Someone on opiates for long term build up a tolerance that diminishes the effect, but the tolerance also increases the LD50. This is why so many people OD. They take half the dose of the addict that's showing them how, and that's quite lethal. Or, the long-term addict who was locked up in prison or rehab gets clean enough that their old maintenance dose is quite lethal. This is also why the concept of a maximum legal dose would be silly, as it would vary from person to person.
A good suicide method would be to give a reasonable dose, then let the patient self-administer in 1mg doses. Someone tolerant enough of it to keep dosing themselves deserves the right to keep administering, if they so choose.
I'm not a medical doctor, but I didn't think there was a "legal limit" on painkillers. There are lethal doses, and standards of care, but it's not like there's a crime on the books for 1mg more than some arbitrary limit. Perhaps the doctor was lying to you to pass off the reason for why they didn't give more. At some point it doesn't improve the standard of living of the patient.
Yes, when 99 things are better and one is worse, the rabid nationalists will ignore the 99 and assert the 1 is the most important. For someone that can rate everything on a reasonable scale, Denmark is better than the USA.
Yes, everyone here is sure that there will be no unintended consequences, like nobody has ever been wrong about unintended consequences. It's not about being certain before acing, but being able to assess risk. Low probability high impact risk events aren't gauged by humans well, nor are high probability low impact events.
But it sure as hell wasn't easy - not if you're moving your whole family on a limited budget.
It wasn't hard to move a family of 4 half way around the world. The single largest expense in the exercise was shipping so much stuff with us. Next time, we'll leave more of our things behind. That'll cut the moving cost significantly. Showed up with about 3 months salary savings, no job, no place to live (a hotel reservation for a week). Found a longer hotel for a larger room at a cheaper price, bought a cheap car, and scouted out the new city, found a job, rented a house, and all that. Rented for a few years to save up for a down payment and bought a house 2 years into living in a new country. And you can get by with English-only in Denmark, and it's not as cold as some of the other Scandinavian countries. A little frugal living before and after the move, and you can pull it off.
Yes, that's how it always works. The innocent take blame more than the guilty. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Though the nepotism seems to nausiate those who believe in the meritocracy, so slashdot can't even discuss the tendency civilly.
Everyone you name is in the US. It's quite easy to leave the US. Pick a better place. There are many.
It shouldn't be between Trump and Clinton. The polls show Bernie leading Hillary, and that Bernie against trump would end in a Bernie victory. So Trump or Clinton is a false dichotomy. It could be Bernie. And if you don't like the choices, move. After a reelection of Bush, I figured there was nothing that could save the US, so I moved o a better place. Lower taxes, free health care, and better civil liberties. Such places exist.
That you have no imagination doesn't make it impossible. What's the weight of the crust? I would guess the pressure is about 100,000 psi (average) on the mantle. So what happens when you have a 10 cm hole in a balloon pressurized to 100,000 psi? does it matter if the filling in the balloon is molten rock?
Note I'm not saying what I think will happen, or my opinion on the whole matter. I'm just stating you are an idiot because you can't think of a single catastrophic thing that could happen from this.
The R22 does look like a kit. Kinda flies like one too. But cheap and not a kit (cheapest fully FAA licensed helicopter), it's the most popular for student pilots. Helps that it flies poorly, so anyone that can master the R22 should be able to move into other helicopters more easily than if they learned on a huge Bell. Bad inputs are muted by the sheer mass of the Bell, leading to a more stable platform. But I haven't flown many different kinds. I'd like to, but the bigger ones are much more expensive to fly.
If Jupiter were a brown dwarf, would that have prevented life from forming on Earth? If not, then the change in results is irrelevant to the search for Earth-like planets. In fact, it could help, as I've seen it postulated that Jupiter increased the chances of life on Earth by clearing the system of threats.
The ride in the back of one is very different than the ride up front. Up front, both seats are designed to have maximum visibility. It feels like one of those amusement park rides where you are suspended from the top and tilted forward 15 degrees to have the perpetual feeling of falling to your death, and that's while the ride is at a stop. When you bank, you'll look to the side and see ground, you'll look up a little and still see ground. Your body will tell you that you are flying at the ground. A mean pilot doing that will add in a little too much pedal (so you'll be more pointed at the ground than ideal, but still quite safe), and you'll literally be pointed at the ground. That one maneuver, that one feeling, was the only one that scared me. Emergency maneuvers aren't scary, you are too busy doing things to be afraid. But that eternity while your mind freezes time to point out you are falling to your death, gives you that fear you shouldn't quite have.
If your friend's big Bell doesn't do it, go ride in an R22 and try it. That tiny thing is all glass and quite responsive to the stick.
He asked for a citation first. I came into the thread after he'd already "citation needed" someone else, so I thought I'd try it on him to see if he had any. I didn't accuse him of lying. He requested a citation, then stated the opposite of the citation he requested. If he's so sure, why doesn't he have a citation?
A buddy recently bought a Bell helicopter, used of course, and I may take a stab at that.
Funny enough, I'm scared shitless of heights in many areas but flying doesn't bother me.
Yeah, ride in the Bell, have him do a tight turn towards your side. You'll be looking out at the ground like you are falling out of your seat to your death. Your fear of heights will come back while in an aircraft. Planes don't bank nearly as much as helicopters. Though I've not flown a larger helicopter, just the little ones, I haven't the time or money at the moment to get a turbine and dual turbine rating, though they are on the to-do list.
They are crimes, they are just too expensive to prosecute, so they are fined, rather than prosecuted. Everywhere in the US, running a stop sign can land you in jail, not just a fine. But nobody does because the costs of prosecuting someone for criminal bad driving exceed the perceived benefits from doing so. The traffic courts are set up as a revenue stream, and if the prosecution isn't profitable, it won't be done, no matter what the effect on safety would be.
Nope. HOV infractions and speed cameras are often purely non-criminal. Like the citation is given to the car, not the driver. This is done because it's easier to collect and convict. But it also means that most are set up where you could get 1,000,000 of them, and so long as you paid the fine on time, there'd never be an escalation of penalty. Yes, you could change that, but it would be a fundamental change to the unattended ticket system, one that only barely holds on because so many people are against it, and they've never been shown to do what they say (it doesn't improve safety to send someone a ticket in the mail a month later).
No, they like direct copy-paste without a summary. I submitted a story, it was rejected. Someone obviously liked it, because someone else re-submitted the same story, but with the summary being the first three paragraphs copy-pasted from the story, rather than a more complete summary of the story, complete with 3rd party links.
I don't see how you are still defending that. I have a laptop with two 1:1 ports, and as you noted, there is a limit of 127 or so. If he doesn't want contested USB, then just plug in one device per controller, then there's no contested bandwidth.
I don't care about the color of his words, or what he was trying to say or his agenda or such. He made an obviously false statement of fact. That renders any opinion based on that irrelevant. If you can't get your facts in order, nobody should be listening to your opinion.
So what you are saying you only have 4 USB ports total? Or are you saying you only USE 4 USB ports. There's a difference between those two statements.
I'm saying that my laptop has 4 USB ports, and 3 controllers for those 4 ports, so the statement "USB uses one controller for 4 ports." is simply 100% wrong. You can have hundreds of devices per controller, or one controller per port. Blaming the standard because you are too cheap to configure your hardware in the manner you like is silly.
I think there is big difference between aborting a viable baby and one that has not a chance of being carried to term or could not survive post birth even with every available medical intervention.
So "viable embryo" is completely different than "viable embryo" because morals.
You complain about the people 'preying on people at their weakest' but the vast majority of those people heading into the abortion clinic are about to kill a perfect healthy baby.
And those flushing embryos are killing a perfectly healthy baby.
unless you are rape victim you already made a choice
So pregnancy is punishment for sex? And anti-choice is pushing punishing women for their choices, but never hold men to their choices. If there were no men involved, there's be no pregnancies. But the problem is 100% female, and they aren't allowed freedom to deal with it.
making a big issue out rare cases where there is a clearly identifiable reason why a child cannot survive.
The IVF trash (you call babies or children when in a female) is as viable, yet you have no issue with it if fighting for it doesn't harm a woman. It seems you want to harm women, not help embryos.
But seriously, it only takes one time in aviation to draw a pattern, because they are so risk averse. So two is quite a warning sign. DGAC should open an investigation into the training in France, because two major complete-loss events for French pilots making the same mistake is quite a large problem.
But there's something weird going on here. The first officer apparently pulled his stick all the way back and made the plane climb at a rate of more than 10,000 ft/min before it stalled. That's a pretty insane maneuver and I can't find a rational explanation for it no matter what his training was. It's not an "inappropriate response" but rather a completely unprovoked action for no good reason whatsoever.
AF447 did the same. They pulled back in level flight until they created the stall that killed them, and fell into the ocean without ever recovering. When in weather, disorientation is quite common (as in 100%), but good pilots will look down, not up. A pilot flying by the seat of his pants, and not looking at his instruments may feel that the "insane maneuver" was a good maneuver.
When you drive in a car, you are always in VFR. You look out the window, and glance down at your instruments every once in a while. When you are in weather at night (both this one and AF447), you should be looking at your instruments almost exclusively, as there's no useful information outside the windows. It's clear that the French pilot (again, both this one and AF447), missed the basics of flight. Pulling up in a stall, not paying attention to warnings, and causing the situation in the first place with an inappropriate climb rate. I hate that every crash comes back to pilot error, but sometimes it really is pilot error, even when exacerbated by a mechanical fault.
If they had both reacted to the crisis in the same manner, then there wouldn't be that problem. Yes, there was a problem with conflicting inputs, but if both pilots reacted correctly, there'd have been no conflict. When you can't get the aviate right, you shouldn't be communicating, your attention should be on the aviation.
My favorite example of how it's done right was Captain Sullenberger, who had a fatal bird strike, then got the plane as stable as he could, then "navigated" to determine that he couldn't make any airfield, notified ATC he was landing in the Hudson, and didn't speak after. ATC couldn't believe that someone would land there, and asked for clarification, he ignored them. No reason to communicate the same thing twice, when it was obvious they heard it the first time. Also, when you are essentially holding, there's no aviation to do, but once you've made the navigation decision (and 3-seconds of communication to let ATC know), the aviation load increases, and there's no more navigation or communication.
But aviate, navigate, communicate is a rule that's mainly for the untrained to remind them that control of the craft is the priority, communication is one thing a lot of new pilots spend too much effort communicating, and miss some of the basics of control.
In the situation described, they should have been aviating, and ignoring a warning indicated they weren't aviating correctly, in addition to the French pilot's inappropriate inputs.
You don't need to be a licensed pilot to pilot planes. You can't land or take off but you can meander about in the air. I usually fly over my property once every couple of years and do a lot of the piloting for that and I've done so with a few other aircraft in other areas. I'm assuming that the actual licensed pilots are not lying when they have let me do so and told me that it was okay. I do understand the basics and have a general idea of the mechanics involved.
They were lying, but not in the way you would think. You need a pilots license to solo, but not to take controls of an airplane. Because takeoff and landing are the hardest parts (not hard, but most risk), they'll likely not let you have the controls at that point, but not for any legal reasons. It's perfectly "legal" for a person without a pilot's license to take off and land his first time in a plane. Not wise, but technically legal.
Of course, all that assumes the pilot is a licensed instructor, and almost all pilots are. The number one first job of pilots is instructor. Most pilots get instructor rating as part of their basic training, like instrument rating and other ratings related to what they are planning on doing (those who want to pilot commercially get turbine and multi-engine ratings, while those planning on only piloting smaller craft may pass on those, but often don't, even if they don't plan on using them).
Please provide a list of airlines who do not train their pilots what to do in a stall. I'll avoid those airlines. Apparently Air France and Air Asia are two.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone on opiates for long term build up a tolerance that diminishes the effect, but the tolerance also increases the LD50. This is why so many people OD. They take half the dose of the addict that's showing them how, and that's quite lethal. Or, the long-term addict who was locked up in prison or rehab gets clean enough that their old maintenance dose is quite lethal. This is also why the concept of a maximum legal dose would be silly, as it would vary from person to person.
A good suicide method would be to give a reasonable dose, then let the patient self-administer in 1mg doses. Someone tolerant enough of it to keep dosing themselves deserves the right to keep administering, if they so choose.
I'm not a medical doctor, but I didn't think there was a "legal limit" on painkillers. There are lethal doses, and standards of care, but it's not like there's a crime on the books for 1mg more than some arbitrary limit. Perhaps the doctor was lying to you to pass off the reason for why they didn't give more. At some point it doesn't improve the standard of living of the patient.
Yes, when 99 things are better and one is worse, the rabid nationalists will ignore the 99 and assert the 1 is the most important. For someone that can rate everything on a reasonable scale, Denmark is better than the USA.
Yes, everyone here is sure that there will be no unintended consequences, like nobody has ever been wrong about unintended consequences. It's not about being certain before acing, but being able to assess risk. Low probability high impact risk events aren't gauged by humans well, nor are high probability low impact events.
But it sure as hell wasn't easy - not if you're moving your whole family on a limited budget.
It wasn't hard to move a family of 4 half way around the world. The single largest expense in the exercise was shipping so much stuff with us. Next time, we'll leave more of our things behind. That'll cut the moving cost significantly. Showed up with about 3 months salary savings, no job, no place to live (a hotel reservation for a week). Found a longer hotel for a larger room at a cheaper price, bought a cheap car, and scouted out the new city, found a job, rented a house, and all that. Rented for a few years to save up for a down payment and bought a house 2 years into living in a new country. And you can get by with English-only in Denmark, and it's not as cold as some of the other Scandinavian countries. A little frugal living before and after the move, and you can pull it off.
Yes, that's how it always works. The innocent take blame more than the guilty. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Though the nepotism seems to nausiate those who believe in the meritocracy, so slashdot can't even discuss the tendency civilly.
Everyone you name is in the US. It's quite easy to leave the US. Pick a better place. There are many.
It shouldn't be between Trump and Clinton. The polls show Bernie leading Hillary, and that Bernie against trump would end in a Bernie victory. So Trump or Clinton is a false dichotomy. It could be Bernie. And if you don't like the choices, move. After a reelection of Bush, I figured there was nothing that could save the US, so I moved o a better place. Lower taxes, free health care, and better civil liberties. Such places exist.
That you have no imagination doesn't make it impossible. What's the weight of the crust? I would guess the pressure is about 100,000 psi (average) on the mantle. So what happens when you have a 10 cm hole in a balloon pressurized to 100,000 psi? does it matter if the filling in the balloon is molten rock?
Note I'm not saying what I think will happen, or my opinion on the whole matter. I'm just stating you are an idiot because you can't think of a single catastrophic thing that could happen from this.
The R22 does look like a kit. Kinda flies like one too. But cheap and not a kit (cheapest fully FAA licensed helicopter), it's the most popular for student pilots. Helps that it flies poorly, so anyone that can master the R22 should be able to move into other helicopters more easily than if they learned on a huge Bell. Bad inputs are muted by the sheer mass of the Bell, leading to a more stable platform. But I haven't flown many different kinds. I'd like to, but the bigger ones are much more expensive to fly.
If Jupiter were a brown dwarf, would that have prevented life from forming on Earth? If not, then the change in results is irrelevant to the search for Earth-like planets. In fact, it could help, as I've seen it postulated that Jupiter increased the chances of life on Earth by clearing the system of threats.
The ride in the back of one is very different than the ride up front. Up front, both seats are designed to have maximum visibility. It feels like one of those amusement park rides where you are suspended from the top and tilted forward 15 degrees to have the perpetual feeling of falling to your death, and that's while the ride is at a stop. When you bank, you'll look to the side and see ground, you'll look up a little and still see ground. Your body will tell you that you are flying at the ground. A mean pilot doing that will add in a little too much pedal (so you'll be more pointed at the ground than ideal, but still quite safe), and you'll literally be pointed at the ground. That one maneuver, that one feeling, was the only one that scared me. Emergency maneuvers aren't scary, you are too busy doing things to be afraid. But that eternity while your mind freezes time to point out you are falling to your death, gives you that fear you shouldn't quite have.
If your friend's big Bell doesn't do it, go ride in an R22 and try it. That tiny thing is all glass and quite responsive to the stick.
He asked for a citation first. I came into the thread after he'd already "citation needed" someone else, so I thought I'd try it on him to see if he had any. I didn't accuse him of lying. He requested a citation, then stated the opposite of the citation he requested. If he's so sure, why doesn't he have a citation?
A buddy recently bought a Bell helicopter, used of course, and I may take a stab at that.
Funny enough, I'm scared shitless of heights in many areas but flying doesn't bother me.
Yeah, ride in the Bell, have him do a tight turn towards your side. You'll be looking out at the ground like you are falling out of your seat to your death. Your fear of heights will come back while in an aircraft. Planes don't bank nearly as much as helicopters. Though I've not flown a larger helicopter, just the little ones, I haven't the time or money at the moment to get a turbine and dual turbine rating, though they are on the to-do list.
They are crimes, they are just too expensive to prosecute, so they are fined, rather than prosecuted. Everywhere in the US, running a stop sign can land you in jail, not just a fine. But nobody does because the costs of prosecuting someone for criminal bad driving exceed the perceived benefits from doing so. The traffic courts are set up as a revenue stream, and if the prosecution isn't profitable, it won't be done, no matter what the effect on safety would be.
Nope. HOV infractions and speed cameras are often purely non-criminal. Like the citation is given to the car, not the driver. This is done because it's easier to collect and convict. But it also means that most are set up where you could get 1,000,000 of them, and so long as you paid the fine on time, there'd never be an escalation of penalty. Yes, you could change that, but it would be a fundamental change to the unattended ticket system, one that only barely holds on because so many people are against it, and they've never been shown to do what they say (it doesn't improve safety to send someone a ticket in the mail a month later).
No, they like direct copy-paste without a summary. I submitted a story, it was rejected. Someone obviously liked it, because someone else re-submitted the same story, but with the summary being the first three paragraphs copy-pasted from the story, rather than a more complete summary of the story, complete with 3rd party links.
USB uses one controller for 4 ports
I don't see how you are still defending that. I have a laptop with two 1:1 ports, and as you noted, there is a limit of 127 or so. If he doesn't want contested USB, then just plug in one device per controller, then there's no contested bandwidth.
I don't care about the color of his words, or what he was trying to say or his agenda or such. He made an obviously false statement of fact. That renders any opinion based on that irrelevant. If you can't get your facts in order, nobody should be listening to your opinion.
So what you are saying you only have 4 USB ports total? Or are you saying you only USE 4 USB ports. There's a difference between those two statements.
I'm saying that my laptop has 4 USB ports, and 3 controllers for those 4 ports, so the statement "USB uses one controller for 4 ports." is simply 100% wrong. You can have hundreds of devices per controller, or one controller per port. Blaming the standard because you are too cheap to configure your hardware in the manner you like is silly.
I think there is big difference between aborting a viable baby and one that has not a chance of being carried to term or could not survive post birth even with every available medical intervention.
So "viable embryo" is completely different than "viable embryo" because morals.
You complain about the people 'preying on people at their weakest' but the vast majority of those people heading into the abortion clinic are about to kill a perfect healthy baby.
And those flushing embryos are killing a perfectly healthy baby.
unless you are rape victim you already made a choice
So pregnancy is punishment for sex? And anti-choice is pushing punishing women for their choices, but never hold men to their choices. If there were no men involved, there's be no pregnancies. But the problem is 100% female, and they aren't allowed freedom to deal with it.
making a big issue out rare cases where there is a clearly identifiable reason why a child cannot survive.
The IVF trash (you call babies or children when in a female) is as viable, yet you have no issue with it if fighting for it doesn't harm a woman. It seems you want to harm women, not help embryos.
What, are you a cheese eating surrender monkey?
But seriously, it only takes one time in aviation to draw a pattern, because they are so risk averse. So two is quite a warning sign. DGAC should open an investigation into the training in France, because two major complete-loss events for French pilots making the same mistake is quite a large problem.
But there's something weird going on here. The first officer apparently pulled his stick all the way back and made the plane climb at a rate of more than 10,000 ft/min before it stalled. That's a pretty insane maneuver and I can't find a rational explanation for it no matter what his training was. It's not an "inappropriate response" but rather a completely unprovoked action for no good reason whatsoever.
AF447 did the same. They pulled back in level flight until they created the stall that killed them, and fell into the ocean without ever recovering. When in weather, disorientation is quite common (as in 100%), but good pilots will look down, not up. A pilot flying by the seat of his pants, and not looking at his instruments may feel that the "insane maneuver" was a good maneuver.
When you drive in a car, you are always in VFR. You look out the window, and glance down at your instruments every once in a while. When you are in weather at night (both this one and AF447), you should be looking at your instruments almost exclusively, as there's no useful information outside the windows. It's clear that the French pilot (again, both this one and AF447), missed the basics of flight. Pulling up in a stall, not paying attention to warnings, and causing the situation in the first place with an inappropriate climb rate. I hate that every crash comes back to pilot error, but sometimes it really is pilot error, even when exacerbated by a mechanical fault.
If they had both reacted to the crisis in the same manner, then there wouldn't be that problem. Yes, there was a problem with conflicting inputs, but if both pilots reacted correctly, there'd have been no conflict. When you can't get the aviate right, you shouldn't be communicating, your attention should be on the aviation.
My favorite example of how it's done right was Captain Sullenberger, who had a fatal bird strike, then got the plane as stable as he could, then "navigated" to determine that he couldn't make any airfield, notified ATC he was landing in the Hudson, and didn't speak after. ATC couldn't believe that someone would land there, and asked for clarification, he ignored them. No reason to communicate the same thing twice, when it was obvious they heard it the first time. Also, when you are essentially holding, there's no aviation to do, but once you've made the navigation decision (and 3-seconds of communication to let ATC know), the aviation load increases, and there's no more navigation or communication.
But aviate, navigate, communicate is a rule that's mainly for the untrained to remind them that control of the craft is the priority, communication is one thing a lot of new pilots spend too much effort communicating, and miss some of the basics of control.
In the situation described, they should have been aviating, and ignoring a warning indicated they weren't aviating correctly, in addition to the French pilot's inappropriate inputs.
You don't need to be a licensed pilot to pilot planes. You can't land or take off but you can meander about in the air. I usually fly over my property once every couple of years and do a lot of the piloting for that and I've done so with a few other aircraft in other areas. I'm assuming that the actual licensed pilots are not lying when they have let me do so and told me that it was okay. I do understand the basics and have a general idea of the mechanics involved.
They were lying, but not in the way you would think. You need a pilots license to solo, but not to take controls of an airplane. Because takeoff and landing are the hardest parts (not hard, but most risk), they'll likely not let you have the controls at that point, but not for any legal reasons. It's perfectly "legal" for a person without a pilot's license to take off and land his first time in a plane. Not wise, but technically legal.
Of course, all that assumes the pilot is a licensed instructor, and almost all pilots are. The number one first job of pilots is instructor. Most pilots get instructor rating as part of their basic training, like instrument rating and other ratings related to what they are planning on doing (those who want to pilot commercially get turbine and multi-engine ratings, while those planning on only piloting smaller craft may pass on those, but often don't, even if they don't plan on using them).
Please provide a list of airlines who do not train their pilots what to do in a stall. I'll avoid those airlines. Apparently Air France and Air Asia are two.
b) the copilot was actually French, and not Asian.
c) it was the copilot that pulled back on the stick, while the stall warnings were on
So it was AF447 again. Someone should teach the French pilots what to do in a stall.