You're the one who claims your words will be twisted. My point is, so what? It happens to everyone; it's not as though all Republicans have some mystical power that prevents their statements from being spun (cf. govt shutdown during Gingrich-Clinton war).
Yeah, so? My original statement is short enough to be a sound bite by itself. If it hurts you that people will try to twist your words, stay out of politics.
You know, the Democrats could have used their brains and said, "We're delighted that Gov. Ehrlich has finally seen the wisdom of ensuring that votes can be reliably tallied, even if it did take him a little longer than the rest of us." Snarky, but true.
And what's the thing with Rove? Upset that the Democrats don't have a political strategist who's worth two cents?
Except that most US ATC radar installations can't track a plane whose transponder is off. That takes a lot more juice, and it doesn't reach as far, and it's a lot harder to spot something going low and slow when there are mountains (e.g., the Catskills) in between.
Remember, there was widespread confusion about just what had happened; go watch the newscasts. It wasn't until the second tower was hit that terrorism went to the forefront of everyone's mind.
Well, any time you trash the UN you'll win my support. Kinda like the EU in that respect: a large, unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy with extraordinary opportunities for fraud.
You know what your remedy is if you can show the government did not have probable cause? You can get their evidence thrown out in court. That's it.
They don't care if any of this stuff is admissible. (As others have noted, it is believed that this fishing expedition stuff is to find people to be interested in, for whom FISA warrants are then obtained so that evidence becomes admissible in court.)
How does one miss a second plane flying at low altitude out of its legitimate flight pattern?
That assumes that people are observant, gifted at making quick connections, and capable of getting through twenty levels of bureaucracy in ten minutes. Would you have ordered F16's to splash a commercial airliner in a populated area based on the word of one guy in Poughkeepsie?
They think that the NSA will stop doing this if the court says not to. They're quite wrong, and we might as well just code it into law that this is fine as long as you don't try to use any of this in court.
I predict you'll be flamed out of existence for daring suggest there was anything meritorious about Chimpy McBushitlerburton's argument. This place makes DU and the Freepers look restrained sometimes.
BTW, what's your take on the proposition that this should be legal, but that any evidence so gained should be inadmissible in court? It's an interesting proposal, and seems to protect citizens' rights while letting us watch what the bad guys are doing.
Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.
Er, if they have no brain activity, they're dead. End of story. Read up on the definition of brain death. Perhaps you meant persistent vegetative state?
I stand corrected. However, the point still applies for many construction "elevators" - flat platforms that run in a shaft with only a cable for support. That was more what I was thinking of.
Mine was that it is a common drug, frequently prescribed and taken, not a OMG ME KILL INNOCENT BABIES THEN LAUGH HAHAHAHA ME SLEEP HAPPY IF KILL MORE pill.
It's propranolol. A beta blocker. Prescribed to millions of people worldwide, for high blood pressure and after heart attacks. The proposal is that it might prevent PTSD symptoms from developing, not that people would blot out the whole event.
It's actually quite common for people to take this drug before experiences that might make them nervous - public speaking, flying, whatever - because it blunts the fight-or-flight reflex.
(Yes, I am a doctor. No, this is not medical advice. YMMV. Don't take it if you have asthma, it might precipitate an attack.)
Okay, posting instead of moderating. Perhaps foolish.
It is trivial - really - to design an elevator system capable of withstanding a cable break. Imagine a system in which the tension on the cable is keeping a pair of arms from slotting into teeth on the sides of the elevator shaft walls. That's probably the simplest method.
If passenger elevators really would fall to the passengers' deaths if the cables broke, do you think that there would be any distinction between passenger and freight elevators? Mr. Otis was able in the late 1800s to demonstrate that his design was capable of withstanding a complete cable transection.
Not that the parent addressed this, BTW, but elevator transit speed is limited by how quickly our ears can equilibrate, not by how quickly the boxes can move. If you don't mind painfully popped ears, you can easily double the rate of travel of conventional elevators.
Kinda OT, but during my internship orientation, they showed a remarkable video of what happens when general surgery lasers encounter non-fireproof endotracheal tubes with 100% O2 in them. "Blowtorch" is the word that first came to mind. The whole thing is gone in under 5 seconds.
We all thought it was a little ridiculous - what idiotic anesthesiologist would use flammable tubing during ENT cases? - but it has apparently happened.
The problem is that you rapidly end up with a S/N ratio somewhere in the microscopic range. The power is in conversation, but if it's not worth you making your own blog post - it's probably not something too important for me to read. That varies a lot by site - some of the more niche blogs don't ever attract a bunch of idiots. But trying to scroll through a DU-vs-Freeper war is just not my idea of edification.
From the other side of the drapes, I would find doing anesthesia in space... challenging, to say the least. IV fluids would have to be under pressure bags at all times. Airway secretions could not be counted on to pool in dependent areas. Aspiration would become a much larger risk. Who knows what else we would find out?
I agree with your conclusion - I would have the GB and appy out prophylactically before I set off on such a mission.
So, if you're a big-name tech reviewer - i.e., you pay for none of your own gear - you have a preference for stylishly designed, high-end equipment? Who woulda thunk it?
Er, you mean that a US-based website was sued by a US-based group under US law for content that happens to be available worldwide on the Internet. Sorry, charlie. The entire process took place in the US, as it quite reasonably should.
Not the first time I've made this comment, but it's still appropriate. As James D. Nicoll put it:
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
Yeah, I knew that, but thought that constructions like that were considered a form of ab ab. Eh, it's been over a decade since I took. Anyway, he didn't need to footnote.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the one who claims your words will be twisted. My point is, so what? It happens to everyone; it's not as though all Republicans have some mystical power that prevents their statements from being spun (cf. govt shutdown during Gingrich-Clinton war).
Yeah, so? My original statement is short enough to be a sound bite by itself. If it hurts you that people will try to twist your words, stay out of politics.
And what's the thing with Rove? Upset that the Democrats don't have a political strategist who's worth two cents?
Remember, there was widespread confusion about just what had happened; go watch the newscasts. It wasn't until the second tower was hit that terrorism went to the forefront of everyone's mind.
Well, any time you trash the UN you'll win my support. Kinda like the EU in that respect: a large, unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy with extraordinary opportunities for fraud.
And I don't need a treatise. Just who do you suspect?
They don't care if any of this stuff is admissible. (As others have noted, it is believed that this fishing expedition stuff is to find people to be interested in, for whom FISA warrants are then obtained so that evidence becomes admissible in court.)
That assumes that people are observant, gifted at making quick connections, and capable of getting through twenty levels of bureaucracy in ten minutes. Would you have ordered F16's to splash a commercial airliner in a populated area based on the word of one guy in Poughkeepsie?
If not ObL, just who do you suspect?
They think that the NSA will stop doing this if the court says not to. They're quite wrong, and we might as well just code it into law that this is fine as long as you don't try to use any of this in court.
BTW, what's your take on the proposition that this should be legal, but that any evidence so gained should be inadmissible in court? It's an interesting proposal, and seems to protect citizens' rights while letting us watch what the bad guys are doing.
Er, if they have no brain activity, they're dead. End of story. Read up on the definition of brain death. Perhaps you meant persistent vegetative state?
Nice to know, though.
Mine was that it is a common drug, frequently prescribed and taken, not a OMG ME KILL INNOCENT BABIES THEN LAUGH HAHAHAHA ME SLEEP HAPPY IF KILL MORE pill.
It's actually quite common for people to take this drug before experiences that might make them nervous - public speaking, flying, whatever - because it blunts the fight-or-flight reflex.
(Yes, I am a doctor. No, this is not medical advice. YMMV. Don't take it if you have asthma, it might precipitate an attack.)
It is trivial - really - to design an elevator system capable of withstanding a cable break. Imagine a system in which the tension on the cable is keeping a pair of arms from slotting into teeth on the sides of the elevator shaft walls. That's probably the simplest method.
If passenger elevators really would fall to the passengers' deaths if the cables broke, do you think that there would be any distinction between passenger and freight elevators? Mr. Otis was able in the late 1800s to demonstrate that his design was capable of withstanding a complete cable transection.
Not that the parent addressed this, BTW, but elevator transit speed is limited by how quickly our ears can equilibrate, not by how quickly the boxes can move. If you don't mind painfully popped ears, you can easily double the rate of travel of conventional elevators.
I too predict doom, but Tom Daschle would argue with you about ranking incumbents with important chairmanships.
We all thought it was a little ridiculous - what idiotic anesthesiologist would use flammable tubing during ENT cases? - but it has apparently happened.
Why? It's not as though France isn't a republic. I wouldn't want to live under their laws - but a majority of the French voting public apparently do.
The problem is that you rapidly end up with a S/N ratio somewhere in the microscopic range. The power is in conversation, but if it's not worth you making your own blog post - it's probably not something too important for me to read. That varies a lot by site - some of the more niche blogs don't ever attract a bunch of idiots. But trying to scroll through a DU-vs-Freeper war is just not my idea of edification.
I agree with your conclusion - I would have the GB and appy out prophylactically before I set off on such a mission.
You don't have to pay attention to their opinions, but a lot of people do. Google them. All have blogs, none allows comments.
So, if you're a big-name tech reviewer - i.e., you pay for none of your own gear - you have a preference for stylishly designed, high-end equipment? Who woulda thunk it?
Er, you mean that a US-based website was sued by a US-based group under US law for content that happens to be available worldwide on the Internet. Sorry, charlie. The entire process took place in the US, as it quite reasonably should.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
Yeah, I knew that, but thought that constructions like that were considered a form of ab ab. Eh, it's been over a decade since I took. Anyway, he didn't need to footnote.