For those interested in the redlight camera controversy, visit http://www.thenewspaper.com/ for tons of articles and documentation on why it's such a bad idea, being utterly counter to public safety. (But fully in line with viewing citizens as wallets to be emptied.)
I lived in MT for many years, drive a fullsize pickup, and every winter I pulled several little cars out of the ditch. Never found a pickup or SUV in the ditch, tho.
If you make a mistake on ice, you pay for it a lot quicker in a lighter vehicle that takes on spin more readily.
The old-style shields used to go all the way around the top and sides of the entire fixture (leaving the bottom open) rather than just around the top of each lens; what happened to using those? They have no "below" to have snow pile up on in the first place!
I swear, designers these days never use their own products...
Contrary to the rest of the world's perception, ND is one of the most technically advanced states in practical workaday stuff. So no wonder they got it right... And having lived in ND, I'd be astonished if *anywhere* has worse blizzards!
But if melting off snow is an issue (and trust me, it can be even with the old lights) why not use a simple and cheap solution like low-wattage heat tape that turns on at a specified temperature? It's not like this is rocket science, trailer owners have used it to keep their pipes from freezing for decades. Embed the wires in the glass shield akin to how it's done in car windows.
But maybe having fewer stupid people would be the best option. When we had snow-encrusted lights in MT, people had sense enough to behave like it was a 4-way stop, not try to barge along regardless.
You're describing what I call functional schizophrenia, essentially a failure to mature past roughly a 12 year old's emotional state and method of pigeonholing the world. It's just as prevalent in engineering, math, and programming, but those tend to be more obviously unbalanced, thus easier to dismiss as crackpots. Also, more prone to be afraid of the world, so they don't change the world the way the liberal arts types wind up doing.
The "smart ones", ie. who are NOT this sort of schizo -- aren't trapped in the need to validate and enable their own worldview.
Oh yes, that's it -- and what an exquisite performance! Perfectly captures that wondrous meld of grandeur and terror, especially at the conclusion. Thanks so much for pointing me at this!!!
BTW do you know when it was recorded? It looks fairly old.
(Grabbed as an mp4 thru Clipnabber, so the sound wasn't too badly mauled, and even retains some of the concert hall ambience that I find so necessary. I *hate* what compression, including CDs, do to classical music.)
That's likely it (I say, having not heard it in decades) -- I vaguely recall this memorable bit is short and well into the work, and sortof hammers at you on its way by. And my ear always wanted to hear more of it.
Really? Thanks for the info. The source of the quote (which some 35 years later I apparently slightly misremembered) wasn't given in the broadcast.
There's a chunk of the 5th that always puts me in mind of gunpowder kegs rolling along a cobbled street, ponderously out of control. So I call it the 'barrel roll symphony'.:)
I'd think chucking a few cans of shaving cream into open vents, turbines, or whatever else has already been inspected for the flight and will hold a pressurized can in place for half an hour or so, would be just as effective, and a lot cheaper (no need to buy a ticket, just hie yourself over the airport fence in the dark of night).
Or put another way, your chances of contracting TB while on an international flight are perhaps a few thousand times higher (judging by the stats someone posted above about miles flown per terror incident) than of being the subject of a terror incident.
Agreed, but I think the parent post had the same idea: Shit happens, shit will ALWAYS happen -- so let's deal sensibly with it instead of being mindlessly afraid of it and going off the deep end in the name of Shit Must Never Happen. And don't scream to mommy to save you, or duck down and hope to go unnoticed, when you're perfectly capable of saving yourself (or when the group is capable of saving itself, such as swarming a would-be hijacker).
I think you're right on what this will do to air travel. The future may well be strictly small-craft charter flights, if only because (at least for now) it doesn't force you to be a walk-on in a security theatre production. Of course, once some yahoo uses a small craft as a mobile bomb, expect the same restrictions to trickle down.
And then what -- trains, busses, private cars, walking?? there's no logical stopping point until we're all permanently confined in our own homes. (Well, the gov't-owned homes that they graciously allow us to use...)
No more than the literal truth. TV news doesn't exist to inform the public; it exists to sell YOUR eyeballs to THEIR advertisers. The more eyeballs are glued to the screen, the more their ad-time is worth in the open market. They don't really give a shit WHY your eyeballs are present, so long as they're salable.
As it happens, you're wrong -- total gun deaths, about 3000/year in the U.S., including crap like gang shootings (which account for around half of 'em, last I heard).
Contrast that to somewhere around 30,000 auto-related deaths, and 100,000 deaths caused by physicians' errors.
As it turns out, rotting plant material doesn't cut it as fertilizer at the crop-production level, and when actually studied, was found to have far less benefit than was previously assumed. Some external source of nitrogen is still needed -- remember what is harvested and eaten is GONE from that field, so there is always a net loss of soil nutrients, which must be replaced if crop production is to continue. And most plants are not themselves nitrogen fixers, nor do most plants maintain nitrogen-fixing bacteria. That's principally a legume thing, but it takes about 3 years of legume cultivation -- and none of them are particularly efficient as food crops -- to renew the soil to where you can grow more-efficient grains or root crops there again. A typical rotation is 1 year of potatoes, 2 years of wheat, and 3 years of alfalfa -- NOT a human-edible crop -- which is then fed to meat animals whose manure in turn is used to fertilize the land for the next rotation cycle.
Even grazing land needs some nitrogen returned to the soil, which it gets from the feces of the animals that graze on it.
This has been understood in a practical sense for millennia -- back in medieval times, if you didn't put your sheep in the local head honcho's fold at night, so they'd do their crapping in a harvestable place, it was considered theft. Manure was that valuable.
CA didn't used to be *predominantly* Hispanic in population or culture... during its nominal Spanish/Mexican rule, it had very little population of any sort (and remember CA's first major immigrants were Russians, not Spaniards, and the Spaniards were mainly around the Catholic missions) -- significant population came only AFTER it became part of the U.S., or more specifically, after the gold rush of the mid-1800s, and that almost entirely from the eastern U.S.
But it has changed radically just during my lifetime, from a part of the United States, into El Estado Mexicano del Norte -- from around 10% hispanic, and mainly temporary migrant workers at that, to about 40% and almost all permanent residents (legal or not).
Tell the kid there's something nifty hidden on the computer, but that he'll need to write the tools to get at it. He'll be learning to code in no time flat.:)
So I asked my sheep-ranching relatives about it, and here's the response:
====== We don't have sheep anymore, but years ago, I remember hearing about this. Maybe the drug has been refined, but at that time, most of the wool was found in the fence lines, brush and any other rubbing material. The wool didn't come off evenly, so most of them ran around looking like mange had set in. They might start the shedding process at the neck or legs and then eventually, the rest would let go. I can just imagine the poor creatures having their wool yanked out before it was ready to let loose. Yes, there are few and far between, shearers... probably they will go the way of the sheepherders. When I had my angora goats, and they have to be clipped twice a year, it was impossible to find anyone with any experience to do the job. Also, it was impossible to get the hair to market.... and as far as culling the herd, we just don't eat a lot of goat meat here in Montana. I did love the little things and still appreciate the fact I did get to raise them a few years. ======
So... apparently it was tried, but the results were too inconsistent to be commercially viable.
Might still be something for folks who just keep a few wool sheep for dog training or weed control, tho. (Not needed for hair sheep, since they shed on their own.)
From observing dogs, I've concluded that what we call the limits of animal intelligence not a *difference* from human intelligence, but is in fact the point at which they *stopped maturing* intellectually. With dogs that's about the same point where a 2 to 5 year old human child is at, depending on the breed and individual. They behave, think, learn, and react very similarly, and have approximately the same instincts -- to the point that I tell my puppy people they are getting a perpetual toddler.:)
So, no, not a difference at all, but rather, a different range from the same continuum.
I'd never heard of it, but it's an interesting concept... I'll have to ask my sheep-ranching uncle about it. -- I think the limiting factor would be how closely it could be controlled timing-wise, so you don't wind up with fleeces shed all over the landscape, and how cost-effective it would be compared to a shearing crew.
Sheep don't particularly mind being sheared (in fact most are completely docile about it, then leap for joy at being rid of that heavy coat) but it is time-consuming and *very* labour-intensive, and the real problem is that there are fewer and fewer experienced shearing crews, plus it's becoming more and more expensive to hire them (not enough competition to keep their rates, uh, competitive).
However, if the drug's effects are sufficiently predictable, I can readily visualize a simple automated chute that works sortof like a car wash, to "break" the fleece off the sheep as it passes along the chute. (Or even set a bunch of teenagers to the job, no special equipment needed.) The main downside would be that you'd have to either process all the sheep twice (once to dose them, once to harvest wool, if it acts slowly) or at the very least keep them in the barnyard a few days (if it acts quickly). Or maybe change your management so shearing and lambing are a single slightly-longer operation, rather than spread out across early spring.
I agree, but my point was that humans should not be unduely censured for being ordinary animals in every way, including killing other animals (or for torture, cruelty, whatever). Only humans have decided that an ethical issue exists, and mass adoption of the concept of "ethics" (as distinct from good species survival policies) is itself recent concept -- I'm not so sure the entire idea isn't a side effect of an increasing level of immaturity in the average person, ie. a child's way of saying "NO FAIR!" to adults.
Veganism isn't a dietary choice, it's a method of human extinction (it is not possible to raise healthy children on a vegan diet; and crop agriculture is largely dependent on animal agriculture for that single most limiting factor: nitrogen). Since ethics (in the original unwarped form) are supposed to promote species survival, it follows that veganism is unethical.
Slashdot Mirror
include airport.c
baggage==random();
Something like that?
(IANAP, obviously :)
For those interested in the redlight camera controversy, visit http://www.thenewspaper.com/ for tons of articles and documentation on why it's such a bad idea, being utterly counter to public safety. (But fully in line with viewing citizens as wallets to be emptied.)
Oh, I see. The actual exercise was to express "Penny wise, pound foolish" as a physics problem.
I lived in MT for many years, drive a fullsize pickup, and every winter I pulled several little cars out of the ditch. Never found a pickup or SUV in the ditch, tho.
If you make a mistake on ice, you pay for it a lot quicker in a lighter vehicle that takes on spin more readily.
The old-style shields used to go all the way around the top and sides of the entire fixture (leaving the bottom open) rather than just around the top of each lens; what happened to using those? They have no "below" to have snow pile up on in the first place!
I swear, designers these days never use their own products...
Contrary to the rest of the world's perception, ND is one of the most technically advanced states in practical workaday stuff. So no wonder they got it right... And having lived in ND, I'd be astonished if *anywhere* has worse blizzards!
But if melting off snow is an issue (and trust me, it can be even with the old lights) why not use a simple and cheap solution like low-wattage heat tape that turns on at a specified temperature? It's not like this is rocket science, trailer owners have used it to keep their pipes from freezing for decades. Embed the wires in the glass shield akin to how it's done in car windows.
But maybe having fewer stupid people would be the best option. When we had snow-encrusted lights in MT, people had sense enough to behave like it was a 4-way stop, not try to barge along regardless.
You're describing what I call functional schizophrenia, essentially a failure to mature past roughly a 12 year old's emotional state and method of pigeonholing the world. It's just as prevalent in engineering, math, and programming, but those tend to be more obviously unbalanced, thus easier to dismiss as crackpots. Also, more prone to be afraid of the world, so they don't change the world the way the liberal arts types wind up doing.
The "smart ones", ie. who are NOT this sort of schizo -- aren't trapped in the need to validate and enable their own worldview.
Oh yes, that's it -- and what an exquisite performance! Perfectly captures that wondrous meld of grandeur and terror, especially at the conclusion. Thanks so much for pointing me at this!!!
BTW do you know when it was recorded? It looks fairly old.
(Grabbed as an mp4 thru Clipnabber, so the sound wasn't too badly mauled, and even retains some of the concert hall ambience that I find so necessary. I *hate* what compression, including CDs, do to classical music.)
That wasn't the point, tho. The distilled point was that the vegan ideal of purely plant agriculture, with no animal involvement, isn't doable.
If you plan to feed humanity with the plants, yes. You can't do it with just plants.
But hey, feel free to try... oh, ya know what they use for fertilizer in livestock-poor parts of the world?? Human shit.
That's likely it (I say, having not heard it in decades) -- I vaguely recall this memorable bit is short and well into the work, and sortof hammers at you on its way by. And my ear always wanted to hear more of it.
Hmm. If that's the hammer, where is the sickle? ;)
Really? Thanks for the info. The source of the quote (which some 35 years later I apparently slightly misremembered) wasn't given in the broadcast.
There's a chunk of the 5th that always puts me in mind of gunpowder kegs rolling along a cobbled street, ponderously out of control. So I call it the 'barrel roll symphony'. :)
I'd think chucking a few cans of shaving cream into open vents, turbines, or whatever else has already been inspected for the flight and will hold a pressurized can in place for half an hour or so, would be just as effective, and a lot cheaper (no need to buy a ticket, just hie yourself over the airport fence in the dark of night).
Your post brought to mind this old gem from the late 1970s:
=====
It beats you with a stick and tells you, "Your spirits are REJOICING!"
So off you go, muttering to yourselves, "Our spirits are rejoicing, our spirits are rejoicing..."
-- Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra program notes re the Shastikovich 5th symphony
=====
As you essentially point out, the "War on Terror" is becoming yet another variant of "The beatings will continue until morale improves".
Or put another way, your chances of contracting TB while on an international flight are perhaps a few thousand times higher (judging by the stats someone posted above about miles flown per terror incident) than of being the subject of a terror incident.
Pass the filter masks, eh??
Agreed, but I think the parent post had the same idea: Shit happens, shit will ALWAYS happen -- so let's deal sensibly with it instead of being mindlessly afraid of it and going off the deep end in the name of Shit Must Never Happen. And don't scream to mommy to save you, or duck down and hope to go unnoticed, when you're perfectly capable of saving yourself (or when the group is capable of saving itself, such as swarming a would-be hijacker).
I think you're right on what this will do to air travel. The future may well be strictly small-craft charter flights, if only because (at least for now) it doesn't force you to be a walk-on in a security theatre production. Of course, once some yahoo uses a small craft as a mobile bomb, expect the same restrictions to trickle down.
And then what -- trains, busses, private cars, walking?? there's no logical stopping point until we're all permanently confined in our own homes. (Well, the gov't-owned homes that they graciously allow us to use...)
No more than the literal truth. TV news doesn't exist to inform the public; it exists to sell YOUR eyeballs to THEIR advertisers. The more eyeballs are glued to the screen, the more their ad-time is worth in the open market. They don't really give a shit WHY your eyeballs are present, so long as they're salable.
As it happens, you're wrong -- total gun deaths, about 3000/year in the U.S., including crap like gang shootings (which account for around half of 'em, last I heard).
Contrast that to somewhere around 30,000 auto-related deaths, and 100,000 deaths caused by physicians' errors.
Clearly, we need to ban doctors!
As it turns out, rotting plant material doesn't cut it as fertilizer at the crop-production level, and when actually studied, was found to have far less benefit than was previously assumed. Some external source of nitrogen is still needed -- remember what is harvested and eaten is GONE from that field, so there is always a net loss of soil nutrients, which must be replaced if crop production is to continue. And most plants are not themselves nitrogen fixers, nor do most plants maintain nitrogen-fixing bacteria. That's principally a legume thing, but it takes about 3 years of legume cultivation -- and none of them are particularly efficient as food crops -- to renew the soil to where you can grow more-efficient grains or root crops there again. A typical rotation is 1 year of potatoes, 2 years of wheat, and 3 years of alfalfa -- NOT a human-edible crop -- which is then fed to meat animals whose manure in turn is used to fertilize the land for the next rotation cycle.
Even grazing land needs some nitrogen returned to the soil, which it gets from the feces of the animals that graze on it.
This has been understood in a practical sense for millennia -- back in medieval times, if you didn't put your sheep in the local head honcho's fold at night, so they'd do their crapping in a harvestable place, it was considered theft. Manure was that valuable.
CA didn't used to be *predominantly* Hispanic in population or culture... during its nominal Spanish/Mexican rule, it had very little population of any sort (and remember CA's first major immigrants were Russians, not Spaniards, and the Spaniards were mainly around the Catholic missions) -- significant population came only AFTER it became part of the U.S., or more specifically, after the gold rush of the mid-1800s, and that almost entirely from the eastern U.S.
But it has changed radically just during my lifetime, from a part of the United States, into El Estado Mexicano del Norte -- from around 10% hispanic, and mainly temporary migrant workers at that, to about 40% and almost all permanent residents (legal or not).
Tell the kid there's something nifty hidden on the computer, but that he'll need to write the tools to get at it. He'll be learning to code in no time flat. :)
So I asked my sheep-ranching relatives about it, and here's the response:
======
We don't have sheep anymore, but years ago, I remember hearing about this. Maybe the drug has been refined, but at that time, most of the wool was found in the fence lines, brush and any other rubbing material. The wool didn't come off evenly, so most of them ran around looking like mange had set in. They might start the shedding process at the neck or legs and then eventually, the rest would let go. I can just imagine the poor creatures having their wool yanked out before it was ready to let loose. Yes, there are few and far between, shearers... probably they will go the way of the sheepherders. When I had my angora goats, and they have to be clipped twice a year, it was impossible to find anyone with any experience to do the job. Also, it was impossible to get the hair to market.... and as far as culling the herd, we just don't eat a lot of goat meat here in Montana. I did love the little things and still appreciate the fact I did get to raise them a few years.
======
So... apparently it was tried, but the results were too inconsistent to be commercially viable.
Might still be something for folks who just keep a few wool sheep for dog training or weed control, tho. (Not needed for hair sheep, since they shed on their own.)
From observing dogs, I've concluded that what we call the limits of animal intelligence not a *difference* from human intelligence, but is in fact the point at which they *stopped maturing* intellectually. With dogs that's about the same point where a 2 to 5 year old human child is at, depending on the breed and individual. They behave, think, learn, and react very similarly, and have approximately the same instincts -- to the point that I tell my puppy people they are getting a perpetual toddler. :)
So, no, not a difference at all, but rather, a different range from the same continuum.
I'd never heard of it, but it's an interesting concept... I'll have to ask my sheep-ranching uncle about it. -- I think the limiting factor would be how closely it could be controlled timing-wise, so you don't wind up with fleeces shed all over the landscape, and how cost-effective it would be compared to a shearing crew.
Sheep don't particularly mind being sheared (in fact most are completely docile about it, then leap for joy at being rid of that heavy coat) but it is time-consuming and *very* labour-intensive, and the real problem is that there are fewer and fewer experienced shearing crews, plus it's becoming more and more expensive to hire them (not enough competition to keep their rates, uh, competitive).
However, if the drug's effects are sufficiently predictable, I can readily visualize a simple automated chute that works sortof like a car wash, to "break" the fleece off the sheep as it passes along the chute. (Or even set a bunch of teenagers to the job, no special equipment needed.) The main downside would be that you'd have to either process all the sheep twice (once to dose them, once to harvest wool, if it acts slowly) or at the very least keep them in the barnyard a few days (if it acts quickly). Or maybe change your management so shearing and lambing are a single slightly-longer operation, rather than spread out across early spring.
I agree, but my point was that humans should not be unduely censured for being ordinary animals in every way, including killing other animals (or for torture, cruelty, whatever). Only humans have decided that an ethical issue exists, and mass adoption of the concept of "ethics" (as distinct from good species survival policies) is itself recent concept -- I'm not so sure the entire idea isn't a side effect of an increasing level of immaturity in the average person, ie. a child's way of saying "NO FAIR!" to adults.
Veganism isn't a dietary choice, it's a method of human extinction (it is not possible to raise healthy children on a vegan diet; and crop agriculture is largely dependent on animal agriculture for that single most limiting factor: nitrogen). Since ethics (in the original unwarped form) are supposed to promote species survival, it follows that veganism is unethical.