My work involves entering people's homes and working in relatively close contact with them. There's a special level of Hell reserved for folks in my position who go to work sick.
I don't have much sympathy for the rest of the world if I get sick and become feverish. I'll take my aspirin and avoid cardiac arrest, thank you very much. Selfish, maybe. I'm not quite ready to find out what's on the other side of that line.
Those poor folk that have the spontaneously triggered type of Brugada's have my sympathy instead. Just dropping dead spontaneously isn't my preferred way to go.
Not according to the FAA (I hear that CASA in Australia is updating the reg's regarding "dark night flying", so things might be different outside the US).
There is no requirement for a visible horizon when flying VFR at night. Please reference VFR Weather Minimums. Flying anywhere near those minimums is crazy as far as I care, as it's really easy to progress into IFR conditions.
Regardless of whether it's legally VFR or not, I'd feel much more comfortable being IFR rated in those conditions. I'd want the option to call in for a pop-up IFR clearance if the weather deteriorated. The limits I place personally are much more stringent than the FAA reg's, seein' as I'm a low hour "strictly for the hobby and love of flying" pilot.
I've flown VFR on a dark night with no visible horizon. It's an unsettling feeling when there's a lit road in the distance, at an angle to the real horizon. Your eyes naturally attune to the road, and tell your brain the aircraft is banking. Your inner ear says you're level. After a few moments, that part of your brain that handles balance starts to freak out and throw its hands up in disgust with the conflicting information.
It takes willpower to trust that the artificial horizon on the attitude indicator is indeed correct, despite that voice in the back of your head whispering that it could be broken and you should trust your eyes instead.
Spend some time around the Capital District of New York. PCB is a household term around here, referring to polychlorinated biphenyls. GE has been dredging the Hudson, cleaning up PCBs: http://www.hudsondredging.com/. There's been concerns regarding the level of the chemical in the Mohawk River, as well.
Meh. He knows someone will retaliate, and it'll end up wiping out enough citizens to significantly hurt the corporate base of power in the U.S. If a significant portion of the population is dead, we can't exactly go out and buy stuff, can we?
And then you're party to this nonsense. Maybe you can sleep with that on your conscience. I know I can't. Knowing I'd be putting my company at risk by not complying with the order (and thus all of my employees) would make it a hard decision. I suppose it's a good thing I'm not running the show, because I'd still stand up and be civilly disobedient.
"I should think not.... the purpose of prisons is to contain and reform criminals into productive citizens. If anything, I should expect the wrongly imprisoned to emerge a more god-fearing more moral person than they were when they got put in there by mistake."
I think you need to step into a prison. I have family who work in correctional facilities, and their opinion is the opposite of yours. Methinks you're looking through rose-tinted glasses.
We don't know that he did. Zimmerman says he did. Martin can't exactly defend himself. There are no third party witnesses detailing the beginning of the assault.
And therein lies the problem. There's not enough evidence to say either way, and there's that "Reasonable Doubt" issue that the jury has to worry about.
Personally, I believe that Zimmerman created the situation, and should lie at fault. That may not be enough to convict in a criminal trial, but I hope the likely civil trial nails the guy to the wall.
"The fact that the program is actually not even really that bad"
That's not a fact. That's your opinion.
My opinion is that the program violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, usually considered the highest law of the land. It's a touchy subject ("protect the citizens from the terrorists" versus our fundamental right to privacy), which is why I suspect the Judicial branch doesn't want to touch the subject with a ten foot pole, tossing out the earlier lawsuits on a technicality and refusing to make a decision on them.
I'd also argue that it's the responsibility of citizens and any member of government to actively resist any program that violates the U.S. Constitution. Blowing the whistle is certainly an action of actively resisting. If that makes him a criminal, then there's something wrong with the law.
The best part is when he's arguing with himself. Don't know who he is, don't care to know, either. Anybody who argues with himself (sometimes vehemently) is not a guy to be taken lightly.
Some of us carry a deep seated disdain for people beating around the bush with HR-approved corporate speak. Those of us that do would much rather deal with someone straightforward about their position.
Adam Lanza did not have access to an assault rifle. He had access to a semi-automatic rifle that happens to be styled after an assault rifle. He also carried two handguns.
Are you going to ban my bolt action hunting rifle because I can fire it *almost* as fast as a semi-automatic? After practice, the bolt can be cycled pretty quickly; maybe a couple of seconds faster. Take away the need to aim, and I bet it can be done quicker.
I would love to hear how you think most hunters don't want to eat the wild game they kill. Here in upstate NY, most of the hunters I know do eat the game.
On the other hand, from the description provided in the article, I doubt the description of the shooters as hunters. Butchers, yes; hunters, no. I doubt they're eating the pigeons afterwards, too.
If I were a lawyer (I'm not), I'd argue that purposefully breeding and raising pigeons or other fowl/poultry, then releasing the animals in order to shoot at them from nearly point blank range (a few yards away, as the article claims) is more aptly described as butchering, not hunting. When a farmer raises a group of cattle for the purpose of food, we don't refer to it as hunting.
I'd also argue that the pigeons are not wildlife; they have been bred and raised.
Hunting should the opposite; attempting to take wildlife (whether for sport or food) in their natural habitat.
The problem isn't her showing her tits on the 'net. Obviously, she has no problem with some apparent stranger seeing her bare breasts.
The problem lies with some asshole attempting to blackmail her into giving a peep show on the 'net by threatening to send the picture of her bare breasts to her family and friends. And then does so. That's the problem. If her dirty laundry hadn't been aired out to those closest to her, this would have been a non-issue. People's lives, careers, and families have been ruined over less.
I'd argue that a great deal of fifteen year old girls don't have the emotional or mental capacities to cope with such a life altering event. Hence the suicide, instead of issuing a public apology and stepping down from political office, resigning their position, or taking earlier retirement.
Slashdot Mirror
My work involves entering people's homes and working in relatively close contact with them. There's a special level of Hell reserved for folks in my position who go to work sick.
So no, I stay home when I'm sick.
I've been diagnosed Type 1 Brugada's Syndrome (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/163751-overview , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brugada_syndrome ). In my case, the trigger is a high fever, which was brought on by the flu.
I don't have much sympathy for the rest of the world if I get sick and become feverish. I'll take my aspirin and avoid cardiac arrest, thank you very much. Selfish, maybe. I'm not quite ready to find out what's on the other side of that line.
Those poor folk that have the spontaneously triggered type of Brugada's have my sympathy instead. Just dropping dead spontaneously isn't my preferred way to go.
By classifying the affected as "pining for the fjords"?
Not according to the FAA (I hear that CASA in Australia is updating the reg's regarding "dark night flying", so things might be different outside the US).
There is no requirement for a visible horizon when flying VFR at night. Please reference VFR Weather Minimums. Flying anywhere near those minimums is crazy as far as I care, as it's really easy to progress into IFR conditions.
Regardless of whether it's legally VFR or not, I'd feel much more comfortable being IFR rated in those conditions. I'd want the option to call in for a pop-up IFR clearance if the weather deteriorated. The limits I place personally are much more stringent than the FAA reg's, seein' as I'm a low hour "strictly for the hobby and love of flying" pilot.
What ^ he said.
I've flown VFR on a dark night with no visible horizon. It's an unsettling feeling when there's a lit road in the distance, at an angle to the real horizon. Your eyes naturally attune to the road, and tell your brain the aircraft is banking. Your inner ear says you're level. After a few moments, that part of your brain that handles balance starts to freak out and throw its hands up in disgust with the conflicting information.
It takes willpower to trust that the artificial horizon on the attitude indicator is indeed correct, despite that voice in the back of your head whispering that it could be broken and you should trust your eyes instead.
Spend some time around the Capital District of New York. PCB is a household term around here, referring to polychlorinated biphenyls. GE has been dredging the Hudson, cleaning up PCBs: http://www.hudsondredging.com/. There's been concerns regarding the level of the chemical in the Mohawk River, as well.
Meh. He knows someone will retaliate, and it'll end up wiping out enough citizens to significantly hurt the corporate base of power in the U.S. If a significant portion of the population is dead, we can't exactly go out and buy stuff, can we?
And then you're party to this nonsense. Maybe you can sleep with that on your conscience. I know I can't. Knowing I'd be putting my company at risk by not complying with the order (and thus all of my employees) would make it a hard decision. I suppose it's a good thing I'm not running the show, because I'd still stand up and be civilly disobedient.
"I should think not.... the purpose of prisons is to contain and reform criminals into productive citizens. If anything, I should expect the wrongly imprisoned to emerge a more god-fearing more moral person than they were when they got put in there by mistake."
I think you need to step into a prison. I have family who work in correctional facilities, and their opinion is the opposite of yours. Methinks you're looking through rose-tinted glasses.
"Why did Martin lay wait in ambush?"
We don't know that he did. Zimmerman says he did. Martin can't exactly defend himself. There are no third party witnesses detailing the beginning of the assault.
And therein lies the problem. There's not enough evidence to say either way, and there's that "Reasonable Doubt" issue that the jury has to worry about.
Personally, I believe that Zimmerman created the situation, and should lie at fault. That may not be enough to convict in a criminal trial, but I hope the likely civil trial nails the guy to the wall.
"The fact that the program is actually not even really that bad"
That's not a fact. That's your opinion.
My opinion is that the program violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, usually considered the highest law of the land. It's a touchy subject ("protect the citizens from the terrorists" versus our fundamental right to privacy), which is why I suspect the Judicial branch doesn't want to touch the subject with a ten foot pole, tossing out the earlier lawsuits on a technicality and refusing to make a decision on them.
I'd also argue that it's the responsibility of citizens and any member of government to actively resist any program that violates the U.S. Constitution. Blowing the whistle is certainly an action of actively resisting. If that makes him a criminal, then there's something wrong with the law.
The best part is when he's arguing with himself. Don't know who he is, don't care to know, either. Anybody who argues with himself (sometimes vehemently) is not a guy to be taken lightly.
My Japanese car was assembled in Indiana: http://www.subaru-sia.com/
Some of us carry a deep seated disdain for people beating around the bush with HR-approved corporate speak. Those of us that do would much rather deal with someone straightforward about their position.
Or the house buying lots of alcohol that your car insurer might like to know about?
They should be happy that I'm drinking at home, versus driving to a bar...
Adam Lanza did not have access to an assault rifle. He had access to a semi-automatic rifle that happens to be styled after an assault rifle. He also carried two handguns.
Are you going to ban my bolt action hunting rifle because I can fire it *almost* as fast as a semi-automatic? After practice, the bolt can be cycled pretty quickly; maybe a couple of seconds faster. Take away the need to aim, and I bet it can be done quicker.
Last I heard, banning assault rifles hasn't done much for the crime in Mexico...
Suddenly, annexing Canada sounds like an idea I can stand behind... ;oD
I'd rather lobby for a law that makes it illegal to knowingly breed, raise, and release pest species.
I would love to hear how you think most hunters don't want to eat the wild game they kill. Here in upstate NY, most of the hunters I know do eat the game.
On the other hand, from the description provided in the article, I doubt the description of the shooters as hunters. Butchers, yes; hunters, no. I doubt they're eating the pigeons afterwards, too.
If I were a lawyer (I'm not), I'd argue that purposefully breeding and raising pigeons or other fowl/poultry, then releasing the animals in order to shoot at them from nearly point blank range (a few yards away, as the article claims) is more aptly described as butchering, not hunting. When a farmer raises a group of cattle for the purpose of food, we don't refer to it as hunting.
I'd also argue that the pigeons are not wildlife; they have been bred and raised.
Hunting should the opposite; attempting to take wildlife (whether for sport or food) in their natural habitat.
X-Plane (http://www.x-plane.com) is also supported on Linux.
The problem isn't her showing her tits on the 'net. Obviously, she has no problem with some apparent stranger seeing her bare breasts.
The problem lies with some asshole attempting to blackmail her into giving a peep show on the 'net by threatening to send the picture of her bare breasts to her family and friends. And then does so. That's the problem. If her dirty laundry hadn't been aired out to those closest to her, this would have been a non-issue. People's lives, careers, and families have been ruined over less.
I'd argue that a great deal of fifteen year old girls don't have the emotional or mental capacities to cope with such a life altering event. Hence the suicide, instead of issuing a public apology and stepping down from political office, resigning their position, or taking earlier retirement.
And you may want to also refer to this publication by the IIHS: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4404.pdf
Safest when it's hit by a vehicle in its same class.
How likely is that to happen?