There are several facets of the first amendment, and different crowds want one or more facets cancelled at various times for various reasons. It's the beauty of politics.
If you can't meet reasonable requirements to purchase a weapon, you should not be able to buy guns. Free societies do need to impose limitations: you can't drive without a license, criminals are thrown in prison, murder is forbidden, and you can't walk around nude (in most places).
But the difference between unacceptable restrictions and acceptable restrictions are the details. The government shall issue a license, unless some legally defined criteria are not met. And those criteria need to be carefully chosen to ensure the government cannot be arbitrary. Perhaps felony convictions, perhaps mental illness diagnosed by a doctor, perhaps possessing certification that you have received firearms safety training meeting some curriculum requirement. The license cannot cost more than it takes to create (i.e. it's not a tax, not a wealth barrier), and no criteria for the license can exist that cannot be proven in documentation or argued in court. I left off "watchlist", those are always "secret" and you can't argue yourself off of one in any reasonable fashion. So we couldn't have stopped San Bernadino because our government is too busy being nefarious.
Registering weapons does empower the government to find you and your weapons and have them removed. I'm definitely against that in all cases.
I still don't know any person personally who uses Twitter. I view the entire topic as a constant, unending ad scheme designed to get me to use this thing I can't find any purpose for. Except, apparently, to get myself in trouble.
. If you really need a gun to get people to speak "politely" to you then you are doing something REALLY wrong.
People are more polite in line at the grocery store than, on the internet. You can punch someone in the grocery store, or haunt them well into the parking lot, maybe even on the ride home.
Yes, we're doing it really wrong, but that doesn't entirely void the logic. Granted, there should be some limitations on politeness: maybe death is too extreme of a response to white shoes after labor day.
Registering weapons is dangerous, I agree with the "gun nuts" about registering weapons being a bad idea. But requiring someone to have a license to PURCHASE a gun, and some reasonable requirements to be met for that license really doesn't seem too horrible.
Talk is cheap. He ain't done shit. If he actually cared, he would have done it during his first two years, it wasn't on his top 10.
Clinton might try to push through a gun control law, but you can't "ban guns", you know it, I know it, and she knows it. Examine the law they propose and then form an opinion as to whether it is tolerable or not, then act accordingly. It would not be horrifying, for example, if purchasing weapons required having a license that the government was obligated to grant, unless you met certain explicit criteria. Such as a background check for violent crimes, mental disorder, and maybe having had a basic gun safety class in the past 5 years. You could still have all the guns you wanted, we could reduce some trivial gun crimes, continue to bitch and moan about the remainder and call it a day.
Anecdotal and cherry-picked evidence about what another rich guy has chosen to do, but does not entirely add up. If this is about private individuals being more capable of managing money than governments, why isn't Zuckerberg investing in another charity? Does he not even trust Bill Gates to run a good charity? Probably not, I sure don't. Why can't all these rich guys team up and sponsor the same charity? Why can't they sponsor one or more charities that they've vetted out as being "generally good"? Because, they want to retain control of their money for whatever reason at all.
Bill Gates, largely retired from the CEOing business, is choosing to act, but under no obligation, nor is it clear that he alone has the bandwidth to efficiently handle $40B any more than a government would be, he does have the luxury of a pile of money that he can spend or not spend at his leisure on anything at all that suits his fancy. His efforts in education are meddling at best, destructive at worst. In my opinion he's using his fortune to cause harm. Unlike the government he has no oversight, and can do whatever he sees fit for the problem he wants to solve, even if that means breaking something that is largely working for a demographic he is not interested in, or producing educated citizens that aren't interested in working for his industry or style of company. I mean that's the thing with kids, they grow up and choose their own path. I'm not the doctor my mom and dad wanted, my son likely won't be the geek I want. We teach them a general set of things that will help them, help themselves. We don't put them on a railroad with only one destination and tell them to ride it to the end or jump off.
He could do a lot worse, and he could abuse the system much more than he is, I won't argue that. But I'm not going to sing his praises and I would still like to see this mechanism shut off. He should realize his (unimaginably large, impossible to spend) gains, pay taxes to the country that made him successful and try to make it better with his still (unimaginably large, impossible to spend) fortune, or having paid his debt, run off to some island somewhere. If he feels the government is misguided, and it eternally is, he has the influence and connections to make changes much easier than any of us peons, and the mindshare and influence to ensure we all know what is broken. God knows they are running around like squirrels on cocaine right now, and there's an entire political party of people who seek to represent rich white guys who are clearly not being given anything like a coherent direction. Donald Trump is the best they got...Donald Born-Rich Trump, that's it. Bill Gates? He could probably tell them a thing or two about the working world, and obstacles to actual american business.
Mostly we're reacting to the utter bullshit of it all. Zuckerberg is not giving away his money, he's sheltering it in a tax-free, obligation-free loop hole. He created a letter to his newborn daughter (unstated undertone: I'm hurting your future for the benefit of the world) that is hard to read with a straight face, that ignores the fact that he is keeping $450M of it for his family, she'll never want for anything in her life. That's fine, but let's cut the melodrama, he's not sentencing her even to middle class life in the suburbs. She's got her road paved, in whatever school she wants, with whatever lifestyle she wants. He's giving the better part of $45B to a charity that is under his control, with relatively few limitations on what he can choose to do with that money to the extent that he's effectively not giving it away at all. This is mostly politics and attention whoring.
How many Americans write letters to their children or have articles written every time they make a contribution to their 401(k) or invest in an HSA/FSA, effectively sheltering their income from taxes while reducing a bit of control over how the funds can be spent? That's basically what he's doing, except he doesn't even have the same limitations that those structures have.
Engineers tend to find devices to include in their designs via salesmen and distributors. If you have a product, partner up with a sales rep who sells things similar to your product. If he's any good he knows who to approach to get new ideas through, and can get you visibility.
The odds of you approaching a company like that any other way are not easy. You can call the front desk but you'll never find the right people. You want to find system and hardware engineers I imagine. But be prepared for a tough sell, these guys (and i know from personal experience) have tight deadlines and very directed tasks and aren't appreciative of disruption, particularly if you have product and it's not the right form factor or your supply chain isn't sorted out. A good sales rep knows how to make this happen and get their attention.
they have to pass that law with a supermajority that is immune to the current president's veto or get a sympathetic president elected
Actually, there is at least one more typical way in dealing with an unsympathetic president, one might even call it the preferred way. They compromise and bargain, yielding on an issue that an opposing president really needs, in exchange for an issue they really need. However the battle lines for the past ten years or so have been drawn such that every single item that comes up has a strong partisan bias, everyone needs everything simultaneously and will yield nothing. And nothing is exactly what we get out of the deal.
Attaching a rider to a bill is definitely a way things have been done to slide this stuff through once the negotiations have been made, it's good when you lack trust or think you might get outmaneuvered, or just want to slide one by the general public. But you don't just ram that sucker at the president, he can and will veto it, and whether he is popular or not, he has more of the mindshare of the people than any congressman and will call you out on it publicly and it doesn't help anyone.
As far as I'm concerned both parties have become too big and confused with conflicting internal interests that cannot prioritize or compromise even amongst themselves. The democrats are currently the most coherent (but 15 years ago they were off their rocker), but both are really too big to be able to get things done decisively.
Off the top of my head: cold winders, mass transit, sea access, toll roads, multiple airports, heavy industry, terrible traffic, high populations, a comic combination of absolute nature against urban decay, rich people, poor people, middle class people, ferry boats, busses, skyscrapers, donald trump ownership of major buildings, a history of mafia, grown men who go by the names "vinnie", "joey", "paulie" or "frankie", strong unions, history of worker exploitation, heavy immigrant populations,....
Hypochondria is a real illness recognized in the DSM-IV. As far as anyone has ever proven scientifically, "EHS" is a fancy term with absolutely no real evidence. More or less like people who claim wind power makes them sick, it seems to come and go based on whether the victim believes the device is present and turned on. Which is very much like hypochondria...
Unfortunately, tell people their disease is mental, not physical and they are insulted and rage. When in fact mental diseases are real and certainly FEEL real to the person suffering from them. I find it far more likely that our brain can suffer from "idea viruses" that it takes far too seriously, than somehow our body is reacting to radio waves, when those same waves are, and have always been, present from our favorite daystar (and to a much lesser degree, all the other daystars shining at us).
Hey, in California, the government authorities are always looking for a reason to raise taxes. Making up the difference in legal fees might just be another way of skimming additional revenue.
I see this as more a response to being unable to raise taxes. We have laws against prostitution which require money to enforce. We have much bigger problems that are more deserving of what law enforcement dollars exist. So how to enforce this law without spending money on it? Try to chill it. It's cheaper than enforcement and may reduce the incidence. Maybe. How can this plan possibly backfire!
The next step, after the lawsuits of course, lawyers have to eat too, is to demand more in taxes to put cops back on vice. Maybe this time taxpayers will say "You know what? Policing this isn't worth the time. Legalize it.". But that's just silly of me, the religious lunatics and the misguided social justice types will want to step in to "protect the girls/family/values" when they should just let people who want to destroy themselves do it, and only put in laws to try to promote better safety, hygiene and abortion availability and minimize the actual social impact of prostitution.
Sure I am aware of that, and clearly they have tested this plane in its ability to handle that. But the precise procedures for handling the condition would appear to vary from plane to plane, and it seems the role of a passenger pilot would reduce the operating range of the plane from "anything it can do" to "anything it would reasonably do". Clearly the imaginations of everyone involved didn't conceive of this scenario, and clearly the procedures required for the A320 are very different that require more than the standard certification training would cover.
It seems every time an Airbus crashes, it is the pilots fault, when it is clear the pilot has been doing certain things he was trained to do when encountering a scenario in all his previous experience. And frequently it's the case that's the wrong thing to do, or a misleading thing to do when flying an Airbus plane. For example pulling the circuit breaker, I'm told by a certified pilot is a reasonable action to take on many common planes. But is not procedure for an Airbus.
I guess where I'm going with this is that Airbus seems to require pilots to do differently things they have learned to do on other craft, possibly leading to their certification, and when confronted with a very rare but possibly survivable situation in Airbus, many do the wrong thing and crash. The deceased pilot is blamed (easy, cheap) but very little that seems like it is necessarily effective is done to fix what seems the actual problem: the plane is difficult to fly.
And a good practice. Male doctors, in modern times, are never with a female patient without a female assistant of some kind. Male police officers and security guards avoid detaining or frisking female suspects if a female officer is available and can do so. Male teachers avoid being in "closed office" situations with female students. On a different subject: most (married) people avoid work lunches or dinners with the opposite sex all by themselves (1:1), even if highly visible it creates the appearance of impropriety that might be difficult to explain.
You can't bypass gender by ignoring it, even if your intentions are honest and your actions clean. There are dishonest people out there, and there are more than enough gossips. In male dominated professions we may be accustomed to working exclusively with other men and not have these concerns so frequently in our lives, but, they exist and we should learn to play it smart. In reality these situations can and probably will arise more frequently in M:M and F:F situations as more homosexual people choose to "come out" (i.e. announce a weakness for predators to leap upon). In the words of Lester Burnham: "Can you prove that you didn't offer to save my job if I let you blow me?"
I think part of the issue is that a lot of conventions and social professional forums have a bit more of a party atmosphere than a professional one, and the guards we remember to use at work sometimes get forgotten.
The famous bridge collapse from up this way was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge - nothing to do with Seattle at all.
Which every "engineer" learns about in freshman year of undergrad (if they didn't know it before). Most of those young student "engineers" will never seek, desire or find any value in the "Professional Engineer" certification required for working with the government, which is the only forum you might get in legal trouble for advertising yourself as an engineer without being certified. Yet, the few people that bother with the PE love to bloviate about how they're the only "actual engineers"...
I'm open to debate about the value of trade certifications such as those used by doctors, but P.E. isn't even in the right ballpark. I also question the value if, and I know it will be the case, employers just want the cheapest, most minimally qualified pigeon to fill a hole and will invent any form of title for that pigeon so that he may legally fill the hole.
Where I live, here in the US, you're an engineer if you say so. Unless you work for or on behalf of the government, in which case you are a Professional Engineer (PE). You can be called Doctor if you haven't the slightest background in medicine (all of my university professors insisted on it), but you can't advertise yourself as a Medical Doctor (MD). You can be an Investigator but cannot represent yourself as a policeman or federal agent, unless you actually are. The list goes on. It turns out these words have been in use longer than the trade legalities, and you can't put the cat back in the bag.
"Engineer" in general as a professional term I think is hopeless. It is a massively broad field with many categories of which the education and background has only grown deeper over time. 100 years ago an electrical engineer might have been at home with motors, speakers, generators and electrical circuits of many types. These days the specialization required for semiconductor electronics versus power electrics have diverged so radically, even the fundamental math is quite different. Never mind how this might relate to mechanical engineering, civil engineering, or chemical engineering. And those are just the modern comprehension of engineers. The PE test doesn't comprehend any of that, it is simultaneously too broad and too useless to even consider for hte majority of us "engineers" to waste time on. But, we're free to call ourselves engineers, just not Professional Engineers, nor can we list P.E. after our name.
Your comment is confusing for an American site, and I think generally speaking worthless for the world at large that we live in today.
I don't think I've ever been in a passenger jet where any angle ever reached 45 degrees (or more). It seems insensible to train for unlikely scenarios, and even less sensible to expect a pilot to respond properly to very unlikely scenarios quickly and accurately. I'm not sure I can google "proper procedure for A320 rudder malfunction" and get a response before I'd be dead....
My issue is mostly that there's a lot of seeing the forest for the trees and injecting modern politics into history in a confusing way. When teaching about the triangular trade, the specific aspects of life of "the workers" may not be quite as important as the flow of money and goods. It's important to understand how the economy worked and what a balance sheet might have looked like. The focus should have been on economics. It should be pretty dry, but it should be immediately clear how very profitable this all was. Slavery paid for that, absolutely, and that would be clear in studying the balance sheet. The most important things to note I think, is who revolted. The slaves? No. The colonists first. Then the plantation owners. For some reason these guys were most upset. I think studying the balance sheet is the answer, along with some human nature (i.e. those who stand to lose fight first, those who seek to gain may not fight).
We want to focus on slavery because it is morally repugnant today (and many back then thought so too, but didn't take it up...because of that balance sheet). But in terms of hitting the high points of US history for junior high or high school? It wasn't really the most important thing to understand in great detail immediately. The bill for the slaves came due in the mid-20th century. Talking about slavery is historically more important, I think, when talking about more recent US history. Just where did all these black people come from and why are they pissed off? Ah, now we should talk about who paid for the triangular trade and what the cost of that cheap labor really was. If nothing else, our children should be taught that actions have consequences and that nothing is free, even if it doesn't complain immediately. We can then let them participate in politics on indentured servants (H-1B, etc.), and our economic relationship with China and why it is like it is and just who is likely to fight if we don't manage that relationship carefully...
This is fought tooth and nail by big teacher union big government types to like to spout memes like hey you selfish jerk with privilege
No, others disagree too. Primarily we take the funding away form the public school, then also add our own private money, and send our kid to a better funded school. Great for those of us who can afford it, very bad for those who cannot afford it. Generally speaking I think public schools have been a tremendous success, so I don't want to see that system dismantled.
What we're failing at is delivering a very high quality education to more capable children, and losing our superstars to mediocrity.
I know at least 3 children (including my next door neighbor's child) who left public schools for affordable private alternatives and returned 3 or 4 years later. These children ended up way behind the students who stayed in public schools.
The reality is that there are a few really good private schools that most middle-class families can't afford (unless your child is exceptional, can demonstrate it on paper, and would be considered an asset to the school to offset the rich-but-dumb kids), and a whole lot of "schools" that will take your money but offer very little. They won't even kick out losers, which is really the best reason private schools exist.
Texas public schools are terrible, but the text books aren't even the worst part. Saddest, Texas public schools aren't even close to the worst they're pretty good by red state standards.
I think a) he should have avoided NASCAR in general because it has connotations, and just said "people watch too much sports and not enough science" (probably true), and not necessarily insulting a particular demographic, except the exact one he wanted to insult and b) his point is probably that it's an absolutely pointless, valueless diversion and not about advancing human knowledge or ability...it's about a bunch of guys trying to beat each other on a race track to no good end. However much science or engineering they apply to it, appears to be for no useful purpose. That's the definition of a sport really, although a harder point to defend is that nothing good can come out of it.
Basically, he thinks we fuck off too much and spend too much money on it. Which I think is probably a fact, although unprovable. I think we would definitely be better off if people's diversions had at least a pretense of being constructive... but I think this message is lost on an audience that is never going to get it or contribute anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the Popular Front of Judea, nobody likes him.
There are several facets of the first amendment, and different crowds want one or more facets cancelled at various times for various reasons. It's the beauty of politics.
If you can't meet reasonable requirements to purchase a weapon, you should not be able to buy guns. Free societies do need to impose limitations: you can't drive without a license, criminals are thrown in prison, murder is forbidden, and you can't walk around nude (in most places).
But the difference between unacceptable restrictions and acceptable restrictions are the details. The government shall issue a license, unless some legally defined criteria are not met. And those criteria need to be carefully chosen to ensure the government cannot be arbitrary. Perhaps felony convictions, perhaps mental illness diagnosed by a doctor, perhaps possessing certification that you have received firearms safety training meeting some curriculum requirement. The license cannot cost more than it takes to create (i.e. it's not a tax, not a wealth barrier), and no criteria for the license can exist that cannot be proven in documentation or argued in court. I left off "watchlist", those are always "secret" and you can't argue yourself off of one in any reasonable fashion. So we couldn't have stopped San Bernadino because our government is too busy being nefarious.
Registering weapons does empower the government to find you and your weapons and have them removed. I'm definitely against that in all cases.
I still don't know any person personally who uses Twitter. I view the entire topic as a constant, unending ad scheme designed to get me to use this thing I can't find any purpose for. Except, apparently, to get myself in trouble.
. If you really need a gun to get people to speak "politely" to you then you are doing something REALLY wrong.
People are more polite in line at the grocery store than, on the internet. You can punch someone in the grocery store, or haunt them well into the parking lot, maybe even on the ride home.
Yes, we're doing it really wrong, but that doesn't entirely void the logic. Granted, there should be some limitations on politeness: maybe death is too extreme of a response to white shoes after labor day.
Registering weapons is dangerous, I agree with the "gun nuts" about registering weapons being a bad idea. But requiring someone to have a license to PURCHASE a gun, and some reasonable requirements to be met for that license really doesn't seem too horrible.
Talk is cheap. He ain't done shit. If he actually cared, he would have done it during his first two years, it wasn't on his top 10.
Clinton might try to push through a gun control law, but you can't "ban guns", you know it, I know it, and she knows it. Examine the law they propose and then form an opinion as to whether it is tolerable or not, then act accordingly. It would not be horrifying, for example, if purchasing weapons required having a license that the government was obligated to grant, unless you met certain explicit criteria. Such as a background check for violent crimes, mental disorder, and maybe having had a basic gun safety class in the past 5 years. You could still have all the guns you wanted, we could reduce some trivial gun crimes, continue to bitch and moan about the remainder and call it a day.
What if what he likes to do is lie?
Try out politics and use his charity to fund his campaign.
Anecdotal and cherry-picked evidence about what another rich guy has chosen to do, but does not entirely add up. If this is about private individuals being more capable of managing money than governments, why isn't Zuckerberg investing in another charity? Does he not even trust Bill Gates to run a good charity? Probably not, I sure don't. Why can't all these rich guys team up and sponsor the same charity? Why can't they sponsor one or more charities that they've vetted out as being "generally good"? Because, they want to retain control of their money for whatever reason at all.
Bill Gates, largely retired from the CEOing business, is choosing to act, but under no obligation, nor is it clear that he alone has the bandwidth to efficiently handle $40B any more than a government would be, he does have the luxury of a pile of money that he can spend or not spend at his leisure on anything at all that suits his fancy. His efforts in education are meddling at best, destructive at worst. In my opinion he's using his fortune to cause harm. Unlike the government he has no oversight, and can do whatever he sees fit for the problem he wants to solve, even if that means breaking something that is largely working for a demographic he is not interested in, or producing educated citizens that aren't interested in working for his industry or style of company. I mean that's the thing with kids, they grow up and choose their own path. I'm not the doctor my mom and dad wanted, my son likely won't be the geek I want. We teach them a general set of things that will help them, help themselves. We don't put them on a railroad with only one destination and tell them to ride it to the end or jump off.
He could do a lot worse, and he could abuse the system much more than he is, I won't argue that. But I'm not going to sing his praises and I would still like to see this mechanism shut off. He should realize his (unimaginably large, impossible to spend) gains, pay taxes to the country that made him successful and try to make it better with his still (unimaginably large, impossible to spend) fortune, or having paid his debt, run off to some island somewhere. If he feels the government is misguided, and it eternally is, he has the influence and connections to make changes much easier than any of us peons, and the mindshare and influence to ensure we all know what is broken. God knows they are running around like squirrels on cocaine right now, and there's an entire political party of people who seek to represent rich white guys who are clearly not being given anything like a coherent direction. Donald Trump is the best they got...Donald Born-Rich Trump, that's it. Bill Gates? He could probably tell them a thing or two about the working world, and obstacles to actual american business.
Mostly we're reacting to the utter bullshit of it all. Zuckerberg is not giving away his money, he's sheltering it in a tax-free, obligation-free loop hole. He created a letter to his newborn daughter (unstated undertone: I'm hurting your future for the benefit of the world) that is hard to read with a straight face, that ignores the fact that he is keeping $450M of it for his family, she'll never want for anything in her life. That's fine, but let's cut the melodrama, he's not sentencing her even to middle class life in the suburbs. She's got her road paved, in whatever school she wants, with whatever lifestyle she wants. He's giving the better part of $45B to a charity that is under his control, with relatively few limitations on what he can choose to do with that money to the extent that he's effectively not giving it away at all. This is mostly politics and attention whoring.
How many Americans write letters to their children or have articles written every time they make a contribution to their 401(k) or invest in an HSA/FSA, effectively sheltering their income from taxes while reducing a bit of control over how the funds can be spent? That's basically what he's doing, except he doesn't even have the same limitations that those structures have.
Engineers tend to find devices to include in their designs via salesmen and distributors. If you have a product, partner up with a sales rep who sells things similar to your product. If he's any good he knows who to approach to get new ideas through, and can get you visibility.
The odds of you approaching a company like that any other way are not easy. You can call the front desk but you'll never find the right people. You want to find system and hardware engineers I imagine. But be prepared for a tough sell, these guys (and i know from personal experience) have tight deadlines and very directed tasks and aren't appreciative of disruption, particularly if you have product and it's not the right form factor or your supply chain isn't sorted out. A good sales rep knows how to make this happen and get their attention.
they have to pass that law with a supermajority that is immune to the current president's veto or get a sympathetic president elected
Actually, there is at least one more typical way in dealing with an unsympathetic president, one might even call it the preferred way. They compromise and bargain, yielding on an issue that an opposing president really needs, in exchange for an issue they really need. However the battle lines for the past ten years or so have been drawn such that every single item that comes up has a strong partisan bias, everyone needs everything simultaneously and will yield nothing. And nothing is exactly what we get out of the deal.
Attaching a rider to a bill is definitely a way things have been done to slide this stuff through once the negotiations have been made, it's good when you lack trust or think you might get outmaneuvered, or just want to slide one by the general public. But you don't just ram that sucker at the president, he can and will veto it, and whether he is popular or not, he has more of the mindshare of the people than any congressman and will call you out on it publicly and it doesn't help anyone.
As far as I'm concerned both parties have become too big and confused with conflicting internal interests that cannot prioritize or compromise even amongst themselves. The democrats are currently the most coherent (but 15 years ago they were off their rocker), but both are really too big to be able to get things done decisively.
Off the top of my head: cold winders, mass transit, sea access, toll roads, multiple airports, heavy industry, terrible traffic, high populations, a comic combination of absolute nature against urban decay, rich people, poor people, middle class people, ferry boats, busses, skyscrapers, donald trump ownership of major buildings, a history of mafia, grown men who go by the names "vinnie", "joey", "paulie" or "frankie", strong unions, history of worker exploitation, heavy immigrant populations, ....
Is this even such a thing.. .curious
Hypochondria is a real illness recognized in the DSM-IV. As far as anyone has ever proven scientifically, "EHS" is a fancy term with absolutely no real evidence. More or less like people who claim wind power makes them sick, it seems to come and go based on whether the victim believes the device is present and turned on. Which is very much like hypochondria...
Unfortunately, tell people their disease is mental, not physical and they are insulted and rage. When in fact mental diseases are real and certainly FEEL real to the person suffering from them. I find it far more likely that our brain can suffer from "idea viruses" that it takes far too seriously, than somehow our body is reacting to radio waves, when those same waves are, and have always been, present from our favorite daystar (and to a much lesser degree, all the other daystars shining at us).
Hey, in California, the government authorities are always looking for a reason to raise taxes. Making up the difference in legal fees might just be another way of skimming additional revenue.
I see this as more a response to being unable to raise taxes. We have laws against prostitution which require money to enforce. We have much bigger problems that are more deserving of what law enforcement dollars exist. So how to enforce this law without spending money on it? Try to chill it. It's cheaper than enforcement and may reduce the incidence. Maybe. How can this plan possibly backfire!
The next step, after the lawsuits of course, lawyers have to eat too, is to demand more in taxes to put cops back on vice. Maybe this time taxpayers will say "You know what? Policing this isn't worth the time. Legalize it.". But that's just silly of me, the religious lunatics and the misguided social justice types will want to step in to "protect the girls/family/values" when they should just let people who want to destroy themselves do it, and only put in laws to try to promote better safety, hygiene and abortion availability and minimize the actual social impact of prostitution.
Sure I am aware of that, and clearly they have tested this plane in its ability to handle that. But the precise procedures for handling the condition would appear to vary from plane to plane, and it seems the role of a passenger pilot would reduce the operating range of the plane from "anything it can do" to "anything it would reasonably do". Clearly the imaginations of everyone involved didn't conceive of this scenario, and clearly the procedures required for the A320 are very different that require more than the standard certification training would cover.
It seems every time an Airbus crashes, it is the pilots fault, when it is clear the pilot has been doing certain things he was trained to do when encountering a scenario in all his previous experience. And frequently it's the case that's the wrong thing to do, or a misleading thing to do when flying an Airbus plane. For example pulling the circuit breaker, I'm told by a certified pilot is a reasonable action to take on many common planes. But is not procedure for an Airbus.
I guess where I'm going with this is that Airbus seems to require pilots to do differently things they have learned to do on other craft, possibly leading to their certification, and when confronted with a very rare but possibly survivable situation in Airbus, many do the wrong thing and crash. The deceased pilot is blamed (easy, cheap) but very little that seems like it is necessarily effective is done to fix what seems the actual problem: the plane is difficult to fly.
Yeah, I think it's a fair fear.
And a good practice. Male doctors, in modern times, are never with a female patient without a female assistant of some kind. Male police officers and security guards avoid detaining or frisking female suspects if a female officer is available and can do so. Male teachers avoid being in "closed office" situations with female students. On a different subject: most (married) people avoid work lunches or dinners with the opposite sex all by themselves (1:1), even if highly visible it creates the appearance of impropriety that might be difficult to explain.
You can't bypass gender by ignoring it, even if your intentions are honest and your actions clean. There are dishonest people out there, and there are more than enough gossips. In male dominated professions we may be accustomed to working exclusively with other men and not have these concerns so frequently in our lives, but, they exist and we should learn to play it smart. In reality these situations can and probably will arise more frequently in M:M and F:F situations as more homosexual people choose to "come out" (i.e. announce a weakness for predators to leap upon). In the words of Lester Burnham: "Can you prove that you didn't offer to save my job if I let you blow me?"
I think part of the issue is that a lot of conventions and social professional forums have a bit more of a party atmosphere than a professional one, and the guards we remember to use at work sometimes get forgotten.
Then you aren't ... a licensed professional engineer
FTFY.
But you may still be an engineer.
The famous bridge collapse from up this way was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge - nothing to do with Seattle at all.
Which every "engineer" learns about in freshman year of undergrad (if they didn't know it before). Most of those young student "engineers" will never seek, desire or find any value in the "Professional Engineer" certification required for working with the government, which is the only forum you might get in legal trouble for advertising yourself as an engineer without being certified. Yet, the few people that bother with the PE love to bloviate about how they're the only "actual engineers"...
I'm open to debate about the value of trade certifications such as those used by doctors, but P.E. isn't even in the right ballpark. I also question the value if, and I know it will be the case, employers just want the cheapest, most minimally qualified pigeon to fill a hole and will invent any form of title for that pigeon so that he may legally fill the hole.
Where I live, here in the US, you're an engineer if you say so. Unless you work for or on behalf of the government, in which case you are a Professional Engineer (PE). You can be called Doctor if you haven't the slightest background in medicine (all of my university professors insisted on it), but you can't advertise yourself as a Medical Doctor (MD). You can be an Investigator but cannot represent yourself as a policeman or federal agent, unless you actually are. The list goes on. It turns out these words have been in use longer than the trade legalities, and you can't put the cat back in the bag.
"Engineer" in general as a professional term I think is hopeless. It is a massively broad field with many categories of which the education and background has only grown deeper over time. 100 years ago an electrical engineer might have been at home with motors, speakers, generators and electrical circuits of many types. These days the specialization required for semiconductor electronics versus power electrics have diverged so radically, even the fundamental math is quite different. Never mind how this might relate to mechanical engineering, civil engineering, or chemical engineering. And those are just the modern comprehension of engineers. The PE test doesn't comprehend any of that, it is simultaneously too broad and too useless to even consider for hte majority of us "engineers" to waste time on. But, we're free to call ourselves engineers, just not Professional Engineers, nor can we list P.E. after our name.
Your comment is confusing for an American site, and I think generally speaking worthless for the world at large that we live in today.
I don't think I've ever been in a passenger jet where any angle ever reached 45 degrees (or more). It seems insensible to train for unlikely scenarios, and even less sensible to expect a pilot to respond properly to very unlikely scenarios quickly and accurately. I'm not sure I can google "proper procedure for A320 rudder malfunction" and get a response before I'd be dead....
My issue is mostly that there's a lot of seeing the forest for the trees and injecting modern politics into history in a confusing way. When teaching about the triangular trade, the specific aspects of life of "the workers" may not be quite as important as the flow of money and goods. It's important to understand how the economy worked and what a balance sheet might have looked like. The focus should have been on economics. It should be pretty dry, but it should be immediately clear how very profitable this all was. Slavery paid for that, absolutely, and that would be clear in studying the balance sheet. The most important things to note I think, is who revolted. The slaves? No. The colonists first. Then the plantation owners. For some reason these guys were most upset. I think studying the balance sheet is the answer, along with some human nature (i.e. those who stand to lose fight first, those who seek to gain may not fight).
We want to focus on slavery because it is morally repugnant today (and many back then thought so too, but didn't take it up...because of that balance sheet). But in terms of hitting the high points of US history for junior high or high school? It wasn't really the most important thing to understand in great detail immediately. The bill for the slaves came due in the mid-20th century. Talking about slavery is historically more important, I think, when talking about more recent US history. Just where did all these black people come from and why are they pissed off? Ah, now we should talk about who paid for the triangular trade and what the cost of that cheap labor really was. If nothing else, our children should be taught that actions have consequences and that nothing is free, even if it doesn't complain immediately. We can then let them participate in politics on indentured servants (H-1B, etc.), and our economic relationship with China and why it is like it is and just who is likely to fight if we don't manage that relationship carefully...
This is fought tooth and nail by big teacher union big government types to like to spout memes like hey you selfish jerk with privilege
No, others disagree too. Primarily we take the funding away form the public school, then also add our own private money, and send our kid to a better funded school. Great for those of us who can afford it, very bad for those who cannot afford it. Generally speaking I think public schools have been a tremendous success, so I don't want to see that system dismantled.
What we're failing at is delivering a very high quality education to more capable children, and losing our superstars to mediocrity.
I know at least 3 children (including my next door neighbor's child) who left public schools for affordable private alternatives and returned 3 or 4 years later. These children ended up way behind the students who stayed in public schools.
The reality is that there are a few really good private schools that most middle-class families can't afford (unless your child is exceptional, can demonstrate it on paper, and would be considered an asset to the school to offset the rich-but-dumb kids), and a whole lot of "schools" that will take your money but offer very little. They won't even kick out losers, which is really the best reason private schools exist.
Texas public schools are terrible, but the text books aren't even the worst part. Saddest, Texas public schools aren't even close to the worst they're pretty good by red state standards.
He watched a few episodes of "Law and Order" and since McCoy once managed some form of spiritual victory, so he thinks he can pull it off.
I think a) he should have avoided NASCAR in general because it has connotations, and just said "people watch too much sports and not enough science" (probably true), and not necessarily insulting a particular demographic, except the exact one he wanted to insult and b) his point is probably that it's an absolutely pointless, valueless diversion and not about advancing human knowledge or ability...it's about a bunch of guys trying to beat each other on a race track to no good end. However much science or engineering they apply to it, appears to be for no useful purpose. That's the definition of a sport really, although a harder point to defend is that nothing good can come out of it.
Basically, he thinks we fuck off too much and spend too much money on it. Which I think is probably a fact, although unprovable. I think we would definitely be better off if people's diversions had at least a pretense of being constructive... but I think this message is lost on an audience that is never going to get it or contribute anyway.