I hope you learned your lesson here: don't criticize NASA, or be prepared to be modded down.
Yes, apparently. Lessons from last week:
- Criticize NASA: modded down;
- Criticize Apple: modded up;
- Want to keep your karma as "excellent"?: get an another account to criticize NASA.
My comments had nothing to do with bashing NASA. NASA is great. NASA is awesome. If they'd pay any better, I'd be applying for a job. I was just wondering why the F something as simple as a bolt could become such a big issue. And that curiosity has been answered by many. For which I am grateful. Thank you, Slashdot, for these 4 lessons learned.
Are you seriously saying that you've never tested a network device in your test lab that was supposed to be a drop-in replacement for older technology already installed in the office (which is a unique environment that's not repeated anywhere else in your organization), then had the new device fail to work when it was plugged in without having someone tweak the configuration?
For mission-critical networks, we have a lab setup which precisely emulate the production network: same ports, same software, same physical connections. The only difference is physical. In those cases, reconfiguration means someone messed up a test.
you're obviously not an engineer. the big things are made up out of tiny things. its always* a tiny things that gets you
Not a mechanical engineer, no. I'm a network engineer. And when I build a network, I make sure to catch the "low hanging fruit" when I test things.
And when it comes to testing bolts, even with my non-mechanical engineering background, I can see that this is low hanging fruit. Will this bolt be able to turn 15 times in this configuration? I'm sure NASA would have been able to test that in their fish tank, and they probably did; with a different bolt...
I would expect that in 2012, NASA engineers would be capable of producing bolts that fit. Haven't they learned anything from Hubble?
Last weekend I watched NASA's "When we left the Earth" again on Netflix. They are capable of great, great achievements. Yet, they keep shooting their own foot with these tiny little things..
Now I'm confused. Are you suspecting me of being a skeptic?
Either way, I simply just don't understand the logic. Antarctica is being threatened by melting ice, and now a scientist (who I'm sure is very intelligent) comes up with an idea to install huge heaters in that area. I'm sure they will remove co2, but won't the side-effects be worse than the medicine?
Not quite. The CO2 maybe sweeped under the carpet, but if you would actually read the paper, page 21 shows that there may be a significant amount of excess heat produced by the process, which needs to be release to the environment. The CO2 is not the problem. The heat is?
So, in order to combat global warming, we install 400+ heaters on Antarctica? I'm sure the science behind it will work, but my initial response is: uuh... what?
Courts aren't stupid... They would still recognize that as an equally unfair action against competitors.
I disagree with you here. Courts are stupid, at least most of them. If you look at courts around the world, you will see that most senior judges (the ones handling the appeals cases, which are the most important ones) are well over their 40s, and have no affinity whatsoever with technology, let alone the complex internal workings of The Big Evil Internet.
Want to here the story about my wife giving birth? No problem. Labor was induced for medical reasons. After 24 hours at labor&delivery and 4 hours after the water broke, my wife experienced a lot of pain (despite the epidural). Our babies heart-rate (which was monitored since the first minute in the hospital) was worrying the doctor and had the nurse prepare the OR for an emergency C-section. Roughly 25 minutes later, our daughter was born.
Now, compare that with my sister-in-law, who had a baby son one year earlier. Contractions? Don't even bother to call the hospital (that's what they told her: "don't call back unless you experience them every x minutes"). C-section because he's upside-down? Nah, we'll take care of it. The poor baby got stuck during delivery, poor mama was ripped a part and the cord was wrapped around his neck, depriving him of oxygen. He did survive, though. Not to mention the fact that unless you happen to give birth during business hours, no way you'll get an epidural because they won't bring in an anesthesiologist. Not here-say, only personal experiences.
Did you know that Belgian doctors practice breech birth in The Netherlands? Every other civilized country plans a C-section for that. Not the Dutch.
Dutch generally known for their acceptance? Two generations ago, perhaps. Ask any willekeurige Marokkaan from Gouda, or anyone named Mohammed who sends his resume to an all-white employer. Yes, I've heard about Paul Ryan. Have you heard about Geertje W? Of Fleurtje A? Give me a break. I have been mocked for my first and last name, and heritage, as long as I can remember (despite me not even speaking my birth-country's language). No place on earth made me feel home more then Silicon Valley, where everyone has a story.
The one thing that used to be better in.nl was the public transport, until NS fscked up, together with the idiots from TLS.
They shouldn't be able to force him to answer questions in the first place. While it Sweden and Europe have laws different from the United States everyone in Europe always defends the countries of Europe by stating that there are unwritten laws equivalent. If there are then the where is the law which protects one from having to answer questions in the first place?
In the United States you have the right to remain silent. You might get brought in for questioning although they can't force you to answer anything.
If Sweden has something like this extraditing is pointless. He isn't required to answer questions.
Sweden, as part of the European Convention on Human Rights, has something like that. The difference between the U.S. and Sweden in that sense is that in the U.S. there is something called "Miranda rights", which basically say the the arresting officer MUST inform the suspect of all his rights. In the EU, it's merely "you don't have to say anything, but why did you rape that poor woman?".
American jurisdiction does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil at all. Not even for murder, to make things clear. Now if his home country decides that's a crime, that's fine.
Plain. Dead. Wrong.
American jurisdiction, Russian jurisdiction, it does not matter where you are. It matters where the crime is committed. Let me give you an example:
I'm British and I'm accidently sickened by this news, and I actually think our country deserves international condemnation over this but your rant is just stupid and wrong.
"Before exiting Heathrow Airport, you will be recorded on more CCTV camera's than while driving from San Francisco to New York."
That doesn't even make any sense, the distance between a plane and the exit to Heathrow isn't large enough for this to be true, unless you believe for some reason they have multiple CCTV cameras covering exactly the same spots taking the exact same redundant images for absolutely no reason at all. Hint: they don't. The UK has a CCTV problem, but your example is 100% bullshit, if you'd really actually been to Heathrow you'd know this.
I have been to Heathrow many times. And yes, I was exaggerating a but, but I'm glad to see that you at least agree with the message I was trying to bring: the U.K. has too much CCTV going on. It is impossible not to be on CCTV if you live in the U.K.
"The UK prohibits MP's of other European countries access because of their political views."
Sure, the UK has refused entry to Geert Wilders, the Dutch far right extremist politicians which is presumably who you're referring to, but that's because the UK was dealing with a resurgent BNP at the time and we frankly didn't want to strengthen the far right platform. You realise however that countries like the US ban even simple holiday makers for jokes they've made on Twitter which the US authorities finds offensive? many European countries also ban extremists and so forth too.
There is a difference between the holiday makers making "terrorist jokes" and an MP who has been invited to speak about his political views. And you've just proved my point: the politics in the U.K. are so rotten that they want to avoid strengthening a far right platform. You know what? Even the far right (which whom I definitely do not agree), have a right to form a political voice. I order for people to respect your/a democracy, you need to allow political views that you do not necessarily agree with. I don't agree with Geert Wilders at all. But I will defend his right to freedom of speech whenever I can. The U.K. has a right to deny GW entry to their country, but that gives me the right to place them on my list of countries-who-oppose-democracy, and on my list of rotten-countries. And again, nothing against the individual Briton like you, but the system as a whole.
We do need to make sure we don't allow the downwards trajectory towards less tolerance to continue though and absolutely we should still work to reverse it.
By limiting free speech?
"The health system exceeds Mao's finest expectations when it comes to communist equality for all, especially the lack of quality."
This is just stupid and wrong. The NHS works, it's one of the best systems in the world and used as a model for many other countries who want a progressive health system. If you think the NHS is somehow a communist issue, then presumably you think that the US having public police and fire services makes the US police and fire services communist too. In most civilised nations, healthcare is treated as an essential basic service just like policing, fire, and the military are. Sucks for you if you don't come from such a civilised society where people can focus on being productive, rather than having to worry as to whether they'll be made bankrupt for no other reason than they got ill.
Just check this link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=NHS+mistake and you'll see why I say this. There is one public system, and it is the NHS. Here in the U.S., I can choose which doctor I'd like to visit, if necessary. I agree with you that the insurance system is broken, but the quality of care is generally excellent.
"The police have a license to kill (remember the p
I have a question, based on your experience do you support Obamacare or not?
To be honest, I don't know enough details on the exact implications of the entire Affordable Care Act. However, I do think that healthcare is one of the few things where the government should have a bigger influence. They way it works here in the U.S. is a bit too far towards "let the market take care of it", but the way it works in the U.K. is a bit to socialist for me. Somewhere in between, with a working model, should be fine.
The quality of care here is great. The quality of the insurance system is exactly the opposite, and that's the issue. If you have money, you'll get great care. If you are poor, you're basically screwed. We have to find a workable middle way here.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, a hundred thousand japanese would not have been turned into carbon scorch marks.
You're rewriting history here. There are some pretty good documentaries on Netflix about Hirosjima and Nagaski. Technically you are right, but the Japanese government made the choice by themselves. They had the option to surrender before Hirosjima. After Hirosjima, before Nagasaki, they had the option to surrender. They chose not to. Had the U.S. not used the weapon, the war could (and probably would) have cost millions of more lives.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, many thousands of their citizens of japanese descent wouldn't have been held in concentration camps.
You are correct here. Did the U.S. government ever apologize for this?
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, millions of blacks wouldn't have been imported here and then enslaved.
And the Dutch. And the English. And the Spanish. That was a thing of that era.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, the native americans who lived here before would still be alive, before we wiped them out by giving them blankets laced with small pox -- an act of genocide using a weapon of mass destruction.
That's even longer ago. You can't compare our generations with generations centuries ago. If it would not have been for the Catholic Church, no suspected witch would ever have been burned. Same story, same history lesson.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans... ah, well, the list goes on.
I get your point, I really do. But instead of focusing on the negative sides of your country, focus on the positive ones. Every society can be evil. I chose to live in the U.S. because at this point in time I feel that the U.S. is the less evil of all (is that proper grammar?). There are things that I disagree with, like Guantanamo, like Assange, like Manning, like the TSA's groping, but in the end, it's not that bad.
And I have seen the U.S. say sorry many times. For example after the Qu'ran burnings were in the news. For example after some idiot soldiers treated prisoners like shit.
Wow. Just, wow. The fact you consider losing all your savings preferable to a National Health Service is, well..., just really *sad*.
Ok, small confession here: it wasn't all that much as I spend most of my hard-earned cash the past 10 months on my newborn daughter.
However, the savings that I still had, went to healthcare. Not because we were not insured, but because this particular benefit stopped at $2000.
I know it's true, because I live here. But I'm always astounded when I'm reminded how Americans have absolutely no concept of what a civilized society really looks like.
Well, first of all I'm not American. I'm from The Netherlands and moved to the U.S. two years ago. Best decision ever. Yes, I pay more for healthcare. But then again, I pay less taxes. And the quality of healthcare here is just.... Astonishing. My wife gave birth to our daughter last year, and she compared the care she received with the care her sister received in The Netherlands (admitted, probably slightly different from the U.K., but still a similar socialistic approach where healthcare is almost for free). I won't bore you with the details (we're getting way off-topic anyway), but once again I was strengthened in my belief that moving here was a good idea.
The concept of what a civilized society really looks like varies per person. I find it very civilized that I am fairly free to say what I think in this country (being the U.S. now), contrary to the U.K. (or The Netherlands, for that matter). I find it very civilized that I am welcomed by my neighbors and colleagues, and my slightly different background is respected, contrary to my previous residence. I can go on and on, but that would get very very off-topic.
To stay on-topic, one of the very few things I find highly uncivilized, is that one country is threatening to invade another country's embassy over something as small as Julian Assange. (again, not saying that I approve of the way the U.S. is handling this, but the U.K. are behaving like morons, too).
What does "the amount of idiots" have to do with anything if they can't fly in manual mode (at least not without having to pass the certs as you do to fly a plane manually)?
And yes, any automatic system, to receive certification, should also be able to demonstrate a safe automated response to failure scenarios. What that method is should be left up to the engineers at hand, whether it's having lots of engines, safe glide-landing options, parachutes with spreader guns, retro-rockets, whatever. So long as it is fully automated when an incident occurs and passes a certification process based on recreating the accident conditions.
With all due respect, you obviously have no idea of what it takes to fly an aircraft. Let me elaborate a bit
Flying a plane is easy. Everyone can be taught the principles of flight within a matter of hours. The same applies to having a computer fly an aircraft: no problem. Every computer can fly an aircraft. Let's not forget that a computer, with less cpu power than I have in my Android phone in my pocket, guided Neil and Buzz to the moon. Having that said, it is simply impossible to have a computer respond to a real emergency. If it would, we would not have commercial pilots fly airliners. Do you think a computer would have been able to land Cactus 1549 in the Hudson? Do you think a computer would have been able to land Air Transat 236 on the Azores?
When a malfunction occurs, a pilot needs to take control of an aircraft and quickly determine the best course of action. A computer can not make a safe glide-landing decision. I can have 20 engines, but if I have a fuel leak, they are useless. I can have a parachute, but if I have no safe place to land directly below me, it is useless.
Don't forget that a human can make a decision which a computer can not: I regularly fly over the SF Bay area, which is obviously crowded with people. There are certain points where an engine failure would mean that I would have to chose between my own safety, or that of people on the ground (for example, taking off from runway 31R on Reid-Hillview airport, which takes the plane straight over two schools).
The only automated response to in-flight emergency should be to activate the ELT and disengage the auto-pilot.
Now most other things about the UK can be considered shitty (as with the US), but the one thing that *DOES* work in the UK is the NHS.
Perhaps it does, but whenever I read something about the NHS, its a sad story in the Daily Mail about some doctor making a silly mistake that takes a way a father or mother from their children, or vice versa... And the response from the hospital after a comment request is always "we have this matter under investigation and will do everything we can to resolve the issue.. blabla".
Not saying the U.S. system is better (I just lost all my savings paying my wife's health costs) but I'm not sure if I ever wish to be treated in an NHS hospital.
Oh, us Americans do it all the time; that whole "we have more guns than you" -- It has made us many friends overseas.
Despite your sarcastic attempt to prove the contrary, you actually did.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, I would be speaking German by now. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, half of APAC would be speaking Japanese by now.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, whole Iraq would still be terrorized by Saddam and his family. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, Kuwait would still be a province of Iraq. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, every schoolgirl in Afghanistan would be shot by the Taliban. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, we would not have a rover on Mars today.
I'm not American by birth, but I am proud to live in the U.S. (but the way this whole Assange thing is handled, is not something I find to be in spirit with the American Way, as I learned it while living here).
and I suspect I am not alone in not regarding UK as a dignified country no more.
You are definitely not. The UK has stopped being one of the good guys years ago.
<-- beginning of rant>
Before exiting Heathrow Airport, you will be recorded on more CCTV camera's than while driving from San Francisco to New York. The UK prohibits MP's of other European countries access because of their political views. The health system exceeds Mao's finest expectations when it comes to communist equality for all, especially the lack of quality. The school systems is terribly broken. The police have a license to kill (remember the poor Brazilian guy in London?). They sold out their own traditions in order to get the Corrupt Olympics of 2012.
<end of rant-->
The UK is one of the most rotten countries in the world and if I would not have to go there occasionally on business trips, I would avoid it as the plague. No way in hell will I ever spend a single holiday penny there.
And don't get me wrong, I have very good friends that are British and have no problem with the people. Most Brits are fine folks. It's just their government that they have to deal with. Poor them.
There is no such thing as an international right for asylum in an embassy, except within the confines of Article 14 of the UDHR, which involves only prosecution for political crimes. Rape is not a political crime. The arrest warrant has "rape" checked as the reason.
Yes, like the Russian Government issue arrest warrants for "tax evasion" for people who oppose that KGB agent in charge of the country.
I'm personally no fan of Wikileaks and imho they have done more harm than good, but this hole thing smells like it is politically motivated. If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, don't put lipstick on it because it will stay a pig.
when your downloading copyrighted items using your phone in the middle of a police station with a camera on you while you verbally admit to the owner of the copyrighted content while showing them exactly what you are downloading and then verify what you were downloading was actually not authorized for you to download...
Read the article again. This is regarding file-sharing. Uploading. The opposite of downloading.
As a person who wants flying cars and to be able to take naps on commutes, I disagree. This could be the break that autonomous land vehicles have been waiting for.
Step 1. Reserve flying car zones say, 500 feet.
Step 2. These zones would be for flying cars only. No ultralights, balloons, helicopters, small aircraft or lawn chairs allowed. Just flying cars.
Step 3. Make flying cars fully automated - no manual controls allowed. You want to go in a flying car? You let the robot drive. You want to drive yourself? You stick to two dimensions.
Like others in this thread, I am a pilot (single engine). You don't want cars flying 500ft, for the following reason:
Anything that flies, must come down at some point. Either controlled (by the airman or a robot) or uncontrolled (in case of an emergency/engine failure). I spent about 60% of my flight training on emergency handling. What to do in case of an engine failure? What to do in case of an electrical fire? Or fuel starvation?
Flying at 500ft (the minimum altitude on most airspace) gives you very little options if you need to make an emergency aircraft. In general, pilots fly at least 1000ft AGL in order to have sufficient altitude to make a safe landing (where safe could mean severe injury for the occupants or the aircraft, but no casualties on the ground) if needed.
But the biggest issue is: considering the amount of idiots on the road here in California, I'd never step in an aircraft again if those morons are passing FAA check-rides, and I risk flying in the proximity of them.
Hmm, if that insurance is Accidental Death and Dismemberment (ADD) then you should probably get some real insurance. Accidental death generally doesn't cover death from natural causes. So, if you die as the result of the coffee maker in the break room exploding and blowing off your head, you are covered. If you go swimming in polluted water, develop a horrible disease, and eventually die then you aren't covered. You want "life insurance" as well as the ADD insurance.
Which is exactly what my employer does as well. I have ADD insurance + life insurance, where the life insurance pays between 2 and 6 times my yearly salary (I can exchange between benefits). There are no exclusions with regards to the life insurance. I elected for the maximum, 6 times my yearly salary so I can proudly say that my death benefits are better than that of a Google employee:-)
Apparently, you only read the last sentence of my post. Or chose only to pay attention to the last sentence. I said:
and
And so, despite the fact that you decided to attack me even though I'm on the same side of the fence you are, I'll chalk up your nastiness to low blood sugar, poor reading comprehension or just that you're having a bad day. I hope the rest of your day is much better. You see? It's not so hard to be nice to people even when you're being pseudonymous, Sabri. You might want to think about that the next time you're tempted to be insulting for no apparent reason. Toodles!
Hmm.
You know what?
You are right. I actually did only read the last sentence of your post. So, I will hereby publicly apologize to you, NotSanguine. I stand corrected.
BTW, for what it's worth, I am using my real name here:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you learned your lesson here: don't criticize NASA, or be prepared to be modded down.
Yes, apparently. Lessons from last week:
- Criticize NASA: modded down;
- Criticize Apple: modded up;
- Want to keep your karma as "excellent"?: get an another account to criticize NASA.
My comments had nothing to do with bashing NASA. NASA is great. NASA is awesome. If they'd pay any better, I'd be applying for a job. I was just wondering why the F something as simple as a bolt could become such a big issue. And that curiosity has been answered by many. For which I am grateful. Thank you, Slashdot, for these 4 lessons learned.
Are you seriously saying that you've never tested a network device in your test lab that was supposed to be a drop-in replacement for older technology already installed in the office (which is a unique environment that's not repeated anywhere else in your organization), then had the new device fail to work when it was plugged in without having someone tweak the configuration?
For mission-critical networks, we have a lab setup which precisely emulate the production network: same ports, same software, same physical connections. The only difference is physical. In those cases, reconfiguration means someone messed up a test.
Could be a lot of things, and you can't test space technology 100% without, you know, putting it into space.
Fair point!
you're obviously not an engineer. the big things are made up out of tiny things. its always* a tiny things that gets you
Not a mechanical engineer, no. I'm a network engineer. And when I build a network, I make sure to catch the "low hanging fruit" when I test things.
And when it comes to testing bolts, even with my non-mechanical engineering background, I can see that this is low hanging fruit. Will this bolt be able to turn 15 times in this configuration? I'm sure NASA would have been able to test that in their fish tank, and they probably did; with a different bolt...
I would expect that in 2012, NASA engineers would be capable of producing bolts that fit. Haven't they learned anything from Hubble?
Last weekend I watched NASA's "When we left the Earth" again on Netflix. They are capable of great, great achievements. Yet, they keep shooting their own foot with these tiny little things..
Now let's wait and see whether or not M$ will outsource part of their workforce to Kiwiland to thank the politicians for their great cooperation...
It's Judith Curry
Now I'm confused. Are you suspecting me of being a skeptic?
Either way, I simply just don't understand the logic. Antarctica is being threatened by melting ice, and now a scientist (who I'm sure is very intelligent) comes up with an idea to install huge heaters in that area. I'm sure they will remove co2, but won't the side-effects be worse than the medicine?
(honestly, not trying to troll here).
Not quite. The CO2 maybe sweeped under the carpet, but if you would actually read the paper, page 21 shows that there may be a significant amount of excess heat produced by the process, which needs to be release to the environment. The CO2 is not the problem. The heat is?
So, in order to combat global warming, we install 400+ heaters on Antarctica? I'm sure the science behind it will work, but my initial response is: uuh... what?
Courts aren't stupid... They would still recognize that as an equally unfair action against competitors.
I disagree with you here. Courts are stupid, at least most of them. If you look at courts around the world, you will see that most senior judges (the ones handling the appeals cases, which are the most important ones) are well over their 40s, and have no affinity whatsoever with technology, let alone the complex internal workings of The Big Evil Internet.
Want proof? Look at the various rulings that prohibit linking for example.
Not to mention the hostility they hold towards internet providers, favoring the Copyright Mafia.
Waar in de VS? En waar in Nederland?
San Jose, CA and Utrecht.
.nl was the public transport, until NS fscked up, together with the idiots from TLS.
Want to here the story about my wife giving birth? No problem. Labor was induced for medical reasons. After 24 hours at labor&delivery and 4 hours after the water broke, my wife experienced a lot of pain (despite the epidural). Our babies heart-rate (which was monitored since the first minute in the hospital) was worrying the doctor and had the nurse prepare the OR for an emergency C-section. Roughly 25 minutes later, our daughter was born.
Now, compare that with my sister-in-law, who had a baby son one year earlier. Contractions? Don't even bother to call the hospital (that's what they told her: "don't call back unless you experience them every x minutes"). C-section because he's upside-down? Nah, we'll take care of it. The poor baby got stuck during delivery, poor mama was ripped a part and the cord was wrapped around his neck, depriving him of oxygen. He did survive, though. Not to mention the fact that unless you happen to give birth during business hours, no way you'll get an epidural because they won't bring in an anesthesiologist. Not here-say, only personal experiences.
Did you know that Belgian doctors practice breech birth in The Netherlands? Every other civilized country plans a C-section for that. Not the Dutch.
Dutch generally known for their acceptance? Two generations ago, perhaps. Ask any willekeurige Marokkaan from Gouda, or anyone named Mohammed who sends his resume to an all-white employer. Yes, I've heard about Paul Ryan. Have you heard about Geertje W? Of Fleurtje A? Give me a break. I have been mocked for my first and last name, and heritage, as long as I can remember (despite me not even speaking my birth-country's language). No place on earth made me feel home more then Silicon Valley, where everyone has a story.
The one thing that used to be better in
They shouldn't be able to force him to answer questions in the first place. While it Sweden and Europe have laws different from the United States everyone in Europe always defends the countries of Europe by stating that there are unwritten laws equivalent. If there are then the where is the law which protects one from having to answer questions in the first place? In the United States you have the right to remain silent. You might get brought in for questioning although they can't force you to answer anything. If Sweden has something like this extraditing is pointless. He isn't required to answer questions.
Sweden, as part of the European Convention on Human Rights, has something like that. The difference between the U.S. and Sweden in that sense is that in the U.S. there is something called "Miranda rights", which basically say the the arresting officer MUST inform the suspect of all his rights. In the EU, it's merely "you don't have to say anything, but why did you rape that poor woman?".
American jurisdiction does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil at all. Not even for murder, to make things clear. Now if his home country decides that's a crime, that's fine.
Plain. Dead. Wrong.
American jurisdiction, Russian jurisdiction, it does not matter where you are. It matters where the crime is committed. Let me give you an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
I'm British and I'm accidently sickened by this news, and I actually think our country deserves international condemnation over this but your rant is just stupid and wrong. "Before exiting Heathrow Airport, you will be recorded on more CCTV camera's than while driving from San Francisco to New York." That doesn't even make any sense, the distance between a plane and the exit to Heathrow isn't large enough for this to be true, unless you believe for some reason they have multiple CCTV cameras covering exactly the same spots taking the exact same redundant images for absolutely no reason at all. Hint: they don't. The UK has a CCTV problem, but your example is 100% bullshit, if you'd really actually been to Heathrow you'd know this.
I have been to Heathrow many times. And yes, I was exaggerating a but, but I'm glad to see that you at least agree with the message I was trying to bring: the U.K. has too much CCTV going on. It is impossible not to be on CCTV if you live in the U.K.
"The UK prohibits MP's of other European countries access because of their political views." Sure, the UK has refused entry to Geert Wilders, the Dutch far right extremist politicians which is presumably who you're referring to, but that's because the UK was dealing with a resurgent BNP at the time and we frankly didn't want to strengthen the far right platform. You realise however that countries like the US ban even simple holiday makers for jokes they've made on Twitter which the US authorities finds offensive? many European countries also ban extremists and so forth too.
There is a difference between the holiday makers making "terrorist jokes" and an MP who has been invited to speak about his political views. And you've just proved my point: the politics in the U.K. are so rotten that they want to avoid strengthening a far right platform. You know what? Even the far right (which whom I definitely do not agree), have a right to form a political voice. I order for people to respect your/a democracy, you need to allow political views that you do not necessarily agree with. I don't agree with Geert Wilders at all. But I will defend his right to freedom of speech whenever I can. The U.K. has a right to deny GW entry to their country, but that gives me the right to place them on my list of countries-who-oppose-democracy, and on my list of rotten-countries. And again, nothing against the individual Briton like you, but the system as a whole.
We do need to make sure we don't allow the downwards trajectory towards less tolerance to continue though and absolutely we should still work to reverse it.
By limiting free speech?
"The health system exceeds Mao's finest expectations when it comes to communist equality for all, especially the lack of quality." This is just stupid and wrong. The NHS works, it's one of the best systems in the world and used as a model for many other countries who want a progressive health system. If you think the NHS is somehow a communist issue, then presumably you think that the US having public police and fire services makes the US police and fire services communist too. In most civilised nations, healthcare is treated as an essential basic service just like policing, fire, and the military are. Sucks for you if you don't come from such a civilised society where people can focus on being productive, rather than having to worry as to whether they'll be made bankrupt for no other reason than they got ill.
Just check this link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=NHS+mistake and you'll see why I say this. There is one public system, and it is the NHS. Here in the U.S., I can choose which doctor I'd like to visit, if necessary. I agree with you that the insurance system is broken, but the quality of care is generally excellent.
"The police have a license to kill (remember the p
I have a question, based on your experience do you support Obamacare or not?
To be honest, I don't know enough details on the exact implications of the entire Affordable Care Act. However, I do think that healthcare is one of the few things where the government should have a bigger influence. They way it works here in the U.S. is a bit too far towards "let the market take care of it", but the way it works in the U.K. is a bit to socialist for me. Somewhere in between, with a working model, should be fine.
The quality of care here is great. The quality of the insurance system is exactly the opposite, and that's the issue. If you have money, you'll get great care. If you are poor, you're basically screwed. We have to find a workable middle way here.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, a hundred thousand japanese would not have been turned into carbon scorch marks.
You're rewriting history here. There are some pretty good documentaries on Netflix about Hirosjima and Nagaski. Technically you are right, but the Japanese government made the choice by themselves. They had the option to surrender before Hirosjima. After Hirosjima, before Nagasaki, they had the option to surrender. They chose not to. Had the U.S. not used the weapon, the war could (and probably would) have cost millions of more lives.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, many thousands of their citizens of japanese descent wouldn't have been held in concentration camps.
You are correct here. Did the U.S. government ever apologize for this?
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, millions of blacks wouldn't have been imported here and then enslaved.
And the Dutch. And the English. And the Spanish. That was a thing of that era.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, the native americans who lived here before would still be alive, before we wiped them out by giving them blankets laced with small pox -- an act of genocide using a weapon of mass destruction.
That's even longer ago. You can't compare our generations with generations centuries ago. If it would not have been for the Catholic Church, no suspected witch would ever have been burned. Same story, same history lesson.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans... ah, well, the list goes on.
I get your point, I really do. But instead of focusing on the negative sides of your country, focus on the positive ones. Every society can be evil. I chose to live in the U.S. because at this point in time I feel that the U.S. is the less evil of all (is that proper grammar?). There are things that I disagree with, like Guantanamo, like Assange, like Manning, like the TSA's groping, but in the end, it's not that bad.
And I have seen the U.S. say sorry many times. For example after the Qu'ran burnings were in the news. For example after some idiot soldiers treated prisoners like shit.
Wow. Just, wow. The fact you consider losing all your savings preferable to a National Health Service is, well..., just really *sad*.
Ok, small confession here: it wasn't all that much as I spend most of my hard-earned cash the past 10 months on my newborn daughter.
However, the savings that I still had, went to healthcare. Not because we were not insured, but because this particular benefit stopped at $2000.
I know it's true, because I live here. But I'm always astounded when I'm reminded how Americans have absolutely no concept of what a civilized society really looks like.
Well, first of all I'm not American. I'm from The Netherlands and moved to the U.S. two years ago. Best decision ever. Yes, I pay more for healthcare. But then again, I pay less taxes. And the quality of healthcare here is just.... Astonishing. My wife gave birth to our daughter last year, and she compared the care she received with the care her sister received in The Netherlands (admitted, probably slightly different from the U.K., but still a similar socialistic approach where healthcare is almost for free). I won't bore you with the details (we're getting way off-topic anyway), but once again I was strengthened in my belief that moving here was a good idea.
The concept of what a civilized society really looks like varies per person. I find it very civilized that I am fairly free to say what I think in this country (being the U.S. now), contrary to the U.K. (or The Netherlands, for that matter). I find it very civilized that I am welcomed by my neighbors and colleagues, and my slightly different background is respected, contrary to my previous residence. I can go on and on, but that would get very very off-topic.
To stay on-topic, one of the very few things I find highly uncivilized, is that one country is threatening to invade another country's embassy over something as small as Julian Assange. (again, not saying that I approve of the way the U.S. is handling this, but the U.K. are behaving like morons, too).
What does "the amount of idiots" have to do with anything if they can't fly in manual mode (at least not without having to pass the certs as you do to fly a plane manually)? And yes, any automatic system, to receive certification, should also be able to demonstrate a safe automated response to failure scenarios. What that method is should be left up to the engineers at hand, whether it's having lots of engines, safe glide-landing options, parachutes with spreader guns, retro-rockets, whatever. So long as it is fully automated when an incident occurs and passes a certification process based on recreating the accident conditions.
With all due respect, you obviously have no idea of what it takes to fly an aircraft. Let me elaborate a bit
Flying a plane is easy. Everyone can be taught the principles of flight within a matter of hours. The same applies to having a computer fly an aircraft: no problem. Every computer can fly an aircraft. Let's not forget that a computer, with less cpu power than I have in my Android phone in my pocket, guided Neil and Buzz to the moon. Having that said, it is simply impossible to have a computer respond to a real emergency. If it would, we would not have commercial pilots fly airliners. Do you think a computer would have been able to land Cactus 1549 in the Hudson? Do you think a computer would have been able to land Air Transat 236 on the Azores?
When a malfunction occurs, a pilot needs to take control of an aircraft and quickly determine the best course of action. A computer can not make a safe glide-landing decision. I can have 20 engines, but if I have a fuel leak, they are useless. I can have a parachute, but if I have no safe place to land directly below me, it is useless.
Don't forget that a human can make a decision which a computer can not: I regularly fly over the SF Bay area, which is obviously crowded with people. There are certain points where an engine failure would mean that I would have to chose between my own safety, or that of people on the ground (for example, taking off from runway 31R on Reid-Hillview airport, which takes the plane straight over two schools).
The only automated response to in-flight emergency should be to activate the ELT and disengage the auto-pilot.
Now most other things about the UK can be considered shitty (as with the US), but the one thing that *DOES* work in the UK is the NHS.
Perhaps it does, but whenever I read something about the NHS, its a sad story in the Daily Mail about some doctor making a silly mistake that takes a way a father or mother from their children, or vice versa... And the response from the hospital after a comment request is always "we have this matter under investigation and will do everything we can to resolve the issue .. blabla".
Not saying the U.S. system is better (I just lost all my savings paying my wife's health costs) but I'm not sure if I ever wish to be treated in an NHS hospital.
Oh, us Americans do it all the time; that whole "we have more guns than you" -- It has made us many friends overseas.
Despite your sarcastic attempt to prove the contrary, you actually did.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, I would be speaking German by now.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, half of APAC would be speaking Japanese by now.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, whole Iraq would still be terrorized by Saddam and his family.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, Kuwait would still be a province of Iraq.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, every schoolgirl in Afghanistan would be shot by the Taliban.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, we would not have a rover on Mars today.
I'm not American by birth, but I am proud to live in the U.S. (but the way this whole Assange thing is handled, is not something I find to be in spirit with the American Way, as I learned it while living here).
and I suspect I am not alone in not regarding UK as a dignified country no more.
You are definitely not. The UK has stopped being one of the good guys years ago.
<-- beginning of rant>
Before exiting Heathrow Airport, you will be recorded on more CCTV camera's than while driving from San Francisco to New York. The UK prohibits MP's of other European countries access because of their political views. The health system exceeds Mao's finest expectations when it comes to communist equality for all, especially the lack of quality. The school systems is terribly broken. The police have a license to kill (remember the poor Brazilian guy in London?). They sold out their own traditions in order to get the Corrupt Olympics of 2012.
<end of rant-->
The UK is one of the most rotten countries in the world and if I would not have to go there occasionally on business trips, I would avoid it as the plague. No way in hell will I ever spend a single holiday penny there.
And don't get me wrong, I have very good friends that are British and have no problem with the people. Most Brits are fine folks. It's just their government that they have to deal with. Poor them.
There is no such thing as an international right for asylum in an embassy, except within the confines of Article 14 of the UDHR, which involves only prosecution for political crimes. Rape is not a political crime. The arrest warrant has "rape" checked as the reason.
Yes, like the Russian Government issue arrest warrants for "tax evasion" for people who oppose that KGB agent in charge of the country.
I'm personally no fan of Wikileaks and imho they have done more harm than good, but this hole thing smells like it is politically motivated. If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, don't put lipstick on it because it will stay a pig.
when your downloading copyrighted items using your phone in the middle of a police station with a camera on you while you verbally admit to the owner of the copyrighted content while showing them exactly what you are downloading and then verify what you were downloading was actually not authorized for you to download...
Read the article again. This is regarding file-sharing. Uploading. The opposite of downloading.
As a person who wants flying cars and to be able to take naps on commutes, I disagree. This could be the break that autonomous land vehicles have been waiting for.
Step 1. Reserve flying car zones say, 500 feet. Step 2. These zones would be for flying cars only. No ultralights, balloons, helicopters, small aircraft or lawn chairs allowed. Just flying cars. Step 3. Make flying cars fully automated - no manual controls allowed. You want to go in a flying car? You let the robot drive. You want to drive yourself? You stick to two dimensions.
Like others in this thread, I am a pilot (single engine). You don't want cars flying 500ft, for the following reason:
Anything that flies, must come down at some point. Either controlled (by the airman or a robot) or uncontrolled (in case of an emergency/engine failure). I spent about 60% of my flight training on emergency handling. What to do in case of an engine failure? What to do in case of an electrical fire? Or fuel starvation?
Flying at 500ft (the minimum altitude on most airspace) gives you very little options if you need to make an emergency aircraft. In general, pilots fly at least 1000ft AGL in order to have sufficient altitude to make a safe landing (where safe could mean severe injury for the occupants or the aircraft, but no casualties on the ground) if needed.
But the biggest issue is: considering the amount of idiots on the road here in California, I'd never step in an aircraft again if those morons are passing FAA check-rides, and I risk flying in the proximity of them.
Hmm, if that insurance is Accidental Death and Dismemberment (ADD) then you should probably get some real insurance. Accidental death generally doesn't cover death from natural causes. So, if you die as the result of the coffee maker in the break room exploding and blowing off your head, you are covered. If you go swimming in polluted water, develop a horrible disease, and eventually die then you aren't covered. You want "life insurance" as well as the ADD insurance.
Which is exactly what my employer does as well. I have ADD insurance + life insurance, where the life insurance pays between 2 and 6 times my yearly salary (I can exchange between benefits). There are no exclusions with regards to the life insurance. I elected for the maximum, 6 times my yearly salary so I can proudly say that my death benefits are better than that of a Google employee :-)
Apparently, you only read the last sentence of my post. Or chose only to pay attention to the last sentence. I said:
and
And so, despite the fact that you decided to attack me even though I'm on the same side of the fence you are, I'll chalk up your nastiness to low blood sugar, poor reading comprehension or just that you're having a bad day. I hope the rest of your day is much better. You see? It's not so hard to be nice to people even when you're being pseudonymous, Sabri. You might want to think about that the next time you're tempted to be insulting for no apparent reason. Toodles!
Hmm.
:-)
You know what?
You are right. I actually did only read the last sentence of your post. So, I will hereby publicly apologize to you, NotSanguine. I stand corrected.
BTW, for what it's worth, I am using my real name here