If this is the case, why not ban toy weapons altogether? I mean, aren't they concerned about, you know, shooting little kids with fake guns?
An aircraft is a controllable environment. The rest of the world is not.
And just maybe they'll consider traveling by land, sea, or telepresence instead if they're not willing to give up some individual liberty temporarily for the security of the collective.
This argument doesn't wash and sets up a dangerous slippery slope -- we can always be safer by sacrificing more of our liberty. We could slash the crime rate down to next to nothing if only we all put CCTV cameras in all of our houses, and let the police come in for periodic spot checks to make sure you are being nice.
That's why I added emphasis tags around "temporarily".
I for one feel that this extra measure of security is not worth the cost of liberty. Some would disagree, but the Constitution is on my side.
I don't feel much like flying in today's climate either. That example of the Optimus Prime T-Shirt was a real-world modern example (albeit in the UK).
If I had to take a commercial flight as part of my job, I'd want some kind of compensation for the loss of human dignity, and I don't mean an extra packet of peanuts.
Naah. The recent change there was because they couldn't trademark "SciFi" because it was a generic term. They can trademark "SyFy" because of it's relatively unique spelling. They aren't trying to change their reputation.
And SyFy couldn't get around their trademark issue by calling themselves "The Sci-Fi Channel" either. So what is RadioShack going to do when they find that "The Shack" is too generic for a trademark somewhere?
Now, if they were "The Hack Shack" and every product they sold came with circuit diagrams and firmware source code....
Firing a weapon in a pressurized cabin is serious business. If a weapon is seen, it needs to be known that it is a real threat before risking firing at the person holding it and possibly damaging the aircraft and forcing an emergency landing, which may be unsuccessful and kill everyone on board. It started with not wanting to fire a gun unless you see a gun (meet threat with equal threat), and toy guns could look quite real. So they're banned. As are even 2-dimensional pictures of guns, including on T-shirts (however futuristic Optimus Prime may be, he's got a gun). By eliminating all false positives, you greatly reduce the possibility of errors of firing on a toy or not firing on a real weapon mistaken for a toy.
But other weapons could be harmful to passengers and you want to be able to protect individuals, so drawing a gun on knives and swords become permitted. Your enforcers on aircraft are specially trained to know how to safely fire on an aircraft, so they can fire on non-guns too. So toy versions of those weapons are banned too.
If someone were stupid enough to market black leather gloves imprinted with the image of a gun such that by extending the first and second digits it would look like you're holding a real gun, black leather gloves would be banned too.
The point is that the GOVERNMENT is telling me that I cannot do something without providing any reason. If the government is going to tell us what we can and cannot do, we need to demand that they give us a DAMN good reason for it.
Well, I hope I've answered your question of "why" even though I'm not the government. I'm just someone capable of reasoning why such restrictions are in place for myself. And though I may not like the result this reasoning (particularly about pictures of guns), I can understand it.
Wake up, people. Ask questions, demand liberty.
You really should also be telling people to think. And just maybe they'll consider traveling by land, sea, or telepresence instead if they're not willing to give up some individual liberty temporarily for the security of the collective.
That's odd. I'm pretty sure I submitted some of those and corrections for others, but they're not in my update history. In particular, the stage direction of Gorman turning back to the monitor and the first lines submission.
But I love some of the meta-humor you can get from entering some lines:
Caboose: Enters stage left. Caboose: [enters stage left] Hello, I am Stupid Private Tucker. I am going to set off a big bomb now, and totally mess things up for everyone! Because I am stupid! Caboose: Turns around. Caboose: [turns around] Hello, Present, I am going to set off a bomb in you. Grif: Don't do that, Stupid Private Tucker, that might kill me! Caboose: Thinks about this... for a moment. Donut: [as Caboose thinks about this for a moment] Caboose, stop reading your stage directions! Caboose: You said I was supposed to read anything with my name in front of it! Donut: Just the lines, not the blockings. You're ruining my big debut!
I'll say. Get bit by a drone in the back of the head and you reach back and pull out part of your brain/skull and look at it? That's bad comedy on the level of Return of the Living Dead Part II.
At they very least it just took out your visual cortex.
Ripley: Did you ever ship out with Ash before? Dallas: I went out five times with another Science Officer. They replaced him two days before we left Thedus with Ash. Hm? Ripley: I don't trust him. Dallas: I don't trust anybody.
It seems pretty clear that Ash and the orders to pick up the xenomorph were specific and deliberate. Mother had Ash's orders. It can be assumed Mother was programmed to treat the signal as a distress call and wake the crew.
If we assume locations in the movie correspond to the same named locations in reality, dialogue indicates FTL travel is possible, but that the distances involved are still isolating in terms of communication. Long-range FTL communication may not exist, at least for a long-haul tug like the Nostromo, and it may not be feasible to send a "message in an FTL bottle"--engines might not scale down (the Narcissus didn't seem capable).
I prefer to think that they were relativistic but not yet FTL. The societal implications are just so more interesting that way: long-haul truckers dealing with future shock on each round trip and just plain outliving generations of their relatives left behind learn to not form long ties and care only about themselves. Only crews sticking together over multiple hauls may get close knit. Not even the events in Aliens require FTL travel, but the events in Alien^3 seem to require both FTL communication and travel. And, well, anyone doing lots of space travel at relativistic speeds is going to miss a lot of history and technological advancement. I'd hate to see FTL be required in a prequel.
I think some Company employee at Thedus who was up on Company history was going through ship communication logs, saw the warning and recognized the life-cycle described therein as matching records from AVP-era and, seeking promotion, changed the crew assignments of the Nostromo and reprogrammed Mother to retrieve the alien and deliver it to his bosses back at Earth. His career either ended or he covered it up when word got back that the Nostromo was lost.
Years ago, there was a current story (same day) that was indexed by Google but which the originating site had pulled from the web. Google wouldn't provide a copy of their cache for it and only give me a short snippet in the search results.
So I took two or three words at the start of the snippet, turned them into a quoted phrase, and did a "site:" search of them and the headline. That got me a few more words. Same for words at the end of the snippet. Pretty soon I had the entire paragraph.
However, Google wouldn't give preceding or following words past the paragraph mark, so I had to guess at unique words that would be in other paragraphs, and no clues as to the order of the paragraphs. I do believe I managed to retrieve the entire story in this manner without providing a hit for the originating site, but then, they apparently didn't want the traffic since they'd pulled the story from the site.
Well crap, I thought that they had found a REALLY short route from the Atlantic to the Pacific, under 7 microns is sweet but it makes turning around a bitch...
Is that SI-microns or original Battlestar Galactica-microns?
10^1 times smaller = 10^-1 times bigger, never really managed to see the problem with it.
If you accept "10 times smaller" == "1/10 times bigger" (and that the latter makes sense), what does "1/10 times smaller" mean? Does "smaller" contradict or re-enforce the figure?
No it isn't, unless you think you can only multiply by values larger than one, which would simply be moronic.
Then why isn't it "1/10 times smaller"? Why does no one use a fraction with the word "times" colloquially? It would better as "10 divisions smaller than x", as in "if you divided x into ten equally sized partitions, it would be the size of one of them," if not "1/10 the size of x".
In an idiom employing redundancy, by using the antonym of only one of the words therein you create an oxymoron.
The language is perfectly clear, correct, and unambiguous.
It's oxymoronic to say "times smaller".
You're suggesting implied reciprocals where "x times smaller than" means "one xth the size of" when the latter is perfectly fine English just to avoid explicitly mentioning a fraction.
It makes as much sense as talking about the "near distant" future.
If put up a bulletin board at a restaurant I own call "The Pot Smokers Bay" and people were putting up fliers on where to buy pot, I would be held responsible.
Whatever happened to freedom of assembly?
And it used to be you were only held responsible if you exercised editorial control. Now it seems that editorial control is mandatory so that you can (and will) be held responsible.
So you are saying TPB just didn't bribe^Wsupport the politicians enough?
They have their own political party (Piratpartiet), so no. They just don't have enough of their members in power yet (1 potential member of European parliament conditioned on whether the Lisbon Treaty is ratified).
It starts with someone prominently deciding "14th" needs an apostrophe (even though there's nothing omitted) and next thing you know people are eating candy bars with a knife and fork.
Slashdot Mirror
But it seems because he is disabling a 'circumvention device' it is a criminal issue.
He's disabling an anti-circumvention device. If he was disabling a circumvention device, he'd be restoring protection to a modded system.
If this is the case, why not ban toy weapons altogether? I mean, aren't they concerned about, you know, shooting little kids with fake guns?
An aircraft is a controllable environment. The rest of the world is not.
And just maybe they'll consider traveling by land, sea, or telepresence instead if they're not willing to give up some individual liberty temporarily for the security of the collective.
This argument doesn't wash and sets up a dangerous slippery slope -- we can always be safer by sacrificing more of our liberty. We could slash the crime rate down to next to nothing if only we all put CCTV cameras in all of our houses, and let the police come in for periodic spot checks to make sure you are being nice.
That's why I added emphasis tags around "temporarily".
I for one feel that this extra measure of security is not worth the cost of liberty. Some would disagree, but the Constitution is on my side.
I don't feel much like flying in today's climate either. That example of the Optimus Prime T-Shirt was a real-world modern example (albeit in the UK).
If I had to take a commercial flight as part of my job, I'd want some kind of compensation for the loss of human dignity, and I don't mean an extra packet of peanuts.
Naah. The recent change there was because they couldn't trademark "SciFi" because it was a generic term. They can trademark "SyFy" because of it's relatively unique spelling. They aren't trying to change their reputation.
And SyFy couldn't get around their trademark issue by calling themselves "The Sci-Fi Channel" either. So what is RadioShack going to do when they find that "The Shack" is too generic for a trademark somewhere?
Now, if they were "The Hack Shack" and every product they sold came with circuit diagrams and firmware source code....
But does anyone ever stop to ask... WHY??
Firing a weapon in a pressurized cabin is serious business. If a weapon is seen, it needs to be known that it is a real threat before risking firing at the person holding it and possibly damaging the aircraft and forcing an emergency landing, which may be unsuccessful and kill everyone on board. It started with not wanting to fire a gun unless you see a gun (meet threat with equal threat), and toy guns could look quite real. So they're banned. As are even 2-dimensional pictures of guns, including on T-shirts (however futuristic Optimus Prime may be, he's got a gun). By eliminating all false positives, you greatly reduce the possibility of errors of firing on a toy or not firing on a real weapon mistaken for a toy.
But other weapons could be harmful to passengers and you want to be able to protect individuals, so drawing a gun on knives and swords become permitted. Your enforcers on aircraft are specially trained to know how to safely fire on an aircraft, so they can fire on non-guns too. So toy versions of those weapons are banned too.
If someone were stupid enough to market black leather gloves imprinted with the image of a gun such that by extending the first and second digits it would look like you're holding a real gun, black leather gloves would be banned too.
The point is that the GOVERNMENT is telling me that I cannot do something without providing any reason. If the government is going to tell us what we can and cannot do, we need to demand that they give us a DAMN good reason for it.
Well, I hope I've answered your question of "why" even though I'm not the government. I'm just someone capable of reasoning why such restrictions are in place for myself. And though I may not like the result this reasoning (particularly about pictures of guns), I can understand it.
Wake up, people. Ask questions, demand liberty.
You really should also be telling people to think. And just maybe they'll consider traveling by land, sea, or telepresence instead if they're not willing to give up some individual liberty temporarily for the security of the collective.
"Shall we decimate them? That sounds good, nice word, decimate. Remove one tenth of the population!"
-- The Master; Doctor Who: The Sound of Drums
"10 percent. We want 10 percent. We want 10 percent of the children of this world."
-- The 456; Torchwood: Children of Earth
That's scary, but if you want genuine terror, there's nothing to top God coming back
Nah, I'll just tell Him He just proved He exists and He'll vanish in a puff of logic.
Wait, what do you mean, "coming back"?
That's odd. I'm pretty sure I submitted some of those and corrections for others, but they're not in my update history. In particular, the stage direction of Gorman turning back to the monitor and the first lines submission.
Anyway, judging from the size of the thumb in the scrollbar, I think there are more quotes for Red vs. Blue: The Blood Gulch Chronicles.
But I love some of the meta-humor you can get from entering some lines:
Caboose: Enters stage left.
Caboose: [enters stage left] Hello, I am Stupid Private Tucker. I am going to set off a big bomb now, and totally mess things up for everyone! Because I am stupid!
Caboose: Turns around.
Caboose: [turns around] Hello, Present, I am going to set off a bomb in you.
Grif: Don't do that, Stupid Private Tucker, that might kill me!
Caboose: Thinks about this... for a moment.
Donut: [as Caboose thinks about this for a moment] Caboose, stop reading your stage directions!
Caboose: You said I was supposed to read anything with my name in front of it!
Donut: Just the lines, not the blockings. You're ruining my big debut!
Ash vs. Aliens
Jason vs. Predator
Alien4 was a bad comedy.
I'll say. Get bit by a drone in the back of the head and you reach back and pull out part of your brain/skull and look at it? That's bad comedy on the level of Return of the Living Dead Part II.
At they very least it just took out your visual cortex.
Ripley: Did you ever ship out with Ash before?
Dallas: I went out five times with another Science Officer. They replaced him two days before we left Thedus with Ash. Hm?
Ripley: I don't trust him.
Dallas: I don't trust anybody.
It seems pretty clear that Ash and the orders to pick up the xenomorph were specific and deliberate. Mother had Ash's orders. It can be assumed Mother was programmed to treat the signal as a distress call and wake the crew.
If we assume locations in the movie correspond to the same named locations in reality, dialogue indicates FTL travel is possible, but that the distances involved are still isolating in terms of communication. Long-range FTL communication may not exist, at least for a long-haul tug like the Nostromo, and it may not be feasible to send a "message in an FTL bottle"--engines might not scale down (the Narcissus didn't seem capable).
I prefer to think that they were relativistic but not yet FTL. The societal implications are just so more interesting that way: long-haul truckers dealing with future shock on each round trip and just plain outliving generations of their relatives left behind learn to not form long ties and care only about themselves. Only crews sticking together over multiple hauls may get close knit. Not even the events in Aliens require FTL travel, but the events in Alien^3 seem to require both FTL communication and travel. And, well, anyone doing lots of space travel at relativistic speeds is going to miss a lot of history and technological advancement. I'd hate to see FTL be required in a prequel.
I think some Company employee at Thedus who was up on Company history was going through ship communication logs, saw the warning and recognized the life-cycle described therein as matching records from AVP-era and, seeking promotion, changed the crew assignments of the Nostromo and reprogrammed Mother to retrieve the alien and deliver it to his bosses back at Earth. His career either ended or he covered it up when word got back that the Nostromo was lost.
I'm gonna copyright... having dumbass copyrights.
You can't copyright that. That requires a dumbass patent.
Years ago, there was a current story (same day) that was indexed by Google but which the originating site had pulled from the web. Google wouldn't provide a copy of their cache for it and only give me a short snippet in the search results.
So I took two or three words at the start of the snippet, turned them into a quoted phrase, and did a "site:" search of them and the headline. That got me a few more words. Same for words at the end of the snippet. Pretty soon I had the entire paragraph.
However, Google wouldn't give preceding or following words past the paragraph mark, so I had to guess at unique words that would be in other paragraphs, and no clues as to the order of the paragraphs. I do believe I managed to retrieve the entire story in this manner without providing a hit for the originating site, but then, they apparently didn't want the traffic since they'd pulled the story from the site.
Toy weapons were banned as carry-ons before 9/11.
Keep them in your checked luggage.
It's completely natural. Space launches are a natural product of evolution.
Or, to put it another way: if God didn't want us to go into space, he wouldn't have made it so easy to react hydrogen with oxygen.
Most of the Spam is coming from the US or US-based companies. Thank you CAN-SPAM :-(
And the translations are due to French law requiring advertisements have all words foreign to the French language be translated.
Thank you, France! Thank you so bloody much!
(BTW, the Wikipedia page for the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages needs more information. For one, the two levels of protection are not defined.)
Well crap, I thought that they had found a REALLY short route from the Atlantic to the Pacific, under 7 microns is sweet but it makes turning around a bitch...
Is that SI-microns or original Battlestar Galactica-microns?
10^1 times smaller = 10^-1 times bigger, never really managed to see the problem with it.
If you accept "10 times smaller" == "1/10 times bigger" (and that the latter makes sense), what does "1/10 times smaller" mean? Does "smaller" contradict or re-enforce the figure?
It's oxymoronic to say "times smaller".
No it isn't, unless you think you can only multiply by values larger than one, which would simply be moronic.
Then why isn't it "1/10 times smaller"? Why does no one use a fraction with the word "times" colloquially? It would better as "10 divisions smaller than x", as in "if you divided x into ten equally sized partitions, it would be the size of one of them," if not "1/10 the size of x".
In an idiom employing redundancy, by using the antonym of only one of the words therein you create an oxymoron.
Not that oxymorons are universally wrong.
The language is perfectly clear, correct, and unambiguous.
It's oxymoronic to say "times smaller".
You're suggesting implied reciprocals where "x times smaller than" means "one xth the size of" when the latter is perfectly fine English just to avoid explicitly mentioning a fraction.
It makes as much sense as talking about the "near distant" future.
and only a temporary one at that.
Eh, not so much.
If put up a bulletin board at a restaurant I own call "The Pot Smokers Bay" and people were putting up fliers on where to buy pot, I would be held responsible.
Whatever happened to freedom of assembly?
And it used to be you were only held responsible if you exercised editorial control. Now it seems that editorial control is mandatory so that you can (and will) be held responsible.
So you are saying TPB just didn't bribe^Wsupport the politicians enough?
They have their own political party (Piratpartiet), so no. They just don't have enough of their members in power yet (1 potential member of European parliament conditioned on whether the Lisbon Treaty is ratified).
I can't remember the Blue one's personality at all...
Disaffected.
The best part is that in lab rats the subjects given the treatment turn blue.
Do they also start taking part in voiceless percussion stage performances?
It starts with someone prominently deciding "14th" needs an apostrophe (even though there's nothing omitted) and next thing you know people are eating candy bars with a knife and fork.