Exactly. This idea is superficially appealing, but doesn't recognize the reality of what a lot of modern piloting is like. It reeks of being an overreaction to the recent -- but extremely rare -- incident of pilots being so caught up in a distraction that they overshot their destination. This was an isolated incident of irresponsible -- and PAIRED -- pilots, who turned off many of the countermeasures that are supposed to prevent such a disconnect.
I am not a pilot, but realistically, I would think that pilots need to keep their minds engaged, even if it's not something related to flying the aircraft itself. It seems more harmful to *force* them to be bored, increasing the probability of e.g. falling asleep or "zoning out".
I can't accept that this was a reasoned decision by intelligent, safety-oriented professionals, rather than a directive from politicians above.
LOL at first I thought you were referring to Steve Jobs having tried alternative therapies for his liver (or whatever) problems before trying to get an implant, and only later did I realize you were referring to "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."
Funny you mention the "move into the 21st century with the rest of us" bit. I've been taking a seminar on terrorism and one (of the many) reasons the middle east and (some of) the Muslims that inhabit it are so prone to violence is because they've had considerably less time to modernize.
Uh huh. And so did South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and Ireland.
I'm curious: why don't Christians count Jesus's "temple tantrum" as an example of him sinning? Keep in mind, he made a whip and whipped people to drive them from the temple, and then overturned tables and generally f'd up merchant operations, even though he only wanted them to go outside, not have their businesses destroyed.
What is "reputable porn"? Would that be porn where the woman shows no doubts whatsoever about wanting to have sex with that particular man, so as to avoid allegations of encouraging rape?
Yep, so remember, folks: if you make lingerie, you can't call it "very sexy" because Victoria's Secret has trademarked it (no, really), and if you make baked goods, you can't say they're "fresh from scratch" because Schlotzky's has trademarked it (no, really).
I don't know how well these trademark claims have stood up, but know for a fact I felt brain cells dying away when I saw these companies actually trying to claim IP rights in these terms for their product lines. Not just the outrageousness of trying to own these terms, but the fact that their marketing drones couldn't think of something more original!
So is *this* finally an example of something the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is in charge of? Because I know we ruled out their authority with respect to Gundum.
My response was, the Supreme Court overturning laws (and they are the only ones who can) because they are deemed unconstitutional is not the same thing as writing laws.
Okay, that would be an assertion, not an argument, since my claim was that the way that they repeal laws is functionally the same as what legislators can do. (And I'd add they can apply the law in very specific ways; courts have e.g. told legislators that they have to do something to allow for gay marriage, which *kinda* stretches the meaning of "not making laws".)
One key difference being, you can not lobby the Supreme Court to overturn laws.
Right, except for that whole "amicus curae" thingamawhatchamacallit.
Or pursuing a deliberate "test case" to the Supreme Court, which has been going on since Brown.
I'm sorry, if you can't understand the distinction, or find it trivial, there isn't much more I can say except that you are misinformed, and suggest you go to the source for clarification: the US constitution itself.
And I'm sorry if you don't see the difference between a superficial and a substantive distinction, and the difference between the Constitution saying things are done a certain way vs. them actually being done that way. But that says more about your incapability of higher-level, abstract thought than anything about limitations of the Supreme Court.
Keep it up, though! I get a good laugh out of you.
How is that responsive to my point that they judges something functionally equivalent to writing laws (without regard for the justifiability of publicly swaying them), and that the distinction you claim is trivial?
(And before you realize you didn't answer my point and try again, please acknowledge your post was not responsive.)
I seem to remember them writing a law that voided state abortion laws. (Which I thought was a good thing, but still)
They didn't call it "writing a law", but seriously -- who gets fooled by labels? "Judges don't write laws because we don't call it that! Come on. The same thing happened as if all the state legislatures wrote a law that said, "hey, that law doesn't apply anymore".
So why were you slamming the accelerator while distracted, drunk, and shifting in and out of neutral? The problem is between the driver's seat and the steering wheel.
Sorry, been spending too much time on Linux forums...
If that's the case, we should probably do some kind of intelligence test for police, with a *minimum* (rather than maximum) threshold, but I'm bet dollars to dimes that some kind of "disparate impact" on minorities issue keeps them from doing that.
Of course, truckers can still look up contacts, dial their phones, look up addresses and map them, download apps, and play games on their smartphones while driving. They just can't text.
Reminds me of yet another "safety" absurdity: in my parents' 2008 Nissan Sentra, you can use voice commands to make a call while driving, but you can't add a name/number to your address book when the car is moving.
Someone apparently never noticed that the steps for doing both are virtually identical in complexity and length.
And Bill Gates still wants drones. He doesn't want anyone educated to put two and two together.
So where's the damning proof for him, smarty? You did great with the damning age-old quote from Rockefeller, but Bill Gates, um, yeah, he's just a bad guy, so um, obviuosly, it follows that he just wants dumb-dumbs, duh, how could we dumb-dumbs not see this? (And we should still support the teachers' unions, right?)
1) You identify the wrong people as the ruling class. 2) The quote is from a long time ago; what does it say about what the wealthy want today? Doesn't Bill Gates want smart people for his operations? 3) You support what the unions did as a response to the exposure of their incompetence and/or malice.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. This idea is superficially appealing, but doesn't recognize the reality of what a lot of modern piloting is like. It reeks of being an overreaction to the recent -- but extremely rare -- incident of pilots being so caught up in a distraction that they overshot their destination. This was an isolated incident of irresponsible -- and PAIRED -- pilots, who turned off many of the countermeasures that are supposed to prevent such a disconnect.
I am not a pilot, but realistically, I would think that pilots need to keep their minds engaged, even if it's not something related to flying the aircraft itself. It seems more harmful to *force* them to be bored, increasing the probability of e.g. falling asleep or "zoning out".
I can't accept that this was a reasoned decision by intelligent, safety-oriented professionals, rather than a directive from politicians above.
LOL at first I thought you were referring to Steve Jobs having tried alternative therapies for his liver (or whatever) problems before trying to get an implant, and only later did I realize you were referring to "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."
Funny you mention the "move into the 21st century with the rest of us" bit. I've been taking a seminar on terrorism and one (of the many) reasons the middle east and (some of) the Muslims that inhabit it are so prone to violence is because they've had considerably less time to modernize.
Uh huh. And so did South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and Ireland.
Next excuse?
I'm curious: why don't Christians count Jesus's "temple tantrum" as an example of him sinning? Keep in mind, he made a whip and whipped people to drive them from the temple, and then overturned tables and generally f'd up merchant operations, even though he only wanted them to go outside, not have their businesses destroyed.
I'd say you've never even heard of a little country called Ireland...
... where the terrorists phone in a warning about their bombings in advance so as to minimize casualties.
Where was the phone warning for 9/11? The London bombings? The Madrid bombings? The Kenyan embassy bombings?
What is "reputable porn"? Would that be porn where the woman shows no doubts whatsoever about wanting to have sex with that particular man, so as to avoid allegations of encouraging rape?
Hm, maybe they should have a site for updates on that...
Probably millipeople. I think it's a subtle smear on Japanese people for being small.
Yep, so remember, folks: if you make lingerie, you can't call it "very sexy" because Victoria's Secret has trademarked it (no, really), and if you make baked goods, you can't say they're "fresh from scratch" because Schlotzky's has trademarked it (no, really).
I don't know how well these trademark claims have stood up, but know for a fact I felt brain cells dying away when I saw these companies actually trying to claim IP rights in these terms for their product lines. Not just the outrageousness of trying to own these terms, but the fact that their marketing drones couldn't think of something more original!
So is *this* finally an example of something the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is in charge of? Because I know we ruled out their authority with respect to Gundum.
That's a good one too: the Supreme Court has ruled against all violations of the Constitution that have come before it. Because They Say So.
And telling the Massachusettes legislature what to do about gay marriage isn't making new laws. Again, because They Say So. And spun is easily fooled.
I give up on you, bro.
Confucius say, Man who walk through airport turnstile sideways is going to Bangkok.
*GONG*
My response was, the Supreme Court overturning laws (and they are the only ones who can) because they are deemed unconstitutional is not the same thing as writing laws.
Okay, that would be an assertion, not an argument, since my claim was that the way that they repeal laws is functionally the same as what legislators can do. (And I'd add they can apply the law in very specific ways; courts have e.g. told legislators that they have to do something to allow for gay marriage, which *kinda* stretches the meaning of "not making laws".)
One key difference being, you can not lobby the Supreme Court to overturn laws.
Right, except for that whole "amicus curae" thingamawhatchamacallit.
Or pursuing a deliberate "test case" to the Supreme Court, which has been going on since Brown.
I'm sorry, if you can't understand the distinction, or find it trivial, there isn't much more I can say except that you are misinformed, and suggest you go to the source for clarification: the US constitution itself.
And I'm sorry if you don't see the difference between a superficial and a substantive distinction, and the difference between the Constitution saying things are done a certain way vs. them actually being done that way. But that says more about your incapability of higher-level, abstract thought than anything about limitations of the Supreme Court.
Keep it up, though! I get a good laugh out of you.
How is that responsive to my point that they judges something functionally equivalent to writing laws (without regard for the justifiability of publicly swaying them), and that the distinction you claim is trivial?
(And before you realize you didn't answer my point and try again, please acknowledge your post was not responsive.)
The judicial branch does not write the laws
I seem to remember them writing a law that voided state abortion laws. (Which I thought was a good thing, but still)
They didn't call it "writing a law", but seriously -- who gets fooled by labels? "Judges don't write laws because we don't call it that! Come on. The same thing happened as if all the state legislatures wrote a law that said, "hey, that law doesn't apply anymore".
"Hexagon is nature's way of using the least length of line to enclose the most area."
Right, when circles aren't available.
So why were you slamming the accelerator while distracted, drunk, and shifting in and out of neutral? The problem is between the driver's seat and the steering wheel.
Sorry, been spending too much time on Linux forums...
There are IQ caps for police? [citation needed]
If that's the case, we should probably do some kind of intelligence test for police, with a *minimum* (rather than maximum) threshold, but I'm bet dollars to dimes that some kind of "disparate impact" on minorities issue keeps them from doing that.
And which laptop was it that has all that for for under $1000? (Say you buy it online to avoid sales tax.)
If John Smith is known as a kiddie fiddler then no amount of innocents will rub that off of him in a society obsessed by paedophilia and child safety.
Um, if you're a kiddie fiddler, then your problem is the fact that "innocents" are "rubbing off on you".
*ducks*
Of course, truckers can still look up contacts, dial their phones, look up addresses and map them, download apps, and play games on their smartphones while driving. They just can't text.
Reminds me of yet another "safety" absurdity: in my parents' 2008 Nissan Sentra, you can use voice commands to make a call while driving, but you can't add a name/number to your address book when the car is moving.
Someone apparently never noticed that the steps for doing both are virtually identical in complexity and length.
Well if the House of Commons can't find it, it doesn't exist!
No, no, you're confusing the House of Commons with the Jedi Library.
And Bill Gates still wants drones. He doesn't want anyone educated to put two and two together.
So where's the damning proof for him, smarty? You did great with the damning age-old quote from Rockefeller, but Bill Gates, um, yeah, he's just a bad guy, so um, obviuosly, it follows that he just wants dumb-dumbs, duh, how could we dumb-dumbs not see this? (And we should still support the teachers' unions, right?)
1) You identify the wrong people as the ruling class.
2) The quote is from a long time ago; what does it say about what the wealthy want today? Doesn't Bill Gates want smart people for his operations?
3) You support what the unions did as a response to the exposure of their incompetence and/or malice.
Ah, good to know you can always be counted on to defend the forces that tore down Escalante's progress. Just what I expected.
(Hint: The ruling class isn't leading the charge to bring meaningful improvements to schools ... just ask Congress.)