I think you make good points. Too bad you've been down-moderated. I further think that a lot of this issue stems from the conflation of civil marriage and religious marriage. People can get married without any involvement of a religious institution. That is why it is an equal protection issue.
I can understand a religious institution refusing to marry homosexuals. I don't agree, but it's their right. But the civil part of marriage is none of their business. They aren't involved. So whether or not God likes it shouldn't enter into it.
I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I believe homosexuality should not be promoted. I oppose gay marriage.
Does this make me anti-gay? No way. Hate the sin and love the sinner. We are all children of God.
Let's turn this around: I believe Christianity is a sin. I believe Christianity should not be promoted. I oppose Christians' marriage.
Does this make me anti-Christian? I understand you may not be Christian, but statistically you probably are. Though you could be Muslim or Jewish and believe homosexuality displeases God. Either way, I think folks should be humble about their faith, since it's just that; faith.
We elected the people who made all these rules, don't blame the TSA. The fault, ultimately, belongs to those of us who vote. If you don't like the way it works, start voting for someone else.
Let me know which presidential or congressional candidate has abolishing the TSA on his/her platform and I will vote for that person. The only one that comes close is Ron Paul, but he will not be a candidate for President.
No, they're murdering infants by the hundreds of thousands.
Now here's the fun part (probably): Watch my post get modded into oblivion, while the parent stays at "5".
They're murdering infants to make a political point, or scare the populace into changing their politics? If not, they're not really terrorists, just murderers. Though I also suspect we are not actually talking about infants, but embryos.
TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist in over a decade of existence. The fact that they are still getting (increased) funding is hard to imagine.
Yes, thank you. This is an indication to me that there is actually very little terrorist threat. Sure, there are a few nutters out there, but that has always been the case. The US is a largely open society, and is target rich. And yet terrorist incidents are quite rare here. So we can conclude either that the authorities are doing a bang-up job, or that there are actually very few people with the knowledge, motivation and lack of morals to want to hurt innocent people to make a point.
But still our military, intelligence, domestic law enforcement and foreign policy seem fixated on this threat; one that seems to largely not exist. We are losing our rights and spending money we don't have, and for what? What's the deal here?
What if, say, hundreds of thousands of people were to sign up to a single service. Each day they posted their messages to that service, plus some garbage, to make a nice constant number of daily "posts".
Actually, if you get into a real discussion about God with a Christian you will find out that, yes, God fucks with us quite a bit. That's part of why I left that faith. Insecurity is not what I'm looking for in a deity.
Chances of another civilization/species being friendly would be low. Think of it this way.
1) Anyone more advanced than us would likely have computers.
- if you have advanced computers- you would eventually rely on them for advice (at minimum) for running your government/civilization. We can therefore determine that their civilization would base decisions based on logic.
2) Logically- allowing another sapient species to exist would be a threat. There is always a possibility they will attack you, or compete for resources. The logical thing any sapient species should do to any other sapient species is wipe them out (if they can).
I believe it is this line of thinking that keeps other life forms from making contact with us, if they are there. Any alien watchers would know that we are a fearful race that has trouble playing nicely with others. If they have the technology to travel between solar systems, they would likely have eliminated war and violence as ways of solving problems. Otherwise, they likely would have destroyed themselves, as we have almost done and may still do. Wielding powerful technology requires wisdom and care in it's application. Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right, after all.
If aliens were to make contact with us, they would be either attacked or worshiped as gods. So unless they want one of those two things, they would keep quiet until we grow up some more.
Nobody is forcing you to walk through those check points. Just turn around and walk back out if you don't want to be searched.
Actually, yes, my employer is forcing me to walk through those checkpoints. It is required, from time to time, for my job. If you tell me to just get another job, I will respond rudely.
Ya I'm surpised anyone fell for this at all. Anyone who even knows a tiny tiny bit about anatomy of either humans or birds knows we just don't have the muscles for anything like that.
Though I didn't immediately realize it was a hoax, I did think to myself "Man, that guy must have pecs of steel!"
Whenever you hear of someone pushing to get rid of hard currency, they mention the decrease in crime... Yet the numbers here don't show me anything compelling. They show an 85.5% decrease in reported crimes relating to hard currency, and then gloss over a 505% increase in digital monetary crime. That's such a poor point to argue, why even mention it?
They mention it because it is a way of showing a shared benefit. Low crime sounds good, right? Well, hey, a cashless society moves us towards that! Isn't that great? Don't you now have a favorable impression of this cashless society thing?
It is a public relations/propaganda technique. If you want to influence people's attitude about something, it helps to associate it with something the subject finds positive (e.g. less crime) so they will perceive a personal benefit from what you are proposing (cashless society), even if that's not your real aim. That's why it is also paired with convenience, even though we can easily think of times when cash would be more convenient. Truth and accuracy become secondary when you are trying to push society in a particular direction. It's unfortunate, and it doesn't have to be that way. But it often is these days.
In our time we have no need for physical money, checks, or any of that stuff. Cashless means less crime, period.
Maybe you have no need for cash, but that does not describe all of us. Just remember that "crime" is often defined as something the establishment wants to curtail. Contradicting the church has been a crime. Helping escaped slaves has been a crime. The fact that someone wants the ability to have an anonymous record-less transaction does not imply they are up to no good.
You know, it might be a completely alien thought to some (most?) Americans but some countries have citizens / subjects that trust their government to represent and protect their interests.
Good for them. Really, if their government really does represent their interests, it is good for them. But that does not describe the United States government unless you are quite wealthy or a corporation.
Or if all of its support is *weakened* simultaneously. The fire had spread throughout the entirety of the floor and was weakening all of the supports at the same time
Do you have a citation for that? The NIST report says essentially that a single column lost support across multiple floors and pulled the rest of the building down with it. There is no mention that I have seen of fire spreading across an entire floor and somehow uniformly weakening the supports, causing them all to fail simultaneously. Though it seems we do agree that that is what had to have happened; that all the supports let go at once.
I read it. Apparently you didn't. "The average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computer free fall time." After that, yes, it reached close to free-fall acceleration, because at that point the structure could no longer maintain any meaningful resistance to the massive force of the already collapsed floors smashing down on it.
Yes, I read it too. I find it funny that I had to bring it to your attention, and yet you accuse me of not having read the report. Regardless, it does not say "close to free-fall" it says gravitational acceleration, or actual free-fall. This necessitates that the building provided no more resistance than air for the cited 105 feet. Can you explain (and I mean really explain, not just assert) how 8 stories of concrete and steel provided no resistance to the falling mass above? The NIST report doesn't explain it. They merely say that it's consistent with their analysis. However, they have been asked and have refused to release the models used in that analysis. So no one can check their work.
It is interesting to note that in the NIST's initial draft, free fall was denied. So their initial computer analysis apparently did not indicate free-fall. Yet, when it was pointed out to them that a free-fall condition was indeed present, that apparently was also consistent with their analysis. I think it calls into question the accuracy of their analysis.
"a risk of a plane hitting" a building implies an accident, in which the pilot is at least TRYING to veer off. Implying, an indirect impact.
What did you see as you watched those aircraft impact the twin towers? Did you see a bumbling fool accidentally impact the buildings, or did you see two massive missiles aimed at the hearts of the buildings?
I see. So you think the engineers only planned for a glancing blow but not a direct hit? Yeah, I'm sure that's it.
Speaking of engineering - bullet proof vests and body armor are engineered to save the life of the guy wearing them. Yet - people die frequently when hit by bullets while wearing body armor. Can you explain that?
Taking the WTC collapses as my guide, I'd say they died because when the bullet hit the vest, the vest just turned to dust and fell off the victim.
Sure it can, and it *will*, if the "something in the way" is evenly distributed.
I think we can agree that the only way for a building to fall straight down is if all of its support is removed simultaneously. If one section goes before another, it should topple. no?
Evidence on the free-fall speed assertion, please.
Getting a *small* building to not fall on surrounding buildilngs can be difficult. The bigger a building is, the more it weighs, *and* the greater the load on the supports (square-cube law), and greater the tendency for it to fall straight down (and the faster it will so fall, as well).
I will agree with that. But a tendency is not the same as did-it-three-times-in-one-day. If all that is required to get a tall building to fall straight down is damage it and set it on fire, the demo industry should look a lot different.
Why should any company meet you on the halfway mark?
Because it is cheaper, in the long run, for them to do so. Turnover costs money in lost productivity. Even if a new person comes in and is a rock star at %randomtech% they still need to learn the environment and everything else about the company. If you train your workers, and make them feel valued, they won't be nearly as likely to leave.
The thing is, most people are "low-information". It's not necessarily their fault. Most people are too busy to really analyze the news. They hear or watch their 30 minutes or so a day and that's it. So, as the AC above pointed out, they are ripe for manipulation by the media. And manipulated they are! So part of it is that people are too busy or stupid to pay close attention, and part of it is that it is hard to find good, complete, objective information. It seems everyone has an agenda these days. And civics education is just as bad. Personally, I think this is all at least partially by design. But reasonable people can disagree.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan and a lot of his ideas are extremely goofy. But I do admire a politician who knows what he thinks and says it when he knows it won't be popular.
Sorry to go off topic but I believe this, in a nutshell, is why Paul is so popular. Sure, a lot of his ideas are wacky. But some of them are good. And the fact that he says what he thinks regardless of its popularity is revolutionary to our modern politics. People think politicians are so full of shit, that they'll support anyone who seems not to be; even if that person is Ron Paul. And that's why Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) gets so little love from the press. The press functions largely to support the status quo, and Paul points out the faults with that status.
No what was unanticipated was that the fire would be burning so long. Disaster planning did not anticipate this scenario as most probably thought the fire would be put out right away. That might have saved the building.
Wait, so it was the duration of the fire, not the fire itself? Why can't these people who spout the official line get their stories straight? There are so many inconsistencies, how can they be trusted?
Physics dictates that a building "wants" to fall straight down. Moving that much mass off-center is really fucking difficult, and why even failed professional demolitions usually end up with incomplete collapse, rather than some old structure tipping over.
Physics also dictates that if something is in the way, an object cannot fall straight down, and cannot free-fall. In the case of Building 7, the building was in the way and yet it fell straight down and achieved free-fall speed (i.e. there was no more resistance than air). If someone can explain to me how a building provides no more resistance than air, I'm interested.
The only way a building can fall straight down is if support is removed from the bottom. This is why a demolition industry exists. Getting a building to not fall on surrounding buildings is very difficult, requiring months of planning and calculation. Before 9/11/01 this was common knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you make good points. Too bad you've been down-moderated. I further think that a lot of this issue stems from the conflation of civil marriage and religious marriage. People can get married without any involvement of a religious institution. That is why it is an equal protection issue.
I can understand a religious institution refusing to marry homosexuals. I don't agree, but it's their right. But the civil part of marriage is none of their business. They aren't involved. So whether or not God likes it shouldn't enter into it.
I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I believe homosexuality should not be promoted. I oppose gay marriage. Does this make me anti-gay? No way. Hate the sin and love the sinner. We are all children of God.
Let's turn this around: I believe Christianity is a sin. I believe Christianity should not be promoted. I oppose Christians' marriage. Does this make me anti-Christian? I understand you may not be Christian, but statistically you probably are. Though you could be Muslim or Jewish and believe homosexuality displeases God. Either way, I think folks should be humble about their faith, since it's just that; faith.
We elected the people who made all these rules, don't blame the TSA. The fault, ultimately, belongs to those of us who vote. If you don't like the way it works, start voting for someone else.
Let me know which presidential or congressional candidate has abolishing the TSA on his/her platform and I will vote for that person. The only one that comes close is Ron Paul, but he will not be a candidate for President.
So, how many gropes does it take to capture a terrorist?
A-one... a-two... a-three *squeeze* three.
No, they're murdering infants by the hundreds of thousands.
Now here's the fun part (probably): Watch my post get modded into oblivion, while the parent stays at "5".
They're murdering infants to make a political point, or scare the populace into changing their politics? If not, they're not really terrorists, just murderers. Though I also suspect we are not actually talking about infants, but embryos.
TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist in over a decade of existence. The fact that they are still getting (increased) funding is hard to imagine.
Yes, thank you. This is an indication to me that there is actually very little terrorist threat. Sure, there are a few nutters out there, but that has always been the case. The US is a largely open society, and is target rich. And yet terrorist incidents are quite rare here. So we can conclude either that the authorities are doing a bang-up job, or that there are actually very few people with the knowledge, motivation and lack of morals to want to hurt innocent people to make a point.
But still our military, intelligence, domestic law enforcement and foreign policy seem fixated on this threat; one that seems to largely not exist. We are losing our rights and spending money we don't have, and for what? What's the deal here?
What if, say, hundreds of thousands of people were to sign up to a single service. Each day they posted their messages to that service, plus some garbage, to make a nice constant number of daily "posts".
You mean like Facebook? ;-)
So God just wants to fuck with us?
Actually, if you get into a real discussion about God with a Christian you will find out that, yes, God fucks with us quite a bit. That's part of why I left that faith. Insecurity is not what I'm looking for in a deity.
Chances of another civilization/species being friendly would be low. Think of it this way.
1) Anyone more advanced than us would likely have computers. - if you have advanced computers- you would eventually rely on them for advice (at minimum) for running your government/civilization. We can therefore determine that their civilization would base decisions based on logic.
2) Logically- allowing another sapient species to exist would be a threat. There is always a possibility they will attack you, or compete for resources. The logical thing any sapient species should do to any other sapient species is wipe them out (if they can).
I believe it is this line of thinking that keeps other life forms from making contact with us, if they are there. Any alien watchers would know that we are a fearful race that has trouble playing nicely with others. If they have the technology to travel between solar systems, they would likely have eliminated war and violence as ways of solving problems. Otherwise, they likely would have destroyed themselves, as we have almost done and may still do. Wielding powerful technology requires wisdom and care in it's application. Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right, after all.
If aliens were to make contact with us, they would be either attacked or worshiped as gods. So unless they want one of those two things, they would keep quiet until we grow up some more.
Nobody is forcing you to walk through those check points. Just turn around and walk back out if you don't want to be searched.
Actually, yes, my employer is forcing me to walk through those checkpoints. It is required, from time to time, for my job. If you tell me to just get another job, I will respond rudely.
Ya I'm surpised anyone fell for this at all. Anyone who even knows a tiny tiny bit about anatomy of either humans or birds knows we just don't have the muscles for anything like that.
Though I didn't immediately realize it was a hoax, I did think to myself "Man, that guy must have pecs of steel!"
Whenever you hear of someone pushing to get rid of hard currency, they mention the decrease in crime... Yet the numbers here don't show me anything compelling. They show an 85.5% decrease in reported crimes relating to hard currency, and then gloss over a 505% increase in digital monetary crime. That's such a poor point to argue, why even mention it?
They mention it because it is a way of showing a shared benefit. Low crime sounds good, right? Well, hey, a cashless society moves us towards that! Isn't that great? Don't you now have a favorable impression of this cashless society thing?
It is a public relations/propaganda technique. If you want to influence people's attitude about something, it helps to associate it with something the subject finds positive (e.g. less crime) so they will perceive a personal benefit from what you are proposing (cashless society), even if that's not your real aim. That's why it is also paired with convenience, even though we can easily think of times when cash would be more convenient. Truth and accuracy become secondary when you are trying to push society in a particular direction. It's unfortunate, and it doesn't have to be that way. But it often is these days.
In our time we have no need for physical money, checks, or any of that stuff. Cashless means less crime, period.
Maybe you have no need for cash, but that does not describe all of us. Just remember that "crime" is often defined as something the establishment wants to curtail. Contradicting the church has been a crime. Helping escaped slaves has been a crime. The fact that someone wants the ability to have an anonymous record-less transaction does not imply they are up to no good.
You know, it might be a completely alien thought to some (most?) Americans but some countries have citizens / subjects that trust their government to represent and protect their interests.
Good for them. Really, if their government really does represent their interests, it is good for them. But that does not describe the United States government unless you are quite wealthy or a corporation.
I don't care what sort of up sides it has. The government being able to track every last penny spent is far too frightening to even consider.
Why is that any more or any less scary than a private company being able to do exactly the same thing?
It's not. I use cash whenever I can.
I don't care what sort of up sides it has. The government being able to track every last penny spent is far too frightening to even consider.
Agreed. I often think that those cheering on a cashless society have little imagination.
Or if all of its support is *weakened* simultaneously. The fire had spread throughout the entirety of the floor and was weakening all of the supports at the same time
Do you have a citation for that? The NIST report says essentially that a single column lost support across multiple floors and pulled the rest of the building down with it. There is no mention that I have seen of fire spreading across an entire floor and somehow uniformly weakening the supports, causing them all to fail simultaneously. Though it seems we do agree that that is what had to have happened; that all the supports let go at once.
I read it. Apparently you didn't. "The average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computer free fall time." After that, yes, it reached close to free-fall acceleration, because at that point the structure could no longer maintain any meaningful resistance to the massive force of the already collapsed floors smashing down on it.
Yes, I read it too. I find it funny that I had to bring it to your attention, and yet you accuse me of not having read the report. Regardless, it does not say "close to free-fall" it says gravitational acceleration, or actual free-fall. This necessitates that the building provided no more resistance than air for the cited 105 feet. Can you explain (and I mean really explain, not just assert) how 8 stories of concrete and steel provided no resistance to the falling mass above? The NIST report doesn't explain it. They merely say that it's consistent with their analysis. However, they have been asked and have refused to release the models used in that analysis. So no one can check their work.
It is interesting to note that in the NIST's initial draft, free fall was denied. So their initial computer analysis apparently did not indicate free-fall. Yet, when it was pointed out to them that a free-fall condition was indeed present, that apparently was also consistent with their analysis. I think it calls into question the accuracy of their analysis.
"a risk of a plane hitting" a building implies an accident, in which the pilot is at least TRYING to veer off. Implying, an indirect impact.
What did you see as you watched those aircraft impact the twin towers? Did you see a bumbling fool accidentally impact the buildings, or did you see two massive missiles aimed at the hearts of the buildings?
I see. So you think the engineers only planned for a glancing blow but not a direct hit? Yeah, I'm sure that's it.
Speaking of engineering - bullet proof vests and body armor are engineered to save the life of the guy wearing them. Yet - people die frequently when hit by bullets while wearing body armor. Can you explain that?
Taking the WTC collapses as my guide, I'd say they died because when the bullet hit the vest, the vest just turned to dust and fell off the victim.
I think we can agree that the only way for a building to fall straight down is if all of its support is removed simultaneously. If one section goes before another, it should topple. no?
It's in the NIST report. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 See page 45 of the linked PDF.
I will agree with that. But a tendency is not the same as did-it-three-times-in-one-day. If all that is required to get a tall building to fall straight down is damage it and set it on fire, the demo industry should look a lot different.
Why should any company meet you on the halfway mark?
Because it is cheaper, in the long run, for them to do so. Turnover costs money in lost productivity. Even if a new person comes in and is a rock star at %randomtech% they still need to learn the environment and everything else about the company. If you train your workers, and make them feel valued, they won't be nearly as likely to leave.
The thing is, most people are "low-information". It's not necessarily their fault. Most people are too busy to really analyze the news. They hear or watch their 30 minutes or so a day and that's it. So, as the AC above pointed out, they are ripe for manipulation by the media. And manipulated they are! So part of it is that people are too busy or stupid to pay close attention, and part of it is that it is hard to find good, complete, objective information. It seems everyone has an agenda these days. And civics education is just as bad. Personally, I think this is all at least partially by design. But reasonable people can disagree.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan and a lot of his ideas are extremely goofy. But I do admire a politician who knows what he thinks and says it when he knows it won't be popular.
Sorry to go off topic but I believe this, in a nutshell, is why Paul is so popular. Sure, a lot of his ideas are wacky. But some of them are good. And the fact that he says what he thinks regardless of its popularity is revolutionary to our modern politics. People think politicians are so full of shit, that they'll support anyone who seems not to be; even if that person is Ron Paul. And that's why Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) gets so little love from the press. The press functions largely to support the status quo, and Paul points out the faults with that status.
...the design was to withstand a plane crash, and to survive burning fuel, but not to survive a plane crash with burning fuel.
Wait, what?
No what was unanticipated was that the fire would be burning so long. Disaster planning did not anticipate this scenario as most probably thought the fire would be put out right away. That might have saved the building.
Wait, so it was the duration of the fire, not the fire itself? Why can't these people who spout the official line get their stories straight? There are so many inconsistencies, how can they be trusted?
Am I doing this right?
Physics dictates that a building "wants" to fall straight down. Moving that much mass off-center is really fucking difficult, and why even failed professional demolitions usually end up with incomplete collapse, rather than some old structure tipping over.
Physics also dictates that if something is in the way, an object cannot fall straight down, and cannot free-fall. In the case of Building 7, the building was in the way and yet it fell straight down and achieved free-fall speed (i.e. there was no more resistance than air). If someone can explain to me how a building provides no more resistance than air, I'm interested.
The only way a building can fall straight down is if support is removed from the bottom. This is why a demolition industry exists. Getting a building to not fall on surrounding buildings is very difficult, requiring months of planning and calculation. Before 9/11/01 this was common knowledge.