Did Ukraine stand to benefit greatly from the other one that went down?
What, by waking the world up to Russian aggression, leading to a massive Western military intervention on their behalf and the humbling of an old enemy?
If so, their cunning plan doesn't seem to have turned out too well.
So at least we know the plane went down, unless someone dumped 777 parts in the ocean as a diversion.
The conspiracy theorist in me still thinks that it was an awfully amazing coincidence that it completely disappeared (apparently thanks in part to the deliberate actions of at least one crewmember), and then just a few months later that exact same model aircraft from the exact same airline was shot down over Ukraine (supposedly by the Russians).
It would have been a rather more amazing coincidence if three or four had disappeared simultaneously don't you think?
As it is, one common type of plane belonging to a large airline vanished in still to be explained circumstances over the sea, and another was shot down over land a while later.
I get uncomfortable if am moving in a direction that I am not facing. I don't like roller coasters that go backwards. On trains where some of the chairs are backwards, I always sit in the forward facing chairs and switch if the train changes direction.
I also prefer window seats, to reinforce in my own brain the fact that I am going forward.
I can sit backwards (and sometimes have to), when it's the only option (e.g. a full train), but this added safety is not worth the discomfort for me.
If there were some other tangible benefit to sitting backwards other than a very small increase in safety, I might be convinced to do it. Like if I could be guaranteed not to sit next to a 400 lbs guy if I sat backwards, I would probably do it.
Interesting, I have never even considered it a problem to sit facing backwards on a train. It's not like you can see directly in front of you where you're going even if you face forwards.
I wonder what proportion of people dislike it as intensely as you?
I can't believe it's very high or the traditional 50% backwards facing train carriage would never have become accepted.
That is precisely the kind of situation in which responsible gun ownership would stop the problem in the beginning. Someone comes into my home and threatens to kill my family, well, then he wins a free facelift courtesy of my 12 guage. Then call the cops to clean up the mess. Self defense is a right.
Yeah, there's no possible way they could phone, text, email or Facebook message you. They would definitely come to your house in person, and shout out the threat from the street, giving you sufficient time to find your shotgun and blast them when you opened the door.
Complete BS! Without any proof the FBI will just hang up and tell you good luck! I know so, I've called them a few times and have gotten the same response. No proof = good luck and have a nice day.
They could probably tell it was a thirteen year old having a giggle.
It's only in the movies that cops dismiss complaints out of hand, and thus force the plucky heroine to solve the case herself..
Hypothetically: Does anyone, when push comes to shove, trust the police to protect their family from those with the power to actually perform that kind of coercion?
I'd trust the armed, trained police with massive resources much more than myself alone.
Just because you own lots of guns (if you're in the US), it doesn't mean that you are on a level playing field with a ruthless gangster organisation.
a) Elections are free and fair
and
b) that there are any alternative political parties that can win an election that do not want this to continue.
I question whether either of these are true.
Western elections are free and fair and other parties can win elections. The problem is that people either don't vote, or they vote for an existing party, since it's hard (and for most people unappealing) work to actually get involved in politics.
Unless Planned Parenthood maintains two entirely separate set of books
If they're forced by your ridiculous US Christian Funaementalist laws to separate abortion-related work from the rest, then obviously they will have to have two sets of auditable books. It's hardly difficult nowadays, you can even do the accounting on computers, you know.
Last time I tried using Open Office 6 or 7 years ago it was a massive pile of shit. Is LibreOffice a significant improvement? Does the word processor start up as fast as M$ Word?
At work, "M$ Word" takes approximately half a working day to start up, so you're setting a pretty low bar.
Anyone who has done a bachelor's degree in any subject has had to learn the necessary organisational, self siscipline and critical thinking skills to be able to train to do more or less any job. Otherwise, there's no point in having university degrees.
One could say that edison was also just a guy who took the technological advances at his time and found a way to package them together into consumer products.
Well, he did have a factory full of people doing the engineering and stuff, so in effect yes, he was just a good front man.
It's amazing that Doctorow is so thick as to not understand his privilege.
The FBI agent probably dropped it as soon as he realized who Boing Boing was.
Your average home user or small business running a tor exit node is not going to be treated with anywhere near that kind of kindness.
Wouldn't the average agent be more likely to say "what the fuck is boing boing?"
I mean it gets mentioned on slashdot every now and then, so I know the name and have occasionally followed links to it, but it's not like it's in the Facebook league for universal brand recognition.
None of it is illegal in the US either, so what the fuck is your point?
The point is that Facebook operates according to US moral standards, and therefore it bans topless pictures even though they're not illegal in the US, in the same way it bans hard core pornography (which is also not illegal in the US).
You can censor things on other grounds than their legality.
As an aside, I wonder why the EU is hesitant to consider admitting Turkey? Or why the United States insists on advocating in favor of such a course of action.
Probably because they're reluctant to allow a Muslim country that will instantly become the second biggest in the European Parliament.
Turkey is a secular country, whose majority religion is Muslim. It's not a theocracy like Iran.
Historically, the issue has been that it was economically weak compared with Western Europe, but with the likes of Greece and Romania in the EU there is no longer such a clear divide.
Cyprus is a relatively minor point of contention in the scheme of things.
Slashdot Mirror
The part is specific to a Boeing 777. MH370 is the only missing Boeing 777.
Yeah, that's what THEY want you to thinlk.
What would anyone want with an unflyable 777?
Duh, evil liberal alien lizard global government overlords don't work according to normal human motivations.
You conspiracy nuts have really, really low amazement thresholds.
Did Ukraine stand to benefit greatly from the other one that went down?
What, by waking the world up to Russian aggression, leading to a massive Western military intervention on their behalf and the humbling of an old enemy?
If so, their cunning plan doesn't seem to have turned out too well.
So at least we know the plane went down, unless someone dumped 777 parts in the ocean as a diversion.
The conspiracy theorist in me still thinks that it was an awfully amazing coincidence that it completely disappeared (apparently thanks in part to the deliberate actions of at least one crewmember), and then just a few months later that exact same model aircraft from the exact same airline was shot down over Ukraine (supposedly by the Russians).
It would have been a rather more amazing coincidence if three or four had disappeared simultaneously don't you think?
As it is, one common type of plane belonging to a large airline vanished in still to be explained circumstances over the sea, and another was shot down over land a while later.
Not particularly amazing at all.
More people get killed by a falling television in their house than a shark as well.
To be fair, there is a somewhat higher proportion of people with televisions in their house than sharks.
So don't drive to Europe from the US. It won't end well
Well yes, you'd drown.
I would not be happy on a plane with no windows, even if the seats where facing forward.
So what happens on a night flight when there's nothing to see outside anyway? Or do you avoid them?
I get uncomfortable if am moving in a direction that I am not facing. I don't like roller coasters that go backwards. On trains where some of the chairs are backwards, I always sit in the forward facing chairs and switch if the train changes direction.
I also prefer window seats, to reinforce in my own brain the fact that I am going forward.
I can sit backwards (and sometimes have to), when it's the only option (e.g. a full train), but this added safety is not worth the discomfort for me.
If there were some other tangible benefit to sitting backwards other than a very small increase in safety, I might be convinced to do it. Like if I could be guaranteed not to sit next to a 400 lbs guy if I sat backwards, I would probably do it.
Interesting, I have never even considered it a problem to sit facing backwards on a train. It's not like you can see directly in front of you where you're going even if you face forwards.
I wonder what proportion of people dislike it as intensely as you? I can't believe it's very high or the traditional 50% backwards facing train carriage would never have become accepted.
I don't quite see how being Jewish or gay is the same as having a medical condition that makes you actually unfit to do certain jobs.
Also, the airline isn't the state.
It's one of those slippery slope arguments that people on slashdot love so much.
e.g. once you let The Government impose any controls over gun ownership, you will soon end up with all guns being completely banned.
Constitutional law cases argued up to the supreme court say the work of the police is to maintain order in society, NOT to protect individuals.
So there is nothing hypothetical about this: No.
All the courts have said is that you can't sue the police for failing in your individual case. It doesn't mean that they won't even try, you idiot.
That is precisely the kind of situation in which responsible gun ownership would stop the problem in the beginning. Someone comes into my home and threatens to kill my family, well, then he wins a free facelift courtesy of my 12 guage. Then call the cops to clean up the mess. Self defense is a right.
Yeah, there's no possible way they could phone, text, email or Facebook message you. They would definitely come to your house in person, and shout out the threat from the street, giving you sufficient time to find your shotgun and blast them when you opened the door.
Complete BS! Without any proof the FBI will just hang up and tell you good luck! I know so, I've called them a few times and have gotten the same response. No proof = good luck and have a nice day.
They could probably tell it was a thirteen year old having a giggle.
It's only in the movies that cops dismiss complaints out of hand, and thus force the plucky heroine to solve the case herself..
Hypothetically: Does anyone, when push comes to shove, trust the police to protect their family from those with the power to actually perform that kind of coercion?
I'd trust the armed, trained police with massive resources much more than myself alone.
Just because you own lots of guns (if you're in the US), it doesn't mean that you are on a level playing field with a ruthless gangster organisation.
You are assuming that
a) Elections are free and fair and b) that there are any alternative political parties that can win an election that do not want this to continue.
I question whether either of these are true.
Western elections are free and fair and other parties can win elections. The problem is that people either don't vote, or they vote for an existing party, since it's hard (and for most people unappealing) work to actually get involved in politics.
Unless Planned Parenthood maintains two entirely separate set of books
If they're forced by your ridiculous US Christian Funaementalist laws to separate abortion-related work from the rest, then obviously they will have to have two sets of auditable books. It's hardly difficult nowadays, you can even do the accounting on computers, you know.
Last time I tried using Open Office 6 or 7 years ago it was a massive pile of shit. Is LibreOffice a significant improvement? Does the word processor start up as fast as M$ Word?
At work, "M$ Word" takes approximately half a working day to start up, so you're setting a pretty low bar.
Anyone who has done a bachelor's degree in any subject has had to learn the necessary organisational, self siscipline and critical thinking skills to be able to train to do more or less any job. Otherwise, there's no point in having university degrees.
One could say that edison was also just a guy who took the technological advances at his time and found a way to package them together into consumer products.
Well, he did have a factory full of people doing the engineering and stuff, so in effect yes, he was just a good front man.
Do you think it happens only in tech?
In colloquial English (at least here in the UK) you would normally say:
Do you think it only happens in tech?
But your version makes perfect sense, so it's grammatical in any useful sense of the word.
It's amazing that Doctorow is so thick as to not understand his privilege.
The FBI agent probably dropped it as soon as he realized who Boing Boing was.
Your average home user or small business running a tor exit node is not going to be treated with anywhere near that kind of kindness.
Wouldn't the average agent be more likely to say "what the fuck is boing boing?"
I mean it gets mentioned on slashdot every now and then, so I know the name and have occasionally followed links to it, but it's not like it's in the Facebook league for universal brand recognition.
Ataturk was certainly no saint by Western standards, but he did manage to create a secular country out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.
None of it is illegal in the US either, so what the fuck is your point?
The point is that Facebook operates according to US moral standards, and therefore it bans topless pictures even though they're not illegal in the US, in the same way it bans hard core pornography (which is also not illegal in the US).
You can censor things on other grounds than their legality.
As an aside, I wonder why the EU is hesitant to consider admitting Turkey? Or why the United States insists on advocating in favor of such a course of action.
Probably because they're reluctant to allow a Muslim country that will instantly become the second biggest in the European Parliament.
Turkey is a secular country, whose majority religion is Muslim. It's not a theocracy like Iran.
Historically, the issue has been that it was economically weak compared with Western Europe, but with the likes of Greece and Romania in the EU there is no longer such a clear divide.
Cyprus is a relatively minor point of contention in the scheme of things.
The problem is nothing to do with "democratization", it's to do with "monetization".