The ship was never without command, weaponry, or drive systems. Despite the claim in the Wired article, the ship's crew could have controlled its propulsion system. It being peacetime, and there being no emergency, the *choice* was made to "remain dead in the water" for a few hours while the problem was fixed. The ship was not planning to go anywhere at the time, to begin with.
I know people who spend five, six hours or *more* watching TV, who manage to complain about having no time.
It's like a heroin addict complaining about being lethargic and broke all the time. The idea of getting rid of the TV does not occur to them, and the mere suggestion of it will be met with horror.
I discovered this another way. I'm a musician (university-grad level pianist and composer), and so I have a need for a space that can accommodate a grand piano. Now, most people believe they do not have the space in their homes for such a thing. But that is because they don't consider the enormous investment in space required for the TV/"Entertainment Center", and not just that, but the clear line of sight between the box and the couch or whatever, not to mention the couch itself. This is often the single largest allocation of space in a person's home! Even more than some of their home offices!
So not only is it a time-sink, it's also a space-hog.
It's worth noting that your inside contact wasn't proactive about it either. HR folks do read their memos. They passed you over for whatever reasons, but one of those reasons may have been that your inside contact was *also* incompetent, or even possibly that you were inarticulate.
>OK, I'm forty three, about time I stop Playing/Supporting games I guess...
Well, now, consider that you are in the bracket most likely to have the disposable income, and quite possibly also the time, to play these games. Seriously, people your age actually have *more* sedentary time to sit and play a computer game than teenagers do. And the cash for the game is probably not as significant to your total budget as it would be for a teenager. You *are* a huge part of the market for this type of game.
But if you stop buying them... the game company will just mark it as a loss to piracy, and not as a loss to boycotting.
Consider this: The *only* time I have ever heard of this game, was just now. And still, the only thing I know about it is it will be bundled with "spyware."
Think the game will get my attention when I see the box on the shelf?
"Yeah, and unless the arson was committed by a model rocket, by a rocketeer, and it was the rocket's propellant that caused the fire, you're just a disingenuous prick."
That's right. The ad-hominem attack. Name calling. Your last refuge, and a guaranteed loss of any argument.
If you are breaking the law, and the law you are breaking is aimed at promoting health and safety, others have a right to know about it.
>A child once built a breeder reactor in his back yard using easily available materials.
A hoax continues to circulate widely that a child once built a breeder reactor. People who should have better critical reasoning skills continue to be taken in by the hoax.
"That statement assumes that we, as citizens, have not power, ability, or bligation to influence the government and its decisions."
I maintain a direct, personal working relationship with the representative from my legislative district. Actively promoting his re-election at this moment. I don't quite follow the notion that the government is somehow operating against the interests of the people because I personally observe the opposite.
A law was made requiring background checks, for example, regarding certain chemicals. You seem to be under the impression that law was passed without the consent of the people.
>Homeowners insurance covers most of the likely problems under the liability sections for damage you do to >others. Why do my neighbors need to have a say in everything I do on my own property ?
They don't, except when you start doing things on your property that are illegal. Transporting the materials in question, is an ATF violation. It's a crime, which makes it your neighbors' business, just like they would be interested if you were stockpiling firearms or operating a meth lab.
If it wasn't illegal, it would be nobody's business but your own, and none of your neigbors.
But TFA makes it quite clear that there are legal requirements that the hobbyists either cannot or refuse to meet.
>I certainly argee launches should only take place where it is safe to do so.
And if by due process, a restriction on the handling of fuel is made effective, that too is the perogative of government. The government argues a compelling state interest in regulating these fuels. Certain hobbyists get shut out. If the "Background check" is what I think it is, it costs upwards of $30,000, takes months to complete, and is highly invasive. (Ever had a job with a clearance?)
>We're *not* talking about someone handling dangerous materials in violation of the law.
Oh yes we are. TFA insists we are going to NFPA placards and background checks for handling.
>If you want to talk about someone handling dangerous substances when they shouldn't, again, act on gasoline. >10,000 times more people are burned playing with gasoline (intentionally playing with it, not an accident) than >solid rocket fuel.
If you want to persuade your lawmakers to require special licensure for handling gasoline, go right ahead. Likewise, if you want to persuade the lawmakers who have put the screws to the rocketeers in TFA, go ahead and do that too. But stop trying to persuade me that rocket fuel and gasoline are equivalent, or that gasoline is more dangerous and that I should therefore be perfectly happy to have someone messing with rocket fuel next door.
>If you're that big of a fire-code man, look at where the real problems are, and solve those. Don't run around >like a chicken with its head cut off, getting involved in every emotional, knee-jerk situation that you can >think up.
I didn't think it up. TFA brought up a scenario that I think is reasonble. Others, like you, are playing headless chicken.
Congress will change hands dramatically this election, and that will illustrate for even more people just how the two dominant parties are merely two faces of the same beast.
>I bet you could thusly get by just fine running this stuff on windows 2000. Why bother upgrading at all?
XP does a better job of getting out of the way of ASIO (software audio bus, the Windows equivalent of JACK, more or less.) Other than that, you are absolutely correct. I turn off pretty much every service on XP.
>Actually, many of the booksellers I know are very passionate about their profession.
It was a bad example of a job that tends to be a high turnover, low paying, zero respect job where you find people with college degrees, I don't actually know how they manage to live indoors, eat regular meals, etc.
Not every bookstore job sucks, I realize. It was a poorly chosen example, of the type of job that a person typically wants to stop thinking about the moment they punch the clock. I should have said, convenience store clerk.
"If you would work to keep that position maintained, then you either have nothing but free time to waste, or don't put your energy in the right direction."
Oh really? I have a legitimate interest in local fire codes.
>"Please, won't someone please think of the children!"
Oh I don't give a flying goddamned fuck about some vermin children. I want the guy with the fireworks factory in his garage to choose between going to prison for felony bombmaking activities, or putting a legitimate bond up front for whatever his neighbors think is appropriate. And that amount will be up to them, not him.
We aren't talking about gasoline. We are talking about someone intentionally handling dangerous materials in violation of the law and without notifying people who could be affected. A reasonable person could call a gasoline fire an accident. A reasonable person might have a big problem with a secret fireworks lab.
"There are entirely too many people willing to treat every citizen as a potential terrorist in response to a threat that is much more remote than even a simple traffic accident."
Maybe not so much a potential terrorist as a potential arsonist. My rocketry days saw a few accidental fires. People doing fireworks and rocketry aren't putting up bonds to cover damages that could result from their actions, so they need to engage in these activities in places where others are not concerned about the damage they could do, or where the state (via due process, like it or not) has not prohibited their actions. It's really that simple.
"Well, if my neighbor's house catches on fire, it would be kinda nice if the fire department knew that x amount of explosives were stored in the house, so they could evacuate surrounding homes, etc. At the very least it could save a firefighter's life."
Kinda nice? If my neighbor has explosives stored in his house, I want to know about it *before* the fire. I want to know about it, and I want a surety bond from him, where he has, in a cash equivalent escrow account, the full replacement cost value of my property! If some firefighter values his life, that's up to him. But if the fool neighbor burns down my house (and I live through the ordeal), I want to be able to collect without there being any possibility of a lawsuit trying to stop me. Basically, I want the agreement up front that if such a lawsuit ever comes about, I've already won triple damages. Then maybe, just maybe, I would consider letting you operate an explosives factory next door.
"A little known fact comming from the oklohoma city bombing is that if you have enough materials sitting around that someone could make a bomb from them, you can be charged with possesion of bombmaking materials even if they happen to be some liguid drano, a can of galoine, some twine and a pipe in the same room, Maybe some ductape and some types of glue, you could be guilty of it. Alot of households have enough stuff to construc weak bombs acording to the guidlines for this."
Please cite the judicial history of at least one individual who has been so charged, or at least, cite the law, chapter and verse please, that supports this "little known fact."
"Yep. I live in Houston, TX and the city has decided that you need an explosive storage permit to keep any. And they won't give a permit to anyone in a residential area."
I would actively work to ensure that position is maintained.
"(A club member found out after paying the non-refundable permit fee of over $200."
It was his responsibility. They didn't change the policy after he paid them, did they?
Slashdot Mirror
"Bush has the luxury of not having to answer to congress"
Seventeen days from today, that status quo stands a very likely chance of turning on him pi radians.
The ship was never without command, weaponry, or drive systems. Despite the claim in the Wired article, the ship's crew could have controlled its propulsion system. It being peacetime, and there being no emergency, the *choice* was made to "remain dead in the water" for a few hours while the problem was fixed. The ship was not planning to go anywhere at the time, to begin with.
>usenet is little known outside of IT circles
There is no shortage of trolls and morons on USENET, not all of whom are "in IT circles."
I'm afraid the cat's been out of the bag for a long, long time.
>But I hear what your saying too...
Good, that's a relief.
I know people who spend five, six hours or *more* watching TV, who manage to complain about having no time.
It's like a heroin addict complaining about being lethargic and broke all the time. The idea of getting rid of the TV does not occur to them, and the mere suggestion of it will be met with horror.
I discovered this another way. I'm a musician (university-grad level pianist and composer), and so I have a need for a space that can accommodate a grand piano. Now, most people believe they do not have the space in their homes for such a thing. But that is because they don't consider the enormous investment in space required for the TV/"Entertainment Center", and not just that, but the clear line of sight between the box and the couch or whatever, not to mention the couch itself. This is often the single largest allocation of space in a person's home! Even more than some of their home offices!
So not only is it a time-sink, it's also a space-hog.
I only hear the "free time" argument from people who spend more time watching television and sleeping than all other activities put together.
>HR was incompetant...
It's worth noting that your inside contact wasn't proactive about it either. HR folks do read their memos. They passed you over for whatever reasons, but one of those reasons may have been that your inside contact was *also* incompetent, or even possibly that you were inarticulate.
>OK, I'm forty three, about time I stop Playing/Supporting games I guess...
Well, now, consider that you are in the bracket most likely to have the disposable income, and quite possibly also the time, to play these games. Seriously, people your age actually have *more* sedentary time to sit and play a computer game than teenagers do. And the cash for the game is probably not as significant to your total budget as it would be for a teenager. You *are* a huge part of the market for this type of game.
But if you stop buying them... the game company will just mark it as a loss to piracy, and not as a loss to boycotting.
Consider this: The *only* time I have ever heard of this game, was just now. And still, the only thing I know about it is it will be bundled with "spyware."
Think the game will get my attention when I see the box on the shelf?
"Yeah, and unless the arson was committed by a model rocket, by a rocketeer, and it was the rocket's propellant that caused the fire, you're just a disingenuous prick."
That's right. The ad-hominem attack. Name calling. Your last refuge, and a guaranteed loss of any argument.
If you are breaking the law, and the law you are breaking is aimed at promoting health and safety, others have a right to know about it.
You want to advocate breaking the law in secret.
>A child once built a breeder reactor in his back yard using easily available materials.
A hoax continues to circulate widely that a child once built a breeder reactor. People who should have better critical reasoning skills continue to be taken in by the hoax.
>Please cite the judicial history of at least one individual who has blown up his house with a rocket motor.
I have personally been a victim of arson. But that's not the point. Other poster claimed a *fact* that was not supported.
>Thanks for posting AC, fishbowl ;)
Hey, the AC wasn't me, not this time anyway. (I'd cop to it if it was.)
"That statement assumes that we, as citizens, have not power, ability, or bligation to influence the government and its decisions."
I maintain a direct, personal working relationship with the representative from my legislative district.
Actively promoting his re-election at this moment. I don't quite follow the notion that the government is somehow operating against the interests of the people because I personally observe the opposite.
A law was made requiring background checks, for example, regarding certain chemicals. You seem to be under the impression that law was passed without the consent of the people.
>Homeowners insurance covers most of the likely problems under the liability sections for damage you do to
>others. Why do my neighbors need to have a say in everything I do on my own property ?
They don't, except when you start doing things on your property that are illegal. Transporting the materials in question, is an ATF violation. It's a crime, which makes it your neighbors' business, just like they would be interested if you were stockpiling firearms or operating a meth lab.
If it wasn't illegal, it would be nobody's business but your own, and none of your neigbors.
But TFA makes it quite clear that there are legal requirements that the hobbyists either cannot or refuse to meet.
Is the background check the same as that required for a FFL, for a personal firearm transfer, or something else?
>I certainly argee launches should only take place where it is safe to do so.
And if by due process, a restriction on the handling of fuel is made effective, that too is the perogative of government. The government argues a compelling state interest in regulating these fuels. Certain hobbyists get shut out. If the "Background check" is what I think it is, it costs upwards of $30,000, takes months to complete, and is highly invasive. (Ever had a job with a clearance?)
>We're *not* talking about someone handling dangerous materials in violation of the law.
Oh yes we are. TFA insists we are going to NFPA placards and background checks for handling.
>If you want to talk about someone handling dangerous substances when they shouldn't, again, act on gasoline.
>10,000 times more people are burned playing with gasoline (intentionally playing with it, not an accident) than
>solid rocket fuel.
If you want to persuade your lawmakers to require special licensure for handling gasoline, go right ahead. Likewise, if you want to persuade the lawmakers who have put the screws to the rocketeers in TFA, go ahead and do that too. But stop trying to persuade me that rocket fuel and gasoline are equivalent, or that gasoline is more dangerous and that I should therefore be perfectly happy to have someone messing with rocket fuel next door.
>If you're that big of a fire-code man, look at where the real problems are, and solve those. Don't run around
>like a chicken with its head cut off, getting involved in every emotional, knee-jerk situation that you can
>think up.
I didn't think it up. TFA brought up a scenario that I think is reasonble. Others, like you, are playing headless chicken.
>If Congress changes hands this election...
Congress will change hands dramatically this election, and that will illustrate for even more people just how the two dominant parties are merely two faces of the same beast.
>I bet you could thusly get by just fine running this stuff on windows 2000. Why bother upgrading at all?
XP does a better job of getting out of the way of ASIO (software audio bus, the Windows equivalent of JACK, more or less.) Other than that, you are absolutely correct. I turn off pretty much every service on XP.
>Actually, many of the booksellers I know are very passionate about their profession.
It was a bad example of a job that tends to be a high turnover, low paying, zero respect job where you find people with college degrees, I don't actually know how they manage to live indoors, eat regular meals, etc.
Not every bookstore job sucks, I realize. It was a poorly chosen example, of the type of job that a person typically wants to stop thinking about the moment they punch the clock. I should have said, convenience store clerk.
"If you would work to keep that position maintained, then you either have nothing but free time to waste, or don't put your energy in the right direction."
Oh really? I have a legitimate interest in local fire codes.
>"Please, won't someone please think of the children!"
Oh I don't give a flying goddamned fuck about some vermin children. I want the guy with the fireworks factory in his garage to choose between going to prison for felony bombmaking activities, or putting a legitimate bond up front for whatever his neighbors think is appropriate. And that amount will be up to them, not him.
We aren't talking about gasoline. We are talking about someone intentionally handling dangerous materials in violation of the law and without notifying people who could be affected. A reasonable person could call a gasoline fire an accident. A reasonable person might have a big problem with a secret fireworks lab.
"There are entirely too many people willing to treat every citizen as a potential terrorist in response to a threat that is much more remote than even a simple traffic accident."
Maybe not so much a potential terrorist as a potential arsonist. My rocketry days saw a few accidental fires.
People doing fireworks and rocketry aren't putting up bonds to cover damages that could result from their actions, so they need to engage in these activities in places where others are not concerned about the damage they could do, or where the state (via due process, like it or not) has not prohibited their actions. It's really that simple.
"Well, if my neighbor's house catches on fire, it would be kinda nice if the fire department knew that x amount of explosives were stored in the house, so they could evacuate surrounding homes, etc. At the very least it could save a firefighter's life."
Kinda nice? If my neighbor has explosives stored in his house, I want to know about it *before* the fire. I want to know about it, and I want a surety bond from him, where he has, in a cash equivalent escrow account, the full replacement cost value of my property! If some firefighter values his life, that's up to him. But if the fool neighbor burns down my house (and I live through the ordeal), I want to be able to collect without there being any possibility of a lawsuit trying to stop me. Basically, I want the agreement up front that if such a lawsuit ever comes about, I've already won triple damages. Then maybe, just maybe, I would consider letting you operate an explosives factory next door.
"A little known fact comming from the oklohoma city bombing is that if you have enough materials sitting around that someone could make a bomb from them, you can be charged with possesion of bombmaking materials even if they happen to be some liguid drano, a can of galoine, some twine and a pipe in the same room, Maybe some ductape and some types of glue, you could be guilty of it. Alot of households have enough stuff to construc weak bombs acording to the guidlines for this."
Please cite the judicial history of at least one individual who has been so charged, or at least, cite the law, chapter and verse please, that supports this "little known fact."
"Yep. I live in Houston, TX and the city has decided that you need an explosive storage permit to keep any. And they won't give a permit to anyone in a residential area."
I would actively work to ensure that position is maintained.
"(A club member found out after paying the non-refundable permit fee of over $200."
It was his responsibility. They didn't change the policy after he paid them, did they?