I'll field that one. Perhaps the "appropriate target" bit was wrong, but the pilots certainly hit the targets they had selected. Poor judgment in target selection? Yes. Inaccuracy? 9 out of 10 Canadians say no.
I was BSing with a friend one evening, bitching about my users. In the process, I made a wisecrack that several people (including myself) have since adopted; it seems truer with every passing day. He said something about giving the user what he wants, and I replied:
"The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants fries with that, if prompted."
"Ballistic Magnetoresistance?" I thought that was the resistance offered by the magnetic platters when I use my.45 to read-protect my drive from the FBI/BSA/MS.
Mr. Coward Interesting concept, running two mono channels into a single stereo stream, but not quite what I'm looking for here. The two streams are totally independent, and that would be confusing to say the least (at least to most listeners). The listeners have been e-mailing me for two weeks asking my why they can't connect, when I've posted, at the top of the page, in boldface, that the server is temporarily down. Call me an elitist, but if they can't read that, I sincerely doubt they'll pick up on instructions to adjust the balance control. Good thinking, though; I hadn't even considered that sort of solution.
bofhkentucky: Two separate channels, feeding two separate streams; mixing them would be bad. It'd be like trying to listen to two radio stations at the same time. While pilots do tend to step on each others' transmissions (frequently), I'd rather not make it worse.
adolf: Lots of good points in your post; thanks for the good response. To clarify a few things:
While it works, I'm not particularly happy with what I have. I can't daemonize WinAmp, and I can't separate it from the display, and I can't control it via Remote Desktop (on 'doze), so I have to start it manually at boot time, and leave the machine logged in (locked, of course); I also have to leave VNC running in case I need to remote-admin it. It works, for very small values of "works."
I'm probably going to go to ALSA + two sound cards, but I expect to have trouble. Sound cards and I just don't get along under Linux. I just spent about four hours getting ALSA to (mostly) work under Linux on a different machine, and it's still missing a few things (like OSS emulation; mpg123 doesn't work at all, though the ALSA plugin for XMMS is working great).
I'll go ahead and increase the bit-depth; I don't know what I was thinking at the time, I should have known better. The machine had plenty of capability, too. Blarg.
seann: I'm trying to avoid XMMS and other programs that want a display. Daemons are good here. That said, what's Output Stacker? I haven't heard of it, and I've poked around quite a bit.
Rob (and everybody): I have a box that can handle it, if I can get the software working. I looked at Darwin Streaming Server, and it appears to be comparable to SHOUTcast and IceCast. I'm not having trouble finding a server, the problem lies in the source; I can't find a good program to connect the line-in to the streaming server. LiveIce appears to do what I want, but I don't know how it would handle multiple instances on the same machine, being fed by multiple sound cards (adolf: I'll have a look at the.confs/sources). When I said hardware, I was thinking of a dedicated device. The only one I found was the Telos Systems Audioactive live MP3 streamer, but at $2800 a copy, it's a bit out of my price range (we don't spend that much on aircraft radios!). I was looking for something that's a dedicated, single-purpose, plug and play device; configure it once, and that's the last I see or hear of it. I'm a lazy admin--the less I have to touch it, the happier I am. I didn't mean to imply that I was looking for special computer hardware, but for a standalone audio device.
All: thanks for the suggestions. At the moment, it looks like I'm going to stick with Linux + two cards, if I can figure out how to get IceCast working (I've been having a bear of a time getting it to play nice; I honestly believe I'm cursed when Linux and sound are involved). If anybody else has any thoughts, I'd certainly love to hear them.
14 CFR 121.306 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to --
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.
(Source: Government Printing Office)
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations governes Aeronautics and Space. Part 121 covers scheduled airline operations (parts 135 and 91 cover charter-type operations and all other operations, respectively, and have similar language).
As for a CD player, or a computer, or any other digital device, it does have an RF oscillator: it's called a clock (as in "clock speed"), and most of them are poorly shielded, if shielded at all. Think about it--is your CD player's case made of metal or plastic? I don't feel like retyping (or copying and editing) my previous post on the subject, but if you follow the link, you'll find a much more in-depth explanation.
--Dave Buckles
Commercial Pilot, Airplane Single and Multiengine Land
Instrument Airplane
Flight Instructor--Airplane
Instrument Instructor
2711311 CFII 06/04
and with no intention of letting him stand up and defend himself
How do you figure? The defense could have called him to the stand, but chose not to. The prosecution cannot call the accused to the stand--pesky little thing called the Fifth Amendment. The defense chose not to call Dmitri to explain the statements, probably because, if called, Dmitri would be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, which usually bolsters their case (even when there's no case to be made). Sounds to me like the prosecutor did his job correctly, and the defense attorney made a good decision. Incidentally, it looks like the defense attorney's decision was correct--they won.
Before everybody gets up in arms about this great injustice, let's have a brief look at the facts*, shall we?
Dmitri gave his deposition, presumably voluntarily. Before questioning, he would have been apprised of his rights, and of the fact that anything he said (including the deposition) could be used against him in court.
That means he knew they could use the deposition in court, and chose to give it anyway
The Constitution specifically forbids the prosecution from calling Dmitri to the stand--that whole pesky "Fifth Amendment" thing, which states, in part, "nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
That means that the prosecutor couldn't call him to the stand, even if he wanted to
Unless I'm missing something here, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If Dmitri wanted to testify, his lawyer, the defense attorney, could have called him to the stand; that he didn't indicates that he (the lawyer) felt that putting him on the stand, where he'd be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, would be more harmful to the case than allowing his deposition to go unexplained.
Given the outcome of the case, I'd have to agree.
IANAL.
(*Yes, I know, facts, on Slashdot. It's so crazy it just might work!)
How, exactly, is this is a troll? My guess is that the moderator didn't get the joke. So, for the cosmically clueless, here it is:
The parent poster misspelled "rogue" as "rouge." This misspelling actually resulted in a different word, properly spelled. "Rouge" is French (and other languages, including English meanings) for "red." Therefore, when Alomex commented on "rouge linux" being the standard distro in Soviet Russia, he was actually being quite witty: Red Linux is standard distro in Soviet Russia.
Sheesh. Give some clown mod points, he turns off his brain.
In a tight market, though, you are forced to take what you can get, and employers know this.
That's because, in a tight market, you're worth less. Supply and demand: when supply exceeds demand, as in a tight market, price will decline, because there are more options available. It's called "competition," and it's amazing how certain Slashdotters call it a good thing when there's competition in the consumer goods market (lowering prices), but a bad thing in the employment market (lowering wages). The world is not structured to benefit you (the collective you) all the time; sometimes, you have to take your lumps, suck it up, and survive until you get another chance to thrive. Matter of fact, that's been a pattern in life since, oh, about the time life began. Famine and feast. You want to improve your value? Reduce supply. No, that doesn't mean getting rid of other techs, it means making yourself more valuable. If you add to your skillset, you move yourself to a new market, essentially the Skill +1 market. That's smaller than the Skill 0 market. Do it again, moving to Skill +2, and there are even fewer people against whom you'll need to compete. As you do so, you make yourself more valuable; you're worth more, and you'll get paid more. Just don't sit and whine because you're not living in a permanent "feast" time, and able to pull down the same salary you were five years ago because the supply was tight relative to demand.
Think about how far along MS has come in a short time. Where will it end? If they are not stopped - it won't end. It sounds cliche, but MS is clearly on the path to *world domination* (ok, that was maybe just added for dramatic effect).
Pardon? Yes, I'm sure MS does aspire to be the sole provider of the world's software; most businesses want to be the only one in the market.
That said, I don't think they're on that path at all. In fact, I was having this discussion with a couple of friends just a few nights ago. I argued, to some success, that MS is actually losing mindshare. I've talked to a number of people recently; my bosses (both retired Air Force officers) both appreciate the value of having source code, and one even mentioned it to me (which came as a total shock) that for our new project, we need to get the source, not just binaries. I was flying from Oklahoma City to Indianapolis a few weeks ago, and got to talking to one of my passengers. I don't remember exactly how, but he and I discussed open-source software and alternative operating systems. These are not isolated incidents; I can't count the number of people to whom I've spoken who "have heard of the Linux thing," or are just tired of 'doze bugs (and IE, and Outlook). I've sold a good half-dozen people on Mozilla, and use it in a production environment at work, with many people being happy. I installed it for my parents, too; they like it as well. Again, not isolated incidents.
So yes, I'm sure MS would like to further strengthen its dominance in the market, but I don't see it happening. Too many people are starting to notice. More importantly, too many organizations are starting to notice: the New York Times, the BBC, IBM, any number of embedded system producers (systems for which software must be developed, and systems which will be used by many people). MS's own FUD mentions Linux frequently; that will (and does) generate questions. Even the government is looking at open-source as an alternative; having worked in government, I can tell you that the inertia there is nothing short of phenomenal. The tide is changing, my friend; maybe not quickly, but I assure you, it is changing.
Well, gang, we did it: we slashdotted Microsoft! Windows Update is reporting "Service Unavailable" when I try to update my boxen here at work. Yay, Slashdot!
I've seen this a few times, actually. My last three trips to Indianapolis (I live in Oklahoma City), I've seen meteors either while flying to or from Indy. The first trip was a year ago, and I saw them between St. Louis and Terre Haute; the second was in September, and I saw them between St. Louis and Springfield, MO; the third was last weekend, and I saw them just as I was leaving Springfield, MO. It's absolutely amazing to see; on two different occasions, I've seen meteors, pulsing green, pass through my altitude. Truly stunning. Matter of fact, it inspired me to write a column about meteors. I'm not going flying tonight, but I am going to go watch the showers; I encourage everybody else to do so as well.
Not all that well insulated? I dont remember seeing too many heaters in the last plane I flew in, and I am pretty sure the air outside at 30000 ft was damn cold.
Actually, you probably did see the heaters. They were hanging out there on the wings; they're called "engines." The air for the pressurization comes from the "bleed air" from the compressors in the engines. Bleed air is extremely hot; in the King Air I fly, the temperature is typically 700 degrees Celsius (redline on that airplane is 725, IIRC, but we run it at 700). Even passed through intercoolers, that air is still very hot. We have to run the air conditioning in that airplane nearly coonstantly to keep the temperature even remotely comfortable. So yes, the air is heated.
As to the insulation, well, usually the plastic overlay on the wall feels warm, but that's because that plastic always feels warm. If you feel the metal wall behind it, you'll notice that it is very cold at altitude, often producing frost; on the ground, it can get quite warm if the airplane is left in the sun, or cold, if the ambient temperature is low. Short answer is, little to no insulation. Considering that the environmental systems are very good, insulation is unnecessary, and adds weight, which is the bane of aircraft designers.
Of those four, I disagree (to some degree or another) with all four, or at least with the specifics of the pillars.
"Grassroots Democracy." As spelled out by the manifesto on the Green Party website (yes, I actually read it, in its entirety), the Party wants to make everything a direct democracy. I am wholly opposed to the idea; the Founding Fathers were careful to avoid it because direct democracy is functionally equivalent to mob rule. Consider this: the abolition of slavery, and, later, the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, was highly unpopular; it was pushed through, despite heavy opposition, because the elected leadership was able to do its job, instead of having the people directly vote on the bills. Indeed, if everything is a direct democracy (an absurd idea, given the volume of legislation considered each year), what would even be the point of having representation? All we'd need is ballot counters.
"Social Justice." Generally an emotionally-loaded term for Communism (that's with a big 'C,' the way Marx described it, not like the Soviets implemented it), the Greens' definition of "social justice" lives up to the reputation. Here's my definition of social justice: unequal rewards for unequal efforts; that's derived from the basic concept of justice, letting the consequences (positive or negative) of an action be proportional to the action itself.
"Non-violence." Again, loaded words--who in his right mind is in favor of violence? And again, the devil is in the details. I am opposed to wanton use of the military, but I do recognize the need for one, and I think that if we're going to have one, it needs to be the most capable, most effective, most overwhelming force possible. Indeed, such a force would have a deterrent effect; "the best defense is a strong offense." I also believe that we owe it to the persons who make up that force to make them as powerful as possible: the greater their effectiveness, the less the risk to which they are exposed when called upon to do their duties. Additionally (this seems like a logical place to put it), I don't agree with their position on gun control. The Brady Law was a terrible idea which has been wholly ineffective in preventing crime (details available upon request, but would be offtopic here), has led to major violations of civil rights (i.e. the gov't illegally maintaining records of background checks, creating a de facto database of gun owners), and, while not explicitly defined, the "reasonable gun control" they propose would probably be distasteful, particularly in light of their stance on the Brady Law.
"Ecological Wisdom." Wisdom is good, right? Nobody wants to be a fool. Well, yet again, the name of the pillar is good, but the stones comprising the pillar need examination. First of all, I am all in favor of preserving the environment; I'm a backpacker, hunter, fisherman, sailor, camper, and probably spend more time outside than 95% of the Slashdot population. Nonetheless, I disagree with some of the Greens' proposals for maintaining the environment. For example, I disagree with their position on nuclear power (they're wholeheartedly against it, and call for the complete shutdown of all plants in five years, if possible); I feel that, while renewable sources are the best long-term option, they're not ready yet, and, until they are, nuclear power is one of the best interim options available. Yes, I know of the hazards, and of the accidents; I also know the why and how on many of the accidents, and recognize that most of them were results of nuclear power being pushed ahead before its time; now, with a more relaxed political climate (no more Cold War), and another thirty to forty years' experience, I think we're in a better position to handle nuclear power.
So, there's the short version: I disagree with all four, to some degree or another. Documentation is happily provided on the Greens' own web site; if you really need me to, I'll be happy to reply with chapter and section, but please don't ask unless you really can't find it. And, just for the record, I didn't make any accusations about what their positions are, I just said I didn't agree with them. If you're going to put words in my mouth and accuse me of making accusations, well, documentation would be nice.
If corporations are, as you seem to believe, an abstract concept with no rights, then no, they should not be able to donate money.
Other things that an abstract should not be able to do include:
Pay Taxes
Own Property
Receive Money
Spend Money
Act as a unified organization, for the purpose of doing business (for example, holding the company responsible for product liability, entering into contracts, and the like).
The taxation is perhaps the most relevant of these points; perhaps you recall a long-forgotten phrase about "taxation without representation." So, tell me, do you support the repeal of corporate taxes (which are really taxes on the end-user anyway), or do you just want to deny companies their only voice in government?
And we [the Green Party]are the only party whose values line up with the open-source commuity.
Funny, I'm in the open-source community, and the Green Party's values don't even remotely line up with my values. Perhaps that's because the "community" is a group of distinct, differing individuals, each with his own ideas, own thoughts, own beliefs? Being a geek is only a part of my life; I'm not about to try to pin down my political stance on that portion of my life alone. A PAC is one thing; a party is another entirely.
I volunteer my time (and, in some cases, money) with the Boy Scouts, a local aviation for kids program, and a few other charities and good causes. I do it because I like it, because I think it's important, and because I appreciate the fact that people volunteered time for me when I was a Scout, et al. I have no aspirations of financial gain, nor do I receive any (including tax deductions: I don't itemize).
That said, there's nothing wrong with taking a writeoff if you're entitled to same. If you're volunteering specifically for the deduction, you need to examine your motives (and your methods: writeoffs are a poor way to "make" money), but there's nothing wrong with taking the benefit of it. Indeed, many people (myself included) have strong objections to the government, and feel that anything which (legally) keeps money out of Washington is a good thing. Would you say that accepting lunch while on a project site is verboten, because you derive gain from it? Certainly people who refuse to help because they can't profit from it need to do a little soul-searching, but if you're going to do it anyway (for presumably the right reasons), there's nothing wrong with availing yourself of long-provided benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, it's a rather lonely future even before then, as galaxies grow so far apart that you eventually can't see anything but your own big front yard.
Does that mean those damn kids will finally stay off my lawn?
I'll field that one. Perhaps the "appropriate target" bit was wrong, but the pilots certainly hit the targets they had selected. Poor judgment in target selection? Yes. Inaccuracy? 9 out of 10 Canadians say no.
I was BSing with a friend one evening, bitching about my users. In the process, I made a wisecrack that several people (including myself) have since adopted; it seems truer with every passing day. He said something about giving the user what he wants, and I replied:
"The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants fries with that, if prompted."
"Ballistic Magnetoresistance?" I thought that was the resistance offered by the magnetic platters when I use my .45 to read-protect my drive from the FBI/BSA/MS.
Mr. Coward
Interesting concept, running two mono channels into a single stereo stream, but not quite what I'm looking for here. The two streams are totally independent, and that would be confusing to say the least (at least to most listeners). The listeners have been e-mailing me for two weeks asking my why they can't connect, when I've posted, at the top of the page, in boldface, that the server is temporarily down. Call me an elitist, but if they can't read that, I sincerely doubt they'll pick up on instructions to adjust the balance control. Good thinking, though; I hadn't even considered that sort of solution.
bofhkentucky:
Two separate channels, feeding two separate streams; mixing them would be bad. It'd be like trying to listen to two radio stations at the same time. While pilots do tend to step on each others' transmissions (frequently), I'd rather not make it worse.
adolf:
Lots of good points in your post; thanks for the good response. To clarify a few things:
seann:
I'm trying to avoid XMMS and other programs that want a display. Daemons are good here. That said, what's Output Stacker? I haven't heard of it, and I've poked around quite a bit.
Rob (and everybody): .confs/sources). When I said hardware, I was thinking of a dedicated device. The only one I found was the Telos Systems Audioactive live MP3 streamer, but at $2800 a copy, it's a bit out of my price range (we don't spend that much on aircraft radios!). I was looking for something that's a dedicated, single-purpose, plug and play device; configure it once, and that's the last I see or hear of it. I'm a lazy admin--the less I have to touch it, the happier I am. I didn't mean to imply that I was looking for special computer hardware, but for a standalone audio device.
I have a box that can handle it, if I can get the software working. I looked at Darwin Streaming Server, and it appears to be comparable to SHOUTcast and IceCast. I'm not having trouble finding a server, the problem lies in the source; I can't find a good program to connect the line-in to the streaming server. LiveIce appears to do what I want, but I don't know how it would handle multiple instances on the same machine, being fed by multiple sound cards (adolf: I'll have a look at the
All: thanks for the suggestions. At the moment, it looks like I'm going to stick with Linux + two cards, if I can figure out how to get IceCast working (I've been having a bear of a time getting it to play nice; I honestly believe I'm cursed when Linux and sound are involved). If anybody else has any thoughts, I'd certainly love to hear them.
cite a regulation
My pleasure.
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations governes Aeronautics and Space. Part 121 covers scheduled airline operations (parts 135 and 91 cover charter-type operations and all other operations, respectively, and have similar language).As for a CD player, or a computer, or any other digital device, it does have an RF oscillator: it's called a clock (as in "clock speed"), and most of them are poorly shielded, if shielded at all. Think about it--is your CD player's case made of metal or plastic? I don't feel like retyping (or copying and editing) my previous post on the subject, but if you follow the link, you'll find a much more in-depth explanation.
--Dave Buckles
Commercial Pilot, Airplane Single and Multiengine Land
Instrument Airplane
Flight Instructor--Airplane
Instrument Instructor
2711311 CFII 06/04
As a pilot, and an American, I just have to ask one question:
What the hell is a meter?
Verification? If you can't trust something you read on Slashdot, posted by an Anonymous Coward, then who can you trust?
(</joke>, for the sake of the moderators)
and with no intention of letting him stand up and defend himself
How do you figure? The defense could have called him to the stand, but chose not to. The prosecution cannot call the accused to the stand--pesky little thing called the Fifth Amendment. The defense chose not to call Dmitri to explain the statements, probably because, if called, Dmitri would be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, which usually bolsters their case (even when there's no case to be made). Sounds to me like the prosecutor did his job correctly, and the defense attorney made a good decision. Incidentally, it looks like the defense attorney's decision was correct--they won.
Before everybody gets up in arms about this great injustice, let's have a brief look at the facts*, shall we?
That means he knew they could use the deposition in court, and chose to give it anyway
That means that the prosecutor couldn't call him to the stand, even if he wanted to
Unless I'm missing something here, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If Dmitri wanted to testify, his lawyer, the defense attorney, could have called him to the stand; that he didn't indicates that he (the lawyer) felt that putting him on the stand, where he'd be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, would be more harmful to the case than allowing his deposition to go unexplained.
Given the outcome of the case, I'd have to agree.
IANAL.
(*Yes, I know, facts, on Slashdot. It's so crazy it just might work!)
How, exactly, is this is a troll? My guess is that the moderator didn't get the joke. So, for the cosmically clueless, here it is:
The parent poster misspelled "rogue" as "rouge." This misspelling actually resulted in a different word, properly spelled. "Rouge" is French (and other languages, including English meanings) for "red." Therefore, when Alomex commented on "rouge linux" being the standard distro in Soviet Russia, he was actually being quite witty: Red Linux is standard distro in Soviet Russia.
Sheesh. Give some clown mod points, he turns off his brain.
but were AOL to block all Exodus IPs then nobody on AOL could access /.
And exactly how many Slashdot readers do you think use AOL, anyway?
So, in about 480 years, then?
In a tight market, though, you are forced to take what you can get, and employers know this.
That's because, in a tight market, you're worth less. Supply and demand: when supply exceeds demand, as in a tight market, price will decline, because there are more options available. It's called "competition," and it's amazing how certain Slashdotters call it a good thing when there's competition in the consumer goods market (lowering prices), but a bad thing in the employment market (lowering wages). The world is not structured to benefit you (the collective you) all the time; sometimes, you have to take your lumps, suck it up, and survive until you get another chance to thrive. Matter of fact, that's been a pattern in life since, oh, about the time life began. Famine and feast. You want to improve your value? Reduce supply. No, that doesn't mean getting rid of other techs, it means making yourself more valuable. If you add to your skillset, you move yourself to a new market, essentially the Skill +1 market. That's smaller than the Skill 0 market. Do it again, moving to Skill +2, and there are even fewer people against whom you'll need to compete. As you do so, you make yourself more valuable; you're worth more, and you'll get paid more. Just don't sit and whine because you're not living in a permanent "feast" time, and able to pull down the same salary you were five years ago because the supply was tight relative to demand.
Think about how far along MS has come in a short time. Where will it end? If they are not stopped - it won't end. It sounds cliche, but MS is clearly on the path to *world domination* (ok, that was maybe just added for dramatic effect).
Pardon? Yes, I'm sure MS does aspire to be the sole provider of the world's software; most businesses want to be the only one in the market.
That said, I don't think they're on that path at all. In fact, I was having this discussion with a couple of friends just a few nights ago. I argued, to some success, that MS is actually losing mindshare. I've talked to a number of people recently; my bosses (both retired Air Force officers) both appreciate the value of having source code, and one even mentioned it to me (which came as a total shock) that for our new project, we need to get the source, not just binaries. I was flying from Oklahoma City to Indianapolis a few weeks ago, and got to talking to one of my passengers. I don't remember exactly how, but he and I discussed open-source software and alternative operating systems. These are not isolated incidents; I can't count the number of people to whom I've spoken who "have heard of the Linux thing," or are just tired of 'doze bugs (and IE, and Outlook). I've sold a good half-dozen people on Mozilla, and use it in a production environment at work, with many people being happy. I installed it for my parents, too; they like it as well. Again, not isolated incidents.
So yes, I'm sure MS would like to further strengthen its dominance in the market, but I don't see it happening. Too many people are starting to notice. More importantly, too many organizations are starting to notice: the New York Times, the BBC, IBM, any number of embedded system producers (systems for which software must be developed, and systems which will be used by many people). MS's own FUD mentions Linux frequently; that will (and does) generate questions. Even the government is looking at open-source as an alternative; having worked in government, I can tell you that the inertia there is nothing short of phenomenal. The tide is changing, my friend; maybe not quickly, but I assure you, it is changing.
Well, gang, we did it: we slashdotted Microsoft! Windows Update is reporting "Service Unavailable" when I try to update my boxen here at work. Yay, Slashdot!
I've seen this a few times, actually. My last three trips to Indianapolis (I live in Oklahoma City), I've seen meteors either while flying to or from Indy. The first trip was a year ago, and I saw them between St. Louis and Terre Haute; the second was in September, and I saw them between St. Louis and Springfield, MO; the third was last weekend, and I saw them just as I was leaving Springfield, MO. It's absolutely amazing to see; on two different occasions, I've seen meteors, pulsing green, pass through my altitude. Truly stunning. Matter of fact, it inspired me to write a column about meteors. I'm not going flying tonight, but I am going to go watch the showers; I encourage everybody else to do so as well.
Not all that well insulated? I dont remember seeing too many heaters in the last plane I flew in, and I am pretty sure the air outside at 30000 ft was damn cold.
Actually, you probably did see the heaters. They were hanging out there on the wings; they're called "engines." The air for the pressurization comes from the "bleed air" from the compressors in the engines. Bleed air is extremely hot; in the King Air I fly, the temperature is typically 700 degrees Celsius (redline on that airplane is 725, IIRC, but we run it at 700). Even passed through intercoolers, that air is still very hot. We have to run the air conditioning in that airplane nearly coonstantly to keep the temperature even remotely comfortable. So yes, the air is heated.
As to the insulation, well, usually the plastic overlay on the wall feels warm, but that's because that plastic always feels warm. If you feel the metal wall behind it, you'll notice that it is very cold at altitude, often producing frost; on the ground, it can get quite warm if the airplane is left in the sun, or cold, if the ambient temperature is low. Short answer is, little to no insulation. Considering that the environmental systems are very good, insulation is unnecessary, and adds weight, which is the bane of aircraft designers.
Simple: market limits. You yourself say as much:
Obviously, if they aren't held to any firm price limits, they'll just charge $20/channel, and nobody will buy it.
If nobody will buy it, they'll either find a lower price, or find themselves in the unemployment lines.
Of those four, I disagree (to some degree or another) with all four, or at least with the specifics of the pillars.
"Grassroots Democracy." As spelled out by the manifesto on the Green Party website (yes, I actually read it, in its entirety), the Party wants to make everything a direct democracy. I am wholly opposed to the idea; the Founding Fathers were careful to avoid it because direct democracy is functionally equivalent to mob rule. Consider this: the abolition of slavery, and, later, the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, was highly unpopular; it was pushed through, despite heavy opposition, because the elected leadership was able to do its job, instead of having the people directly vote on the bills. Indeed, if everything is a direct democracy (an absurd idea, given the volume of legislation considered each year), what would even be the point of having representation? All we'd need is ballot counters.
"Social Justice." Generally an emotionally-loaded term for Communism (that's with a big 'C,' the way Marx described it, not like the Soviets implemented it), the Greens' definition of "social justice" lives up to the reputation. Here's my definition of social justice: unequal rewards for unequal efforts; that's derived from the basic concept of justice, letting the consequences (positive or negative) of an action be proportional to the action itself.
"Non-violence." Again, loaded words--who in his right mind is in favor of violence? And again, the devil is in the details. I am opposed to wanton use of the military, but I do recognize the need for one, and I think that if we're going to have one, it needs to be the most capable, most effective, most overwhelming force possible. Indeed, such a force would have a deterrent effect; "the best defense is a strong offense." I also believe that we owe it to the persons who make up that force to make them as powerful as possible: the greater their effectiveness, the less the risk to which they are exposed when called upon to do their duties. Additionally (this seems like a logical place to put it), I don't agree with their position on gun control. The Brady Law was a terrible idea which has been wholly ineffective in preventing crime (details available upon request, but would be offtopic here), has led to major violations of civil rights (i.e. the gov't illegally maintaining records of background checks, creating a de facto database of gun owners), and, while not explicitly defined, the "reasonable gun control" they propose would probably be distasteful, particularly in light of their stance on the Brady Law.
"Ecological Wisdom." Wisdom is good, right? Nobody wants to be a fool. Well, yet again, the name of the pillar is good, but the stones comprising the pillar need examination. First of all, I am all in favor of preserving the environment; I'm a backpacker, hunter, fisherman, sailor, camper, and probably spend more time outside than 95% of the Slashdot population. Nonetheless, I disagree with some of the Greens' proposals for maintaining the environment. For example, I disagree with their position on nuclear power (they're wholeheartedly against it, and call for the complete shutdown of all plants in five years, if possible); I feel that, while renewable sources are the best long-term option, they're not ready yet, and, until they are, nuclear power is one of the best interim options available. Yes, I know of the hazards, and of the accidents; I also know the why and how on many of the accidents, and recognize that most of them were results of nuclear power being pushed ahead before its time; now, with a more relaxed political climate (no more Cold War), and another thirty to forty years' experience, I think we're in a better position to handle nuclear power.
So, there's the short version: I disagree with all four, to some degree or another. Documentation is happily provided on the Greens' own web site; if you really need me to, I'll be happy to reply with chapter and section, but please don't ask unless you really can't find it. And, just for the record, I didn't make any accusations about what their positions are, I just said I didn't agree with them. If you're going to put words in my mouth and accuse me of making accusations, well, documentation would be nice.
If corporations are, as you seem to believe, an abstract concept with no rights, then no, they should not be able to donate money.
Other things that an abstract should not be able to do include:
The taxation is perhaps the most relevant of these points; perhaps you recall a long-forgotten phrase about "taxation without representation." So, tell me, do you support the repeal of corporate taxes (which are really taxes on the end-user anyway), or do you just want to deny companies their only voice in government?
And we [the Green Party]are the only party whose values line up with the open-source commuity.
Funny, I'm in the open-source community, and the Green Party's values don't even remotely line up with my values. Perhaps that's because the "community" is a group of distinct, differing individuals, each with his own ideas, own thoughts, own beliefs? Being a geek is only a part of my life; I'm not about to try to pin down my political stance on that portion of my life alone. A PAC is one thing; a party is another entirely.
"_I_ spend $1400 on A/C every year. Aren't I cool???"
As a matter of fact, yes.
I volunteer my time (and, in some cases, money) with the Boy Scouts, a local aviation for kids program, and a few other charities and good causes. I do it because I like it, because I think it's important, and because I appreciate the fact that people volunteered time for me when I was a Scout, et al. I have no aspirations of financial gain, nor do I receive any (including tax deductions: I don't itemize).
That said, there's nothing wrong with taking a writeoff if you're entitled to same. If you're volunteering specifically for the deduction, you need to examine your motives (and your methods: writeoffs are a poor way to "make" money), but there's nothing wrong with taking the benefit of it. Indeed, many people (myself included) have strong objections to the government, and feel that anything which (legally) keeps money out of Washington is a good thing. Would you say that accepting lunch while on a project site is verboten, because you derive gain from it? Certainly people who refuse to help because they can't profit from it need to do a little soul-searching, but if you're going to do it anyway (for presumably the right reasons), there's nothing wrong with availing yourself of long-provided benefits.