the plane then went down??
Some years ago I had to take a really vile-tasting medicine (calling it merely "vile" is the same grade of understatement as calling the ocean "damp"). A couple years after that I had to take the same stuff again. So I dutifully poured it into the spoon, raised the spoon to my mouth -- and found my arm would not move any further, regardless of how much willpower I exerted. My body had decided for itself that it was having nothing to do with this poisonous-tasting stuff, and there was no convincing it to cooperate!
Must suck to be that radically allergic to a common substance. :(
But $90 per dose for epinephrine? Good grief, that's extortionate. You can buy a 30ml bottle of epinephrine (dosage level 1 ml per 100 lbs) for about $7.00 from any veterinary supply house, and a needle/syringe combo is 25 cents. Make your own shock kits for next to nothing. The drug comes from the same sources, it's just labeled for animals. Sure would beat being dead if money was short.
Actually, that's not a bad idea -- instead of inconveniencing whole planeloads of people and making it uneconomical for the airline to keep flying, why not issue a disposable hazmat suit to anyone who wants it? wouldn't have to be the full gear, just sufficiently tough to survive one flight. Material similar to exam gloves should be adequate, and is not expensive (exam gloves cost under 10 cents apiece). Better yet, the same breatheable-barrier material now used in snowmobile gloves.
But what about when it becomes an all too likely:
Oh, don't worry, we're only taking pictures of your back yard to measure the snow levels..
or (perhaps facetious but the idea did occur to me):
Hey! give us those pictures you promised us -- I don't care if we're scientists working for your nation's enemies!
And if it hasn't helped the situation (indeed, it is much worse now than ever) in all these decades, what makes you think more of same will help??
And why is one sort of meddling inherently better than another? As 10Ghz pointed out, foreign aid has done as much to destroy their agricultural base as drought and war. (And remember, they've had aid every year for decades; they haven't always had drought and war. Well, drought anyway.)
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
-- attrib. Albert Einstein
I swear, the whole liberal welfare-mentality isn't a political stance, it's a learning disability.
Are you trying to claim there were no wars in Africa before that? Methinks your historical perspective is a trifle short.
I'm reminded that one of the reasons ancient Egypt wound up overrun with illegal immigrants (hebrew tribes etc) is because they also had perhaps the first public welfare system. Why work hard on your own farm when someone else is willing to do it for you??
What's the estimated total aid the U.S. alone has sent to Africa in the past few decades -- something like 500 BILLION dollars? a great deal of which was already "agricultural" aid (do you have any idea how much farm equipment we've ALREADY sent to Africa? When investigated, it was discovered that most of it was allowed to go to rust and wasn't even used. Same with seed, fertilizer, etc.) If that didn't help, another $3.5B isn't going to make one whit of difference.
But it does go to illustrate what 10Ghz and I are saying.
If they couldn't get the U.S. to arm and train them, they got it from the USSR, or France, or whoever else was in the arms-and-meddling business. And if no one was... sharp sticks will still do the job, as African genocidal campaigns stretching back into prehistory should amply illustrate.
And if providing aid to the sick and starving works so well -- we've been providing aid to Africa for (counting British efforts) close on 200 years, so why is Africa now more full of sick and starving people than ever? And that despite being more *peaceful* today than it has typically been in all its history.
Yep (that's a good one) ... same principle, with the jaundiced view that welfare burns your future.
I doubt it was being considerate; rather, a way of preventing the talent from jumping ship and maybe benefiting another studio instead.
Similar to how today some music producers go around offering contracts to new bands -- with the sole objective of preventing them from becoming competition (either for that producer's existing acts or as a success for some other producer).
But they already had a good "standard of living" so to speak... with some creative bookkeeping.
Hmmm... didn't we decide somewhere downbelow that there are good reasons why Bono is a singer, not an accountant?
The movie moguls of yesteryear were equally interested in swindling their artists (which equates to actors, writers, etc.) out of their fair share. A few got rich but most were lucky to get paid at all. Studios have ALWAYS been creative at getting out of paying royalties, no matter the venue.
It seems to be the nature of the industry, all the way back to the earliest productions (I remember reading something from Shakespeare's era about how when a play was put on the actors always got the shaft, and I doubt the concept of "creative financials" was new then either).
Now we know why Bono is a singer, not an accountant.
Another corollary:
Give a man a fish today, and tomorrow he demands, "Where's my fuckin' fish??"
Meanwhile, his nets rot on the beach.
However, welfare has never increased anyone's standard of living over the long haul, as both the billions poured into foreign aid in Africa and our own welfare states can attest.
Crap, you mean it was contagious?!!
And since the miners' unions managed to mostly commit suicide, you'd think (barring excessive interference from the EPA) that with reduced labour costs, mining in the U.S. should become cost-effective again in the near future.
Of course, given our current infatuation with "free trade" with China, we'd probably then stupidly export the raw materials and import the refined product, at a net loss to ourselves. :/
And I'm thinking... wind turbines, WTF? Wind power is fundamentally old technology; why is the new supposedly-greener generation dependent on stuff the old generation wasn't??
In that case, it ought to read:
There are Things Out There (which we don't yet fully understand) that have some of the attributes of a daemon. ;)
From TFA:
"Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous."
Can't put it any better than that.
Or another postition -- "There are Things Out There (which we don't yet fully understand) that have some of the attributes of a god, but I don't believe that any of them are a supreme being per se, and I'm not required to believe in any of them that I don't wish to."
This is approximately the position of people who manage to be both pagans and atheists at the same time. More akin to the practical view of Greek/Roman polytheism than to modern religion.
As to the notion that it's time to cut the POTS cord, I offer up Exhibit A, AT&T's own coverage map: http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer
Much of that area will NEVER have cell service, because mountains get in the way -- and this affects even some fair-sized cities, not just types like you and me who believe "if you can SEE the neighbours, they're too close!"
As to privatizing infrastructure... Police? Mafia. Education? Illiteracy, unless you're a monk. Roads? Mudholes from end to end. But otherwise... gov't, butt out!! Methinks we're in total agreement there :)
BTW love the restored truck website :D
But the kind I'm talking about just had a single large U over the whole fixture, rather than separate shields for each lamp. So there was no bottom made by another top at all. Nothing for snow to rest on.
But come to think of it, I haven't seen that type in 30-some years, not since the previous shift to a newer type of traffic light.
I've pulled MT highway patrol cars out of the ditch twice, which I suppose goes to show that anyone can make a mistake on an icy road :) But in general people who drive larger vehicles are more aware of their size, weight, and inertia, while drivers of little vehicles are more used to scooting around and driving 'abruptly'. So when inertia on ice comes into play, it's more likely to hit those not used to routinely accounting for it (and they tend to forget that bigger vehicles have more inertia, too, and get in the way more often in bad conditions). Same seems to apply for intersections -- when in doubt, the little cars are a lot more likely to try to scoot on through, thinking they're always quick enough to make it.
At least, such is my observation. Of course it's not universal... the most drastic example of "OMFG IT'S ICE!!" I've ever seen involved two 18-wheelers about 30 miles north of West Yellowstone, on wet ice. The best of us, with chains on, were creeping along at 10mph and having enough trouble at that. These two apparently didn't realise what they were getting into... fortunately everyone else was on the side of the road chaining up when first one, and 30 seconds later the other, came ripping through at high speed (about 30mph, which was way too fast for conditions), eyes wide and britches a-brownin'.... Amazingly, when they both jackknifed just around the next corner, they didn't hit ANYTHING else, and wound up nestled against each other (facing in opposite directions) like they'd been placed that way on purpose, without even a dent to show for it. Damned lucky all around.
And next time I trekked southward in winter, I went through Dillon instead, thank you very much. :)