If you are talking about "open loop" roller coasters (rides that travel over the same piece of track more than once during a ride cycle), than Top Thrill Dragster and now Kingda Ka hold THAT world record.
However, if you are talking about "closed loop" roller coasters (rides that DO NOT travel over the same piece of track more than once during a ride cycle), than the current world record holder is Steel Dragon 2000 at Nagashima Spaland Mie, Japan.
With an overall height of 318ft, a first drop of 308ft, a top speed of 95mph and an overall length of 8133ft, it is currently the top dog in free-falling (non-accelerated) "closed loop" roller coasters. I've been waiting several years for these world records to be broken... and noone has risen to the challenge yet. And, yes, I am proud to have helped design and draw a very small portion of Steel Dragon 2000.:)
Having worked in the Amusement Ride industry for several years as a CAD drafter, we were often behind schedule and asked to work longer to produce more drawings. On the downside, by looking at the same drawing (or, in your case, code) for hours on end, you naturally start to miss more and more "details" about the work. On a 300+ ft. tall roller coaster, this can be costly and dangerous. On a piece of code, depending on its application, it can also be costly and dangerous.
Fortunately, my boss figured out that if we were going to work longer, we also had to check (or, in your case, debug) our stuff more often and multiple times to get the same quality of work. This, in the end, proved to take just as much time as not working longer hours.
On the other hand, working over 8 hours a day did make for some large paychecks.:)
I'm not a student of law or the government, so I can't claim to be very knowledgable in these areas. Therefore, I will definately conceed that a lot of polititians have a "pretty strong judeo-christian bent in this country". But I do not believe that that makes the overall government or it's laws "pro-God" and/or anti-"every-other-'religeon'-that-isn't-judeo-chri stian".
Re: the article you're quoting, the ACLJ made a pretty serious error there. The court didn't say that "school children who want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance can no longer do so because it violates the constitution." The court just said that schools requiring children to recite it is unconsitutional. A child can, on their own, exercising their right to free speach, swear allegiance to the flag, god, christ, allah, yahweh, satan, zeus, odin, or whoever or whatever else they please.
I saw this error before I posted this and fully expected someone to pick it up sonner or later. You noticed it first. The ACLJ did indeed make a rather bad (i.e. stupid) statement there. Nothing else can be said. It was dumb.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be polite and "politically correct" to allow the teacher to ask those that want to stand for and recite the current "Pledge of Allegiance" to do so and for those that do not to simply remain seated and silent (out of respect to their classmates)? And, if a child and parent request, for a child to be allowed to make their "Pledge" to whomever/whatever they wish and that those who would rather not recite that "Pledge" to also simply remain seated and silent (again, out of respect to their classmates)?
But from there, where does it end? Do we need to allow all students to recite their own version of their "Pledge"? Or, in the interest of not wasting time with every student's "Pledge" (which could be spent learning), should we just remove the "Pledge of Allegiance" all together?
Although I favor the "allow everyone to have their 'Pledge'" choice, I would hate to see the "Pledge of Allegiance" removed from the classrooms to avoid the inevitable conflict of "my-child-was-offended-by-who/what-their-child-ple dged-their-allegiance-to". No matter what changes are made to either the "Pledge" itself or in the matter of where it is "required" to recite, someone will be offended. And that would just start this whole process over again.
Here's a quick responce to the ruling by the ACLJ. Personally, I don't have a problem with any part of the Pledge of Allegiance... but apparently a lot of people do. Go figure. It isn't like anyone over the age of 14 is required to say it every day. And, no, I do not believe it (the Pledge) sets a precidence that the Government is "pro-God" and/or anti-"every-other-'religeon'-that-isn't-judeo-chri stian".
Anyway, here's the story... http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/020626_pled ge.asp
ACLJ Calls Appeals Court Ruling on Pledge of Allegiance Faulty and Flawed Legal Reasoning
June 26, 2002
(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, said today a decision by a federal appeals court that declares the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional is faulty and flawed legal reasoning and should be overturned.
"This is one of the most absurd legal rulings of our time," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "To suggest that school children who want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance can no longer do so because it violates the constitution represents faulty and flawed legal reasoning on the part of the appeals court. The finding that the phrase 'under God' that was added to the words 'one nation' in the Pledge by an act of Congress in 1954 is an endorsement of religion is very troubling. The appeals court missed the mark and is re-writing law instead of interpreting it. The recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance - including the phrase 'One nation under God' - is part of who we are as Americans. This is just another attempt to remove any mention of God from the public arena. We will work aggressively to make sure this ruling gets overturned."
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today ruled that the phrase "under God" that was added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The ACLJ is an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law and its web site address is www.aclj.org.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey -
:)
If you are talking about "open loop" roller coasters (rides that travel over the same piece of track more than once during a ride cycle), than Top Thrill Dragster and now Kingda Ka hold THAT world record.
However, if you are talking about "closed loop" roller coasters (rides that DO NOT travel over the same piece of track more than once during a ride cycle), than the current world record holder is Steel Dragon 2000 at Nagashima Spaland Mie, Japan.
With an overall height of 318ft, a first drop of 308ft, a top speed of 95mph and an overall length of 8133ft, it is currently the top dog in free-falling (non-accelerated) "closed loop" roller coasters. I've been waiting several years for these world records to be broken... and noone has risen to the challenge yet. And, yes, I am proud to have helped design and draw a very small portion of Steel Dragon 2000.
Hey -
:)
Having worked in the Amusement Ride industry for several years as a CAD drafter, we were often behind schedule and asked to work longer to produce more drawings. On the downside, by looking at the same drawing (or, in your case, code) for hours on end, you naturally start to miss more and more "details" about the work. On a 300+ ft. tall roller coaster, this can be costly and dangerous. On a piece of code, depending on its application, it can also be costly and dangerous.
Fortunately, my boss figured out that if we were going to work longer, we also had to check (or, in your case, debug) our stuff more often and multiple times to get the same quality of work. This, in the end, proved to take just as much time as not working longer hours.
On the other hand, working over 8 hours a day did make for some large paychecks.
I'm not a student of law or the government, so I can't claim to be very knowledgable in these areas. Therefore, I will definately conceed that a lot of polititians have a "pretty strong judeo-christian bent in this country". But I do not believe that that makes the overall government or it's laws "pro-God" and/or anti-"every-other-'religeon'-that-isn't-judeo-chri stian".
e dged-their-allegiance-to". No matter what changes are made to either the "Pledge" itself or in the matter of where it is "required" to recite, someone will be offended. And that would just start this whole process over again.
Re: the article you're quoting, the ACLJ made a pretty serious error there. The court didn't say that "school children who want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance can no longer do so because it violates the constitution." The court just said that schools requiring children to recite it is unconsitutional. A child can, on their own, exercising their right to free speach, swear allegiance to the flag, god, christ, allah, yahweh, satan, zeus, odin, or whoever or whatever else they please.
I saw this error before I posted this and fully expected someone to pick it up sonner or later. You noticed it first. The ACLJ did indeed make a rather bad (i.e. stupid) statement there. Nothing else can be said. It was dumb.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be polite and "politically correct" to allow the teacher to ask those that want to stand for and recite the current "Pledge of Allegiance" to do so and for those that do not to simply remain seated and silent (out of respect to their classmates)? And , if a child and parent request, for a child to be allowed to make their "Pledge" to whomever/whatever they wish and that those who would rather not recite that "Pledge" to also simply remain seated and silent (again, out of respect to their classmates)?
But from there, where does it end? Do we need to allow all students to recite their own version of their "Pledge"? Or, in the interest of not wasting time with every student's "Pledge" (which could be spent learning), should we just remove the "Pledge of Allegiance" all together?
Although I favor the "allow everyone to have their 'Pledge'" choice, I would hate to see the "Pledge of Allegiance" removed from the classrooms to avoid the inevitable conflict of "my-child-was-offended-by-who/what-their-child-pl
Here's a quick responce to the ruling by the ACLJ. Personally, I don't have a problem with any part of the Pledge of Allegiance... but apparently a lot of people do. Go figure. It isn't like anyone over the age of 14 is required to say it every day. And, no, I do not believe it (the Pledge) sets a precidence that the Government is "pro-God" and/or anti-"every-other-'religeon'-that-isn't-judeo-chri stian".
d ge.asp
Anyway, here's the story... http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/020626_ple
ACLJ Calls Appeals Court Ruling on Pledge of Allegiance Faulty and Flawed Legal Reasoning
June 26, 2002
(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, said today a decision by a federal appeals court that declares the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional is faulty and flawed legal reasoning and should be overturned.
"This is one of the most absurd legal rulings of our time," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "To suggest that school children who want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance can no longer do so because it violates the constitution represents faulty and flawed legal reasoning on the part of the appeals court. The finding that the phrase 'under God' that was added to the words 'one nation' in the Pledge by an act of Congress in 1954 is an endorsement of religion is very troubling. The appeals court missed the mark and is re-writing law instead of interpreting it. The recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance - including the phrase 'One nation under God' - is part of who we are as Americans. This is just another attempt to remove any mention of God from the public arena. We will work aggressively to make sure this ruling gets overturned."
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today ruled that the phrase "under God" that was added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The ACLJ is an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law and its web site address is www.aclj.org.