Their job is to talk to children, they're accountable to no one, and they work only 3/4 of the year
Christ, you're probably trolling, but if not you're a fucking clueless moron. If you think teaching is nothing more than "talking to children," you've got your head so far up your ass it can't be extracted. I know many teachers, and they ALL work 60 to 80 hours a week. It takes a lot of work to keep up with cirriculum changes, develop lesson plans, create assignments, set up projects, talk to parents, deal with behavioral problems, grade papers, write grade reports, lead extracirricular activities, and fight with administration to get needed supplies - in addition to teaching class. They all spend from $500 to $2000 per year out of their own pockets to buy supplies the district can't afford. Then they have to listen to morons like you talk about how easy their job is (one that requires a Master's in our state), and how overpaid they are at their $30K salary. Roadside construction workers who spend all day rotating a sign from "Stop" to "Slow" or pounding concrete with a jackhammer make more than they do.
Believe it or not, most teachers really care about doing a good job - and they get mediocre pay, and few thanks. Oh, a lot of them work all year as well.
You can look at it that way - But it could also be said that it's just a way for individuals to do the discriminating rather than the government. The government would still be offering do not call for everything. The law does recognize differences between those kinds of entities.
It all depends on what a judge thinks, I guess. This is the sort of crap lawyers would argue about.
you certainly have the right to block political and non-profit calls. get rid of your freaking phone. there's no constitutional ammendment requiring you to have phone service. trust me, the calls WILL stop if you discontinue your phone service.
I suppose I won't have any more trouble with toenail fungal infections if I chop my foot off, either. So I opt instead to keep my very useful foot and seek treatment for the infections.
Why can't there be 3 lists - One for commercial, one political, and one non-profit, so we can opt out of any combination thereof? Then there's no inherent discrimination in the law.
This is not true, it's been a while since I researched this, but I remember one accident involving one crew member. And another involving three crew members.
My point is that when you're talking small numbers of accidents, you don't have enough data to draw many conclusions. 3 to 1, 3 to 3, 4 to 3, whatever.
The fact that they put more eggs into one basket makes things even worse. If you're trying to defend/apologise for NASA, mentioning this has the opposite effect from what you intended.
Well, since I'm not trying to defend or apologize for NASA, I'm on solid ground.
I'm just trying to add perspective - If we're talking about which country has shown better safety on a per mission basis (which I think is reasonable since it's doubtful anyone would survive a spaceflight mishap), the number of failure is a better comparison. For the engineers who are trying to figure out what caused a failure, the number of people killed doesn't have much bearing on the problem.
So if you want to say NASA is worse because more astronauts have died, I'd agree. If you want to say that the Russians have more reliable engineering, I'd say that's not clear from comparing numbers of accidents.
In more than 35 years of spaceflight the Russians have had something like 4 fatalities, and 3 (?) accidents (including one where the crew survived a booster failure in mid-flight - the stage didn't separate). In comparison to the U.S. record this is remarkably good. They have also flown more people for longer periods of tim
True, but the number of fatal accidents is about the same - NASA just had more people on each of the fatal voyages.
I don't think the numbers are large enough to reach any justifiable conclusions about the relative safety of the two programs. People will be lost as long as we put them in space; How many over a certain period of time is partly bad luck. (No I'm not saying NASA hasn't had some serious problems - Just that the difference between them and the Russian space program are not so cut and dried.)
What happened to for the people by the people who cares what a judge thinks.
What happened to using periods I don't understand why so many people on the net use run-on sentences they make things hard to read kind of like when people don't ever capitalize for some reason besides it's of the people by the people and for the people it comes from the Gettysburg address.
Look at it this way, if the lock on my house is faulty did someone who demonstrates this fact to me "damage" my property by "causing" me to have to buy a new lock?
What your analogy leaves out is how this demonstration is conducted. A more precise analogy would be someone demonstrating my lock was bad by breaking in, rummaging through my papers and underwear drawer, maybe inadvertently knocking over a couple of lamps, and leaving a note on the table that says, "See? Your lock sucks - Get a new one!" In this case, my first reaction would not be gratitude to the infiltrator for pointing out the flaws in my lock. I'd be pissed that someone violated my home, and wonder what the perpetrator is doing with the information he looked at (maybe he took pictures of important documents?). I'd also never be really sure he didn't just take something and I didn't notice (I think most people have some things of moderate value they don't check on all the time). The monetary damages would be indefinite, but could be great, and a crime was definitely committed, and I had to put up with a lot of unnecessary stress and inconvenience at a minimum.
Now, I think that analogy is more apt, but I think I pretty much pushed it to the limit and wouldn't want to go any further.
You're confusing things. "preponderance of evidence" as a standard of proof should be compared to the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Innocent until proven guilty always applies. (Although "guilty" isn't a verdict in civil cases, the burden of proof still remains with the plaintiff.)
THE SKY IS NOT BLUE. Ok? The sky is composed of nitrogen and oxygen in large proportions. Both are transparent materials in gaseous form. They do, however, refract light like a prism
Ya know, if you're gonna call other people ignorant, you might want to actually know what you're talking about yourself. The sky's blue appearance os not caused by refraction: It's Rayleigh scattering, which is not the same thing at all.
It's OK to get stuff like this wrong, but getting it wrong while being snotty and condescending is pretty insufferable.
Re:I won't even see the original release in theatr
on
The Trilogy as One
·
· Score: 1
In fact, I've stopped going to theatres because 9 times out of 10, the new movies are crap, and $100 to see one good 90minute movie is absolutely ridiculous, especially when you have people talking, babies crying, cell-phones ringing, overpriced snacks, etc. The more money they try to seperate me from, the tighter I hold on to it, and the less fun the movies are.
How DARE you express such an opinion! I flame thee, sir! Feel my flame! I liked the movies and will not tolerate your going on a PUBLIC forum and having the UNMITIGATED GALL to state a difference in taste! Flame! Take that! And that!
Here is a list of coast guard HF and MF frequencies. They use HF plenty.
The affected government agencies have yet to weigh in with FCC. Traditionally, they wait until the last minute. Right now, there are BPL lobbyists claiming there is no interference. The FCC has an extreme bias towards these lobbyists, and the other government agencies are in a "wait and see" mode. The director of NTIA came out supportive of the inquiry into implementing BPL, but said it the FCC must see to it that no interference is caused to established services.
Yeesh - Have you looked at the evidence they compiled? It's not just a little static. It's S9 and greater noise. It makes HF communications nearly impossible.
I'd probably agree with you if they were just screaming about it. But they have *proof*.
In addition to all the other comments about having RFI-susceptible equipment, the irony here is that BPL would also affect broadcast TV frequencies. What goes around comes around indeed.
Don't let that stop you from getting your extra! I got mine in the 80's when I had to pass 20 wpm, so I sort of got hosed in the sense you're talking about. But you can prove your code proficiency with an ARRL qualifying run. Then you'll get a nifty certificate of code proficiency.
My message to Hams: get over it, you are a TINY minority whose hobby does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for anyone but yourself.
Oh. Like these guys, or this here, or when my repeater group goes to Children's Hospital in December to let some terminally ill kids talk to "Santa Claus," or when we help coordinate the March of Dimes Walk-a-thon, or provide communications for parades...
You have two problems with what you wrote: First is, you extrapolated from one experience to pass judgment on all hams. Second, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, yet that didn't stop you from posting a snotty, insulting rant.
The good news is that when a disaster strikes (natural or manmade, take your pick) line power is usually the first to go so interference with ham radio probably won't be an issue.
The problem is that if hams can't use their radios, they won't keep their stations in working order. Part of the reason the Amateur service exists is to keep a pool of trained and prepared radio operators at the ready. If the bands only work during an emergency, you won't have that.
Your views are pretty typical of Hams that I've encountered, putting the narrow interest of thousands over the interests of millions. Its pretty sad.
Like all the hams that have repeatedly offered emergency communications when phone networks have gone down? Give me a break.
It isn't like this is just affecting ham radio. All the shortwave broadcasters, military, government, and commerical users of HF will be affected. We hams use about 3.4 Mhz of HF spectrum. BPL would render unusable 78 MHz of bandwidth. So there's a lot more at stake than the 700,000 US Hams.
BTW, BPL has been tried and rejected in Finland and Japan. It sounds great, but it sucks.
I'm not a radio geek, or lawyer, but, doesn't every device that has an FCC label on it basically say that you have to accept any interference that occurs? Therefore, if it bothered the 802.11 spectrum, we'd be irritated about it, and probably contact someone to get it changed. But, until things changed, we'd have to deal with it, either by filtering the noise, changing frequencies, etc.
You can't filter this stuff. It's absolutely rock-crushing interference. The problem is that the overhead electrical wiring is a really efficient antenna.
The other thing is, that Amateur Radio is a licensed service, which give it certain privileges, one of those being that you aren't allowed to interfere with it. You're thinking of unlicensed devices, like wireless phones, that aren't protected this way.
Yet another thing: BPL radiates over a HUGE bandwidth. The BPL companies want to use 2 to 80 MHz. That would wipe out the entire HF band, which hams and others use to communicate long distance. It also includes 6 meter VHF (50-54 MHz). In contrast the entire HF allocation to hams is 3.36 Mhz total. Include 6m, and it's 7.36. BPL is an enormous bandwidth hog.
This implementation of BPL would be disastrous for ham radio and anyone else using HF frequencies, like shortwave broadcasters, coast guard, government, marine, and so on.
The idea that they could obliterate 78 MHz of spectrum should be of concern to everyone, not just hams.
Either way, the ball is in the court of the HAM operators. Get together and start writing letters, making phone calls, etc.
I don't think the only choices are collectivism (whatever that might mean) or "there is no such thing as society." Liberties always have had and always will have limits, because individual liberties sometimes conflict.
Isn't war, for example, a collective action? Just because I advocate sometimes acting collectively, I'm a collectivist?
All I'm saying is that it's wrong to say that the rights of the group are always trumped by the rights of the individual. Sometimes we have to accept some curbs on our behavior so we can all live with each other. This seems like common sense to me, but anyone who suggests it these days is labeled a commie.
Slashdot Mirror
Teachers have an easy job that pays well.
Their job is to talk to children, they're accountable to no one, and they work only 3/4 of the year
Christ, you're probably trolling, but if not you're a fucking clueless moron. If you think teaching is nothing more than "talking to children," you've got your head so far up your ass it can't be extracted. I know many teachers, and they ALL work 60 to 80 hours a week. It takes a lot of work to keep up with cirriculum changes, develop lesson plans, create assignments, set up projects, talk to parents, deal with behavioral problems, grade papers, write grade reports, lead extracirricular activities, and fight with administration to get needed supplies - in addition to teaching class. They all spend from $500 to $2000 per year out of their own pockets to buy supplies the district can't afford. Then they have to listen to morons like you talk about how easy their job is (one that requires a Master's in our state), and how overpaid they are at their $30K salary. Roadside construction workers who spend all day rotating a sign from "Stop" to "Slow" or pounding concrete with a jackhammer make more than they do.
Believe it or not, most teachers really care about doing a good job - and they get mediocre pay, and few thanks. Oh, a lot of them work all year as well.
You can look at it that way - But it could also be said that it's just a way for individuals to do the discriminating rather than the government. The government would still be offering do not call for everything. The law does recognize differences between those kinds of entities.
It all depends on what a judge thinks, I guess. This is the sort of crap lawyers would argue about.
you certainly have the right to block political and non-profit calls. get rid of your freaking phone. there's no constitutional ammendment requiring you to have phone service. trust me, the calls WILL stop if you discontinue your phone service.
I suppose I won't have any more trouble with toenail fungal infections if I chop my foot off, either. So I opt instead to keep my very useful foot and seek treatment for the infections.
Why can't there be 3 lists - One for commercial, one political, and one non-profit, so we can opt out of any combination thereof? Then there's no inherent discrimination in the law.
the telemarketers call YOU. Eh?
Umm... Never mind.
It details how the Cable Companies are resisting a pricing this competition with DSL providers by resisting tiered pricing models.
Erm... I keep trying, but I can't degarbleate this. A little help, please?
This is not true, it's been a while since I researched this, but I remember one accident involving one crew member. And another involving three crew members.
My point is that when you're talking small numbers of accidents, you don't have enough data to draw many conclusions. 3 to 1, 3 to 3, 4 to 3, whatever.
The fact that they put more eggs into one basket makes things even worse. If you're trying to defend/apologise for NASA, mentioning this has the opposite effect from what you intended.
Well, since I'm not trying to defend or apologize for NASA, I'm on solid ground.
I'm just trying to add perspective - If we're talking about which country has shown better safety on a per mission basis (which I think is reasonable since it's doubtful anyone would survive a spaceflight mishap), the number of failure is a better comparison. For the engineers who are trying to figure out what caused a failure, the number of people killed doesn't have much bearing on the problem.
So if you want to say NASA is worse because more astronauts have died, I'd agree. If you want to say that the Russians have more reliable engineering, I'd say that's not clear from comparing numbers of accidents.
In more than 35 years of spaceflight the Russians have had something like 4 fatalities, and 3 (?) accidents (including one where the crew survived a booster failure in mid-flight - the stage didn't separate). In comparison to the U.S. record this is remarkably good. They have also flown more people for longer periods of tim
True, but the number of fatal accidents is about the same - NASA just had more people on each of the fatal voyages.
I don't think the numbers are large enough to reach any justifiable conclusions about the relative safety of the two programs. People will be lost as long as we put them in space; How many over a certain period of time is partly bad luck. (No I'm not saying NASA hasn't had some serious problems - Just that the difference between them and the Russian space program are not so cut and dried.)
What happened to for the people by the people who cares what a judge thinks.
What happened to using periods I don't understand why so many people on the net use run-on sentences they make things hard to read kind of like when people don't ever capitalize for some reason besides it's of the people by the people and for the people it comes from the Gettysburg address.
50 million people can't be wrong.
Eat Shit! 100 billion flies can't be wrong!
Look at it this way, if the lock on my house is faulty did someone who demonstrates this fact to me "damage" my property by "causing" me to have to buy a new lock?
What your analogy leaves out is how this demonstration is conducted. A more precise analogy would be someone demonstrating my lock was bad by breaking in, rummaging through my papers and underwear drawer, maybe inadvertently knocking over a couple of lamps, and leaving a note on the table that says, "See? Your lock sucks - Get a new one!" In this case, my first reaction would not be gratitude to the infiltrator for pointing out the flaws in my lock. I'd be pissed that someone violated my home, and wonder what the perpetrator is doing with the information he looked at (maybe he took pictures of important documents?). I'd also never be really sure he didn't just take something and I didn't notice (I think most people have some things of moderate value they don't check on all the time). The monetary damages would be indefinite, but could be great, and a crime was definitely committed, and I had to put up with a lot of unnecessary stress and inconvenience at a minimum.
Now, I think that analogy is more apt, but I think I pretty much pushed it to the limit and wouldn't want to go any further.
You're confusing things. "preponderance of evidence" as a standard of proof should be compared to the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Innocent until proven guilty always applies. (Although "guilty" isn't a verdict in civil cases, the burden of proof still remains with the plaintiff.)
THE SKY IS NOT BLUE. Ok? The sky is composed of nitrogen and oxygen in large proportions. Both are transparent materials in gaseous form. They do, however, refract light like a prism
Ya know, if you're gonna call other people ignorant, you might want to actually know what you're talking about yourself. The sky's blue appearance os not caused by refraction: It's Rayleigh scattering, which is not the same thing at all.
It's OK to get stuff like this wrong, but getting it wrong while being snotty and condescending is pretty insufferable.
Why would anybody do that?
Read me Dr. Memory?
In fact, I've stopped going to theatres because 9 times out of 10, the new movies are crap, and $100 to see one good 90minute movie is absolutely ridiculous, especially when you have people talking, babies crying, cell-phones ringing, overpriced snacks, etc. The more money they try to seperate me from, the tighter I hold on to it, and the less fun the movies are.
I think somebody needs a hug.
How DARE you express such an opinion! I flame thee, sir! Feel my flame! I liked the movies and will not tolerate your going on a PUBLIC forum and having the UNMITIGATED GALL to state a difference in taste! Flame! Take that! And that!
FLAME FLAME FLAME
- Just wanted to make your prophecy come true...
Here is a list of coast guard HF and MF frequencies. They use HF plenty.
The affected government agencies have yet to weigh in with FCC. Traditionally, they wait until the last minute. Right now, there are BPL lobbyists claiming there is no interference. The FCC has an extreme bias towards these lobbyists, and the other government agencies are in a "wait and see" mode. The director of NTIA came out supportive of the inquiry into implementing BPL, but said it the FCC must see to it that no interference is caused to established services.
Yeesh - Have you looked at the evidence they compiled? It's not just a little static. It's S9 and greater noise. It makes HF communications nearly impossible.
I'd probably agree with you if they were just screaming about it. But they have *proof*.
In addition to all the other comments about having RFI-susceptible equipment, the irony here is that BPL would also affect broadcast TV frequencies. What goes around comes around indeed.
Don't let that stop you from getting your extra! I got mine in the 80's when I had to pass 20 wpm, so I sort of got hosed in the sense you're talking about. But you can prove your code proficiency with an ARRL qualifying run. Then you'll get a nifty certificate of code proficiency.
73,
NX7E
My message to Hams: get over it, you are a TINY minority whose hobby does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for anyone but yourself.
Oh. Like these guys, or this here, or when my repeater group goes to Children's Hospital in December to let some terminally ill kids talk to "Santa Claus," or when we help coordinate the March of Dimes Walk-a-thon, or provide communications for parades...
You have two problems with what you wrote: First is, you extrapolated from one experience to pass judgment on all hams. Second, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, yet that didn't stop you from posting a snotty, insulting rant.
See my previous reply to this lame observation.
The good news is that when a disaster strikes (natural or manmade, take your pick) line power is usually the first to go so interference with ham radio probably won't be an issue.
The problem is that if hams can't use their radios, they won't keep their stations in working order. Part of the reason the Amateur service exists is to keep a pool of trained and prepared radio operators at the ready. If the bands only work during an emergency, you won't have that.
Your views are pretty typical of Hams that I've encountered, putting the narrow interest of thousands over the interests of millions. Its pretty sad.
Like all the hams that have repeatedly offered emergency communications when phone networks have gone down? Give me a break.
It isn't like this is just affecting ham radio. All the shortwave broadcasters, military, government, and commerical users of HF will be affected. We hams use about 3.4 Mhz of HF spectrum. BPL would render unusable 78 MHz of bandwidth. So there's a lot more at stake than the 700,000 US Hams.
BTW, BPL has been tried and rejected in Finland and Japan. It sounds great, but it sucks.
I'm not a radio geek, or lawyer, but, doesn't every device that has an FCC label on it basically say that you have to accept any interference that occurs? Therefore, if it bothered the 802.11 spectrum, we'd be irritated about it, and probably contact someone to get it changed. But, until things changed, we'd have to deal with it, either by filtering the noise, changing frequencies, etc.
You can't filter this stuff. It's absolutely rock-crushing interference. The problem is that the overhead electrical wiring is a really efficient antenna.
The other thing is, that Amateur Radio is a licensed service, which give it certain privileges, one of those being that you aren't allowed to interfere with it. You're thinking of unlicensed devices, like wireless phones, that aren't protected this way.
Yet another thing: BPL radiates over a HUGE bandwidth. The BPL companies want to use 2 to 80 MHz. That would wipe out the entire HF band, which hams and others use to communicate long distance. It also includes 6 meter VHF (50-54 MHz). In contrast the entire HF allocation to hams is 3.36 Mhz total. Include 6m, and it's 7.36. BPL is an enormous bandwidth hog.
This implementation of BPL would be disastrous for ham radio and anyone else using HF frequencies, like shortwave broadcasters, coast guard, government, marine, and so on.
The idea that they could obliterate 78 MHz of spectrum should be of concern to everyone, not just hams.
Either way, the ball is in the court of the HAM operators. Get together and start writing letters, making phone calls, etc.
We are. BTW, ham is not an acronym.
I don't think the only choices are collectivism (whatever that might mean) or "there is no such thing as society." Liberties always have had and always will have limits, because individual liberties sometimes conflict.
Isn't war, for example, a collective action? Just because I advocate sometimes acting collectively, I'm a collectivist?
All I'm saying is that it's wrong to say that the rights of the group are always trumped by the rights of the individual. Sometimes we have to accept some curbs on our behavior so we can all live with each other. This seems like common sense to me, but anyone who suggests it these days is labeled a commie.