I had heard a number of Russian hijacking theories when it was in its first weeks, and extending those to fit the facts amuses me. I share what amuses me.
My personal theory is closer to yours. Climbing is standard to put out fires, and they did that. With all communications and navigation gone, they were going last known heading, hoping to sight something to land on, but never did. Perhaps they managed a near-controlled landing on the ocean, which explains the lack of lots of little debris. It's possible that there were a number of little mistakes that led to a big one. We may never know, but likely we'll know eventually. Only the families really care when.
So you are saying that if she was invited on Letterman, and is a normal, rational, uninteresting person,they'd cancel Letterman for that day, rather than show her?
I think you are insane. The spread of the coverage may be less, but there isn't a giant conspiracy to hide uninteresting footage of Courtney Love.
A summary of flight data would be sufficient. What's the recording density of a black box? That's generally the standard for "all". A single satellite (designed to this purpose) can handle about 100 Gbps. 3 of them for global coverage (possibly some polar gaps, perhaps Iridium as a backup), and you could handle quite a few flights. How many international commercial passenger jets are in the air at any one time? I think it would be doable.
if break off the tail or something, you will leave gaping holes and it will sink pretty quick.
And the seats and luggage float. So if you did break open the airplane, chances are *something* will be on the surface.
My conspracy theory is that the plane was hijacked by the Russians to distract from Crimea. They made a black box transmitter (actually, more than one) and scattered them around to help indicate a crash, while making it impossible to locate. All to "invade" the Ukraine with less world resistance.
Interpolation. If every clip of her for a month is nothing but questionable mental state, why are you insisting she's "normal" between all the outbursts that happen to be caught on film? That seems the less likely explanation.
Yeah, like the right-leaning news for 10 years couldn't go 5 minutes without blaming Nancy Pelosi for autism, cancer, and global warming (which doesn't exist, but if it did, it would be her fault). I worked in a place where everyone around me listened to talk radio. It was like the Nancy Pelosi hour (only it lasted all day).
You don't understand the difference between "leaning" and "biased". A left-leaning news channel might have more coverage of electric cars and windmills, but unbiased reporting of each. You don't need a "spin" or bias to better address some ideology. You just get more stories they are interested in.
I want an unbiased horse-leaning channel. Horse have issues too. That doesn't mean it has to have some pro-horse agenda and spin, but that the coverage is things interesting to horses and fans of horses, whatever that is.
No, you are meaning "spin" to mean viewpoint. He means left-leaning to mean issues important to left-leaning people, not "spun" in any direction. He seems quite clear on that point, and insistence on arguing makes the arguer look dumb for not understanding.
There's an old saying: We enshrined freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, as a core civil right.
Sounds like fascism, "You have the freedom to do whatever you like, so long as it's on the approved list." Funny so many anti-atheists insist atheism is a faith-based religion, yet, claim it isn't when discussing freedom of/from religion.
How does one have freedom of religion when one isn't allowed to explore them without great interference?
Depends on your definition of "stereoscopic" as that has no technical meaning I know of. The meaning I'd infer is that the brain creates a single image from multiple separate images. When bug eyes are shown in movies and such, it's always as a kaleidoscope image, not a single image, distorted or not. It's never been answered how it appears to the bugs. They don't like talking to researchers.
Perhaps they are making some distinction between stereoscopic and binocular vision. A multi-eye configuration isn't necessarily binocular, even if the eye clusters are separated into two spaces. The eyes are well spread for their size, but they don't move and focus the same, so they may not image the same.
Are you aware that if you leave $1M in gold bullion lying on your front lawn, it's illegal to steal it?
Are you aware that if you leave $1M on your front lawn, you can't insure against the loss, and if someone stealing it hurts their back hauling it away, you'll likely lose the lawsuit? There are *lots* of good reasons to not leave $1M of anything unsecured on your front lawn. IT's effectively illegal to leave $1M on your front lawn. It's explicitly illegal, in many states, to leave your car unlocked and running unattended.
Because then it stops being insurance through risk pooling, and instead a pre-pay care. Not that there's anything better or worse of one over the other, but it's been decided that risk pooling and income re-distribution to help the least able to live a passable (if not comfortable) life is the goal. Failing a test and being "uninsurable" isn't very fair to the person that fails, but equal spread of care is fair, even to those that need it least.
Enforcement of geographical boundaries is recent. Identifying "outcasts" predates most of the Bible (Samaritans, Jews/Egyptians, etc.). Tribalism is very very old. But political boundaries are relatively new, and from the Greeks to the 1800s, movement wasn't significantly restricted. The world wars pretty much ended the era of rampant mobility.
It's true for all crimes, I was just using it as the example because it was the one mentioned.
When I was young and stupid (about 12) I shoplifted. I stole a pack of gum. There were 6-8 witnesses from my school, all who confessed to having done it, and went with me to make sure I did it. If I had been caught, I'd have been warned without legal issue (the proof to that being that some of the others had been caught, warnings only). Perhaps the school would have gotten a call. But there'd have been nothing on my record. But a black kid doing it is much more likely to have the crime prosecuted. And once you start getting the law enforced against you (especially unfairly), you stop following it. Yes, murder isn't generally the introductory crime, but the studies I've seen indicate that crime is roughly equal across all races, for those with clean records. It's only after arrest when the statistics start varying wildly.
The content is "advertised" (usually officially) and not available for purchase, at any price. They are enticing you to watch it, then refusing to make it available. That's "forcing" someone to pirate it. Their terms are simple. "you can't have it" but they still suggest and advertise it.
Tyranny of statistics. Indeed. When looking at the rate of criminal, especially violent crimal activity, especially violent criminal activity resulting in death and dismemberment, the statistics point unfavorably in a particular group's favor.
Odd. The statistics I've seen for the chance that a person will commit a death and dismemberment crime are equal for all races (within the margin of error) if you look only at the people with no criminal record. It's only when you arrest the minorities and prosecute them more heavily when you see differences appear. Racism causes the rift, not inherent qualities, as you imply.
Also the studies have shown that, given a black person with no criminal record, and a white person with no criminal record, the chance of the black person offending is roughly the same. But a blask person is more likely to end up with a criminal record, so recividism is the race problem (and the racism in prosecuting Blacks more aggressively). I've never seen a study that shows that Blacks offend more often (except when aggregating statistics that fail to identify confounds).
Yeah, like the carnivores that ate my sister's chili. They should have figured it out when she had Halloween Chili "meat" and "vegetarian" for all the previous year's parties. But one year, she only served one. Nobody guessed it was vegetarian. And all the carnivores ate it.
Slashdot Mirror
I had heard a number of Russian hijacking theories when it was in its first weeks, and extending those to fit the facts amuses me. I share what amuses me.
My personal theory is closer to yours. Climbing is standard to put out fires, and they did that. With all communications and navigation gone, they were going last known heading, hoping to sight something to land on, but never did. Perhaps they managed a near-controlled landing on the ocean, which explains the lack of lots of little debris. It's possible that there were a number of little mistakes that led to a big one. We may never know, but likely we'll know eventually. Only the families really care when.
So you are saying that if she was invited on Letterman, and is a normal, rational, uninteresting person,they'd cancel Letterman for that day, rather than show her?
I think you are insane. The spread of the coverage may be less, but there isn't a giant conspiracy to hide uninteresting footage of Courtney Love.
A summary of flight data would be sufficient. What's the recording density of a black box? That's generally the standard for "all". A single satellite (designed to this purpose) can handle about 100 Gbps. 3 of them for global coverage (possibly some polar gaps, perhaps Iridium as a backup), and you could handle quite a few flights. How many international commercial passenger jets are in the air at any one time? I think it would be doable.
if break off the tail or something, you will leave gaping holes and it will sink pretty quick.
And the seats and luggage float. So if you did break open the airplane, chances are *something* will be on the surface.
My conspracy theory is that the plane was hijacked by the Russians to distract from Crimea. They made a black box transmitter (actually, more than one) and scattered them around to help indicate a crash, while making it impossible to locate. All to "invade" the Ukraine with less world resistance.
Not just MTV. If every clip of her taken in that time period shows consistency, why would you assume it to be the opposite? That's illogical.
Interpolation. If every clip of her for a month is nothing but questionable mental state, why are you insisting she's "normal" between all the outbursts that happen to be caught on film? That seems the less likely explanation.
Yeah, like the right-leaning news for 10 years couldn't go 5 minutes without blaming Nancy Pelosi for autism, cancer, and global warming (which doesn't exist, but if it did, it would be her fault). I worked in a place where everyone around me listened to talk radio. It was like the Nancy Pelosi hour (only it lasted all day).
You don't understand the difference between "leaning" and "biased". A left-leaning news channel might have more coverage of electric cars and windmills, but unbiased reporting of each. You don't need a "spin" or bias to better address some ideology. You just get more stories they are interested in.
I want an unbiased horse-leaning channel. Horse have issues too. That doesn't mean it has to have some pro-horse agenda and spin, but that the coverage is things interesting to horses and fans of horses, whatever that is.
If you include that one, you might as well include CCTV.
No, you are meaning "spin" to mean viewpoint. He means left-leaning to mean issues important to left-leaning people, not "spun" in any direction. He seems quite clear on that point, and insistence on arguing makes the arguer look dumb for not understanding.
There's an old saying: We enshrined freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, as a core civil right.
Sounds like fascism, "You have the freedom to do whatever you like, so long as it's on the approved list." Funny so many anti-atheists insist atheism is a faith-based religion, yet, claim it isn't when discussing freedom of/from religion.
How does one have freedom of religion when one isn't allowed to explore them without great interference?
Though, of course, available mobility then was not what it is now where almost anyone can go halfway around the world for a week's pay.
The info I found indicates the average world wage to be between $100 and $300 a week. Where can you go halfway around the world on $300?
Depends on your definition of "stereoscopic" as that has no technical meaning I know of. The meaning I'd infer is that the brain creates a single image from multiple separate images. When bug eyes are shown in movies and such, it's always as a kaleidoscope image, not a single image, distorted or not. It's never been answered how it appears to the bugs. They don't like talking to researchers.
Perhaps they are making some distinction between stereoscopic and binocular vision. A multi-eye configuration isn't necessarily binocular, even if the eye clusters are separated into two spaces. The eyes are well spread for their size, but they don't move and focus the same, so they may not image the same.
Are you aware that if you leave $1M in gold bullion lying on your front lawn, it's illegal to steal it?
Are you aware that if you leave $1M on your front lawn, you can't insure against the loss, and if someone stealing it hurts their back hauling it away, you'll likely lose the lawsuit? There are *lots* of good reasons to not leave $1M of anything unsecured on your front lawn. IT's effectively illegal to leave $1M on your front lawn. It's explicitly illegal, in many states, to leave your car unlocked and running unattended.
Because then it stops being insurance through risk pooling, and instead a pre-pay care. Not that there's anything better or worse of one over the other, but it's been decided that risk pooling and income re-distribution to help the least able to live a passable (if not comfortable) life is the goal. Failing a test and being "uninsurable" isn't very fair to the person that fails, but equal spread of care is fair, even to those that need it least.
Enforcement of geographical boundaries is recent. Identifying "outcasts" predates most of the Bible (Samaritans, Jews/Egyptians, etc.). Tribalism is very very old. But political boundaries are relatively new, and from the Greeks to the 1800s, movement wasn't significantly restricted. The world wars pretty much ended the era of rampant mobility.
It's true for all crimes, I was just using it as the example because it was the one mentioned.
When I was young and stupid (about 12) I shoplifted. I stole a pack of gum. There were 6-8 witnesses from my school, all who confessed to having done it, and went with me to make sure I did it. If I had been caught, I'd have been warned without legal issue (the proof to that being that some of the others had been caught, warnings only). Perhaps the school would have gotten a call. But there'd have been nothing on my record. But a black kid doing it is much more likely to have the crime prosecuted. And once you start getting the law enforced against you (especially unfairly), you stop following it. Yes, murder isn't generally the introductory crime, but the studies I've seen indicate that crime is roughly equal across all races, for those with clean records. It's only after arrest when the statistics start varying wildly.
The content is "advertised" (usually officially) and not available for purchase, at any price. They are enticing you to watch it, then refusing to make it available. That's "forcing" someone to pirate it. Their terms are simple. "you can't have it" but they still suggest and advertise it.
At least on this topic, I am unaware of any Republicans decrying the use of big data while simultaneously using big data.
That you are unaware of it proves it never happened.
Your vote was never, and will never be valuable.
Tyranny of statistics. Indeed. When looking at the rate of criminal, especially violent crimal activity, especially violent criminal activity resulting in death and dismemberment, the statistics point unfavorably in a particular group's favor.
Odd. The statistics I've seen for the chance that a person will commit a death and dismemberment crime are equal for all races (within the margin of error) if you look only at the people with no criminal record. It's only when you arrest the minorities and prosecute them more heavily when you see differences appear. Racism causes the rift, not inherent qualities, as you imply.
Also the studies have shown that, given a black person with no criminal record, and a white person with no criminal record, the chance of the black person offending is roughly the same. But a blask person is more likely to end up with a criminal record, so recividism is the race problem (and the racism in prosecuting Blacks more aggressively). I've never seen a study that shows that Blacks offend more often (except when aggregating statistics that fail to identify confounds).
Yeah, like the carnivores that ate my sister's chili. They should have figured it out when she had Halloween Chili "meat" and "vegetarian" for all the previous year's parties. But one year, she only served one. Nobody guessed it was vegetarian. And all the carnivores ate it.
Yup. Any vote not for a 3rd party is a vote wasted.