Obama only voted for it after working to take a lot of the teeth out of it
What??! So instead of organizing a filibuster against it, he caved and voted for something *bad*... How am I supposed to believe this is good?
Who cares if the Republicans had a majority in the Senate; the Democrats still had enough votes to filibuster this kind of fluff. But, they didn't. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are hardly different at all.
I give credit to the Republicans on this one, when they're the minority, they filibuster more than any other party. When they're in the majority, they dismantle the filibuster piece by piece.
Here's a tip: if it's bad, then do not vote FOR it!!
One can be standing 30 yards away and still look someone or something directly in the eyes. Your vision must not be that great.
And here's a picture of just how close you can get. You can see right into the tiger's eyes, and that's from some crappy camera back a ways from the fence.
I'm not going to say or even imply (like you have) that I understand all wild animal behavior, but I understand cats and feral cats. All other observations of big cats (like tigers) seem to fit right in with my understanding -- except when they "play" you're not just going to suffer an annoying claw scrape.
You don't stare down ANY wild animal -- hell, any domestic animal -- unless you're willing to back it up with force. Since we don't have any evidence of the boys doing anything other than watching the tigers, I'm inclined to believe they simply stared right back. Unfortunately, Tatiana was not too amused that day and simply jumped across the moat, or up the wall.
My proof is that the tiger attacked them and only them People who know things about animals. Even mentioning punishing the tiger shows that this is not you. You know less than you think you do. My proof is your so-called "proof."
Your assertion about predators normally just picking people at random shows you have little understanding of just how a predator works. It doesn't charge in willy-nilly and maul the closest person. It selects its target(s), stalks, and picks them off. It's a much more efficient strategy than simply going after the closest, because that one could also be stronger and faster.
I am not sure about these boys' body sizes, but they didn't look fat. Likely, they were around 5'6" and extremely skinny, as most boys are around their ages. A tiger who has mauled someone before might not even think twice about human prey of this size.
We can go back and forth about what you and I *think*. But we know very little except this:
1) No evidence of taunting. No witnesses. No confessions. No weapons. No nothing.
2) Tatiana has mauled before.
3) The tiger enclosure was known by zoo officials to be too short and nothing was done.
4) The same zoo officials ignored the known defective cage that allowed the mauling a year prior.
5) Zoo employees, security, and officials did not respond right away, and even refused help at one point.
Be careful of unfounded accusations. Without proof, they are libel. If you are not an animal expert, and you weren't there, you should not be saying such things against the boys. I'm sure the zoo director makes a better lawsuit target for libel and slander, but you never know...
Well, the one submission I did (that was attributed to me) had the quotes completely changed by the editor, which to many people confused the issue -- some said they preferred my original submission. But I won't hold it against the editor, as he at least read the article, and it seemed like he tried.
Of course, this time the editor appears to not even read the article and, thus, leaves in an unsubstantiated, inflammatory opinion of the submitter. I can only hope it was unintentional.
Maybe someone will come forward later, a weapon and a ladder will be found, as well as several pounds of kitty treats and catnip. But until then, I don't see how I can change my mind that this was the victims' fault for being killed and mauled by an escaped known people-mauling tiger from a known defective enclosure. But I really don't care if they were launching mortars into there. The cat, especially one with a prior history, should never have been able to get out.
Just like this wasn't a case of the tiger escaping its enclosure on a whim and attacking a random person, it attacked the jackasses who were tormenting it. Nobody else.
Oh cool! Another person who has proof the boys were taunting the tiger! Boy oh boy, the SFPD would love to see your evidence.
No, because as he quite correctly pointed out much earlier, the tiger-handler relationship inherently involves a degree of "provocation". So, feeding it is a degree of provocation? What kind of dark world do you come from? If a tiger is provoked by a feeding, then maybe standing there and looking the tiger in the eyes is a degree of provocation?
However neither of these incidents in any way show that the tiger was prone to "unprovoked" attacks, and thus should have been considered an escape risk. Again, this shows that you live in a very dark world. A tiger that is known for attacking people (and not for self-defense), and an enclosure wall that is known to be too short is a common-sense recipe for disaster. (ding!) Oh hey! It happened. The cat attacked one person and wasn't punished. Who in their right mind would think the mental barrier for attacking again isn't lowered?
The zoo not only dropped the ball, they were negligent AND acted in bad faith by not helping and immediately spreading lies. In court, it will only be a question of will the zoo need to go into bankruptcy or not to pay off the actual and punitive damages.
- waited for the Zoo to empty out (premeditated) What? They came to the zoo during normal hours.
- collected tools to do the task (slingshot, and something else (i forgot) There wasn't any slingshot. And the reason you forget something else is because there was *nothing* else!
- drove drunk (open container of vodka in the car) to the zoo How the hell do you know that? They could have been drinking after the car was already parked.
- stayed around after zoo was closed (trespassing) Maybe they were making their way out? The zoo closed at 5pm. That doesn't mean that you are immediately trespassing. It just means that the doors are closed to people going in. The attack happened pretty close or maybe even before 5pm. We'll never be sure because the boys spent some time trying to alert zoo authorities (who didn't believe them) before attempting to call 911 (without success) the first time. It took a second call to 911 to get someone besides that annoying "please hold" recording that California loves to make you listen to for up to 10 minutes.
- climbed over a barrier designed to protect animals from humans Once again, no evidence.
- lied to police about what happened Do you have evidence that they lied? The SFPD would love to hear from you.
- clamed up, lawyered up right away Maybe they were scared because they were minors and had been drinking and the zoo director was immediately making up stuff about slingshots and foreign objects in the tiger exhibit that were later proved untrue, and the zoo staff didn't believe and wouldn't help them at all? I'd clam up too and hire a lawyer in such an unwarranted adversarial situation.
That's nothing. I knew a housecat that could calmly (from a standstill), scale a 10ft concrete wall by jumping. No provocation. It only wanted to go a neighbor's yard without walking around the wall and climbing a chain link fence. At first I didn't believe it, but then I saw it a few more times.
I don't. Animals who are hunting prey routinely focus on a few previously selected individuals as it makes a better hunting strategy than willy-nilly going after whatever's closer (but not necessarily weaker or slower).
On Dec. 22 of last year, 300-pound Tatiana severely injured keeper Lori Komejan inside the Lion House, "degloving" her arm, as the state's workplace safety report put it. That agency, Cal/OSHA blamed the zoo, citing defects that the zoo knew about but hadn't fixed, and imposed an $18,000 penalty.
On Dec. 22 of last year, 300-pound Tatiana severely injured keeper Lori Komejan inside the Lion House, "degloving" her arm, as the state's workplace safety report put it. That agency, Cal/OSHA blamed the zoo, citing defects that the zoo knew about but hadn't fixed, and imposed an $18,000 penalty.
This is what metamod is for. A bunch of us are stuck here without mod points, and instead of staying on the sidelines, are motivated to respond to the ignorant and inhuman responses by a vocal few who were modded up by similar ignorant and indecent human beings. When this discussion swings by my metamod session, I'll enjoy making sure they don't unfairly moderate again.
Actually, they are conjecture. Nothing in that KNBC (a *Los Angeles* TV station 350mi away) news report other than a paragraph headline indicates a footprint on the fence -- the reporter fails to back up this "point" with anything at all. Secondly, the police did not make any speculation about whose or what the blood came from or how the blood got there. An easy to explain scenario was that the boy who was killed was trying to run away from the tiger using whatever means necessary and got blood all over the place. And how do we know this wasn't blood tracked around by the tiger?
About the zoo director, the issue is that he was caught lying to the media about the taunting. Furthermore, he has a history of being an untrustworthy, incompetent, and demoralizing manager, which just calls into question even more these "taunting" allegations. The SF Police found *nothing* to back up the taunting claims and stopped investigating. Apparently the footprint story wasn't credible and the blood locations were explained otherwise.
Cats will attack if you just look at them funny, or if they're hungry, or if they're just having a bad day. Why do you believe an overly-aggressive cat with a history of attacking humans will behave in a logical, rational fashion?
Actually, there's no body of evidence at all that any of the three taunted the tigers. The SF Police stopped investigating after nothing, including witnesses (to taunting or other statements), ever showed up.
Then you didn't read the later articles. That "witness" was fabricated by the zoo director. The police did not find any witnesses. They did not find any evidence of them climbing on or over the railing, and they certainly didn't find any foreign objects in the exhibit. These were all claims by the zoo director that he had no evidence for.
The police stopped investigating because even with the search of the impounded car and the cellphones and the zoo premises, no evidence of wrongdoing or even taunting (by standing on the fence, hollering, etc.) ever, ever showed up.
The enclosure was too short, and the zoo *knew* that. Tatiana, the tiger, had a history of aggressiveness and mauling without provocation. Anything else is just speculation.
You want speculation? The boys probably just had eye contact with this aggressive tiger, who took it as a challenge. Having had little to no punishment from attacking before, she leapt out of the undersized enclosure and took on the closest one.
I've seen housecats scale 10ft concrete walls with no problem -- why would one think 12ft is enough for a 350lb all-muscle tiger? Its reach from tiptoes to forepaws is likely already over 10ft. This is the zoo's fault for creating a dangerous situation by putting an overly-aggressive cat in too small of an enclosure.
You're obviously not reading anything past the first line of my messages. The zookeeper followed protocol. Cal/OSHA said the feeding cage was improperly designed and that the ZOO (meaning the director and others in charge) KNEW about this and did nothing to correct to flaw and protect Lori.
Also by reading the articles, AND just by reading my messages, you would know to STOP saying "he" in referring to Lori, who is a woman.
You're just not giving me anything positive to say about you, as you clearly are not reading anything that would torpedo your argument. That's called willful ignorance, and it is not a quality that is becoming of a decent human being.
Did you just read that one line line and stop? Cal/OSHA found the zoo at fault, not the zookeeper.
That agency, Cal/OSHA blamed the zoo, citing defects that the zoo knew about but hadn't fixed, and imposed an $18,000 penalty.
Here's from the initial article. If the cage was built properly, Tatiana would not have been able to stick her paws through the bars and grab the zookeeper.
Once the keeper puts the meat in the device, the door on the keeper's side closes, and another on the tiger's side opens. That way, there is no danger of the big cat touching the keeper.
All went well during the feeding, Jenkins said. However, a few minutes after Tatiana was fed, she somehow managed to get her paws on Komejan's forearms. It's not clear whether Tatiana thrust her paws through the bars, which are a few inches apart, or whether the feeder's hands were close enough to the bars for Tatiana to grab them.
Louis Dorfman, an animal behaviorist with the International Exotic Feline Sanctuary in Boyd, Texas, agreed that Tatiana posed no greater danger than she had before Dec. 22, 2006 - when she reached under the bars of her cage and seized the arms of zoo employee Lori Komejan as dozens of people watched.
The feeding enclosure was not designed and/or built properly. This was not Lori Komejan's fault. Lori was properly doing her job.
The zoo director has been making false statements from the beginning, and using his influence to get the city of SF involved.
1) This is the same tiger (Tatiana) that attacked and seriously injured a zookeeper (Lori Komejan) who was only doing her job just one year ago. The zoo initially blamed the attack on the zoo keeper. From a later article:
On Dec. 22 of last year, 300-pound Tatiana severely injured keeper Lori Komejan inside the Lion House, "degloving" her arm, as the state's workplace safety report put it. That agency, Cal/OSHA blamed the zoo, citing defects that the zoo knew about but hadn't fixed, and imposed an $18,000 penalty.
"It would appear that his management style - which downplays the value of staff and the welfare of animals - remains in place," said a former worker from the Los Angeles Zoo.
A departed San Francisco Zoo manager concurred.
"It's a top-down mentality that the zoo has adopted," he said. "And I think it's very dangerous."
Since Mollinedo took over, there has been a steady exodus of employees, including the deputy director, education director, two successive public relations managers, development director, curator of birds, marketing manager, events director, human resources manager, general manager of concessions and a number of veteran keepers.
But escaping from an enclosure at the zoo is not beyond the ability of a Siberian tiger, according to a retired longtime keeper and other zoo veterans interviewed by The Chronicle. And many people who worked at the zoo knew it, the keeper said.
4) The police didn't find any slingshots in the cars or on the brothers, anything unusual on their cellphones, foreign objects in the enclosure, or any witnesses to back up any suggestion of taunting, and suspended the investigation.
While every statement in your post is true, please note that, AFAIK, acrylic fibre is not currently used for long-haul runs, nor any single-mode applications. It's just not as efficient as glass fibre as far as attenuation goes.
While I don't work for any long-haul installers, and your point about glass fiber is true (and likely always will be), I use plastic fiber all the time for single-mode applications. And for long intra-building connections, it works great. Plastic single-mode fiber would work just fine for individual hookups to a fiber-to-the-neighborhood type of drop. And if the hookup is less than 150m away, multi-mode fiber would also work and be cheaper (with cheaper transceivers and CPE).
For all the people who are complaining about the summary/headline, please know that it is hard to fit all of the math in the headline. Please read the article for that. ScuttleMonkey redid my headline (although slightly more correct, he made it more vague).
For those who say there aren't refineries, ScuttleMonkey took out my quotes and put different ones in. I said the DoE is partially funding new refineries, the first of which will come online in Georgia -- also in the fine article.
Although I credit and thank ScuttleMonkey for greenlighting my submission whereas it was flatly ignored yesterday when I submitted it, please complain about his editing, and not my original content, if you feel the summary was vague or had omissions. You can compare both if you read the firehose submission (complain to me if you don't like that one).
For some reason, people have it stuck in their heads that plastic fiber is new. It's not. Also, it can carry 10Gb/s just fine. All the 100-300m links are class 1. In fact, I'm looking at a 50Km rated SFP that is Class 1. According to all the safety ratings, you can stare at its laser as long as you like. And wavelength has nothing to do with power. The 50Km SFP that I just mentioned is infrared.
It looks like they're solving problems, badly, that have already been solved. MS Windows and their broken "shortcuts" if anyone remembers? If I didn't think it was just plain ignorance, I would claim this was a well-disguised FUD piece.
I'm not looking for any moderation here, so please don't think I'm doing so. I saw one part of your argument, and I don't know if you meant it as hyperbole or believe it fully -- in other words, I'm saying it isn't black and white.
People need to understand that life is hard and often unfair, that they need to take responsibility for themselves and their kin, and that sometimes things get broken that you just can't fix - you have to cope and move on.
Everyone needs to understand life is hard and often unfair. Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves, their kin, and (what you left out of your statement) everyone else. Here's some hyperbole: I shoot your child. Do you say life is unfair, get medical attention, and move on? No, I must take responsibility, and you're definitely going to make sure *I* take responsibility, even if you don't know why at first your child has a gushing wound -- you're going to figure out why.
To rearrange your statement: Things definitely get broken that you *sometimes* just can't fix. There are times when something looks fixable, and you proceed to try, and then it only stays broken or gets worse. At that point, yes, I would agree that giving up and moving on is an option. At least you tried.
The easy way of course of explaining responsibility is the Yes/No Up/Down mentality, because that's what many people will only stick around to hear. It's evident here on slashdot and even more so with government officials. You try to advocate a nuanced solution and all they'll hear is that you want to entirely scrap a program or create something very expensive when what you actually said was neither.
Personal responsibility is a misnomer. It is a misused banner that people fly when they are the ones causing someone else grief through action or even inaction. The truth is closer to that everyone is everyone's responsibility. There are of course priorities, nuances, and obvious exceptions. But if everyone truly considers others' well-being before action or inaction (especially in advance!) we'd likely all be better off.
But I know better. Because I didn't clearly advocate one side or the other, this post will be tossed into the cosmic dust-bin or misinterpreted and misquoted to fit someone's binary thinking. That part may never be fully fixed, but I keep trying, even if in a small way.
Well, since you didn't read my other posts, who knows what you'll come up with next that's already been answered. The problem is with binary blobs undocumented by MSFT, not well known image formats that have never been a problem.
Please stop trolling and throwing out red herrings. Or do Arctic penguins really cause hair loss in theatrical attire?
Slashdot Mirror
*cough*Verisign*cough*
It's always been a lucrative business.
Obama only voted for it after working to take a lot of the teeth out of it
What??! So instead of organizing a filibuster against it, he caved and voted for something *bad*... How am I supposed to believe this is good?
Who cares if the Republicans had a majority in the Senate; the Democrats still had enough votes to filibuster this kind of fluff. But, they didn't. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are hardly different at all.
I give credit to the Republicans on this one, when they're the minority, they filibuster more than any other party. When they're in the majority, they dismantle the filibuster piece by piece.
Here's a tip: if it's bad, then do not vote FOR it!!
One can be standing 30 yards away and still look someone or something directly in the eyes. Your vision must not be that great.
And here's a picture of just how close you can get. You can see right into the tiger's eyes, and that's from some crappy camera back a ways from the fence.
I'm not going to say or even imply (like you have) that I understand all wild animal behavior, but I understand cats and feral cats. All other observations of big cats (like tigers) seem to fit right in with my understanding -- except when they "play" you're not just going to suffer an annoying claw scrape.
You don't stare down ANY wild animal -- hell, any domestic animal -- unless you're willing to back it up with force. Since we don't have any evidence of the boys doing anything other than watching the tigers, I'm inclined to believe they simply stared right back. Unfortunately, Tatiana was not too amused that day and simply jumped across the moat, or up the wall.
My proof is that the tiger attacked them and only them
People who know things about animals. Even mentioning punishing the tiger shows that this is not you.
You know less than you think you do. My proof is your so-called "proof."
Your assertion about predators normally just picking people at random shows you have little understanding of just how a predator works. It doesn't charge in willy-nilly and maul the closest person. It selects its target(s), stalks, and picks them off. It's a much more efficient strategy than simply going after the closest, because that one could also be stronger and faster.
I am not sure about these boys' body sizes, but they didn't look fat. Likely, they were around 5'6" and extremely skinny, as most boys are around their ages. A tiger who has mauled someone before might not even think twice about human prey of this size.
We can go back and forth about what you and I *think*. But we know very little except this:
1) No evidence of taunting. No witnesses. No confessions. No weapons. No nothing.
2) Tatiana has mauled before.
3) The tiger enclosure was known by zoo officials to be too short and nothing was done.
4) The same zoo officials ignored the known defective cage that allowed the mauling a year prior.
5) Zoo employees, security, and officials did not respond right away, and even refused help at one point.
Be careful of unfounded accusations. Without proof, they are libel. If you are not an animal expert, and you weren't there, you should not be saying such things against the boys. I'm sure the zoo director makes a better lawsuit target for libel and slander, but you never know...
Cite your sources if you know otherwise.
Well, the one submission I did (that was attributed to me) had the quotes completely changed by the editor, which to many people confused the issue -- some said they preferred my original submission. But I won't hold it against the editor, as he at least read the article, and it seemed like he tried.
Of course, this time the editor appears to not even read the article and, thus, leaves in an unsubstantiated, inflammatory opinion of the submitter. I can only hope it was unintentional.
Maybe someone will come forward later, a weapon and a ladder will be found, as well as several pounds of kitty treats and catnip. But until then, I don't see how I can change my mind that this was the victims' fault for being killed and mauled by an escaped known people-mauling tiger from a known defective enclosure. But I really don't care if they were launching mortars into there. The cat, especially one with a prior history, should never have been able to get out.
Just like this wasn't a case of the tiger escaping its enclosure on a whim and attacking a random person, it attacked the jackasses who were tormenting it. Nobody else.
Oh cool! Another person who has proof the boys were taunting the tiger! Boy oh boy, the SFPD would love to see your evidence.
No, because as he quite correctly pointed out much earlier, the tiger-handler relationship inherently involves a degree of "provocation".
So, feeding it is a degree of provocation? What kind of dark world do you come from? If a tiger is provoked by a feeding, then maybe standing there and looking the tiger in the eyes is a degree of provocation?
However neither of these incidents in any way show that the tiger was prone to "unprovoked" attacks, and thus should have been considered an escape risk.
Again, this shows that you live in a very dark world. A tiger that is known for attacking people (and not for self-defense), and an enclosure wall that is known to be too short is a common-sense recipe for disaster. (ding!) Oh hey! It happened. The cat attacked one person and wasn't punished. Who in their right mind would think the mental barrier for attacking again isn't lowered?
The zoo not only dropped the ball, they were negligent AND acted in bad faith by not helping and immediately spreading lies. In court, it will only be a question of will the zoo need to go into bankruptcy or not to pay off the actual and punitive damages.
You should cite your sources.
- waited for the Zoo to empty out (premeditated)
What? They came to the zoo during normal hours.
- collected tools to do the task (slingshot, and something else (i forgot)
There wasn't any slingshot. And the reason you forget something else is because there was *nothing* else!
- drove drunk (open container of vodka in the car) to the zoo
How the hell do you know that? They could have been drinking after the car was already parked.
- stayed around after zoo was closed (trespassing)
Maybe they were making their way out? The zoo closed at 5pm. That doesn't mean that you are immediately trespassing. It just means that the doors are closed to people going in. The attack happened pretty close or maybe even before 5pm. We'll never be sure because the boys spent some time trying to alert zoo authorities (who didn't believe them) before attempting to call 911 (without success) the first time. It took a second call to 911 to get someone besides that annoying "please hold" recording that California loves to make you listen to for up to 10 minutes.
- climbed over a barrier designed to protect animals from humans
Once again, no evidence.
- lied to police about what happened
Do you have evidence that they lied? The SFPD would love to hear from you.
- clamed up, lawyered up right away
Maybe they were scared because they were minors and had been drinking and the zoo director was immediately making up stuff about slingshots and foreign objects in the tiger exhibit that were later proved untrue, and the zoo staff didn't believe and wouldn't help them at all? I'd clam up too and hire a lawyer in such an unwarranted adversarial situation.
Here's the article from Jan. 29, 2008 where the SFPD find no evidence of taunting and discontinue the investigation.
That's nothing. I knew a housecat that could calmly (from a standstill), scale a 10ft concrete wall by jumping. No provocation. It only wanted to go a neighbor's yard without walking around the wall and climbing a chain link fence. At first I didn't believe it, but then I saw it a few more times.
:)
And coincidentally, this was also a black cat.
So, then what provoked the tiger to attack the zookeeper one year prior?
Then you are agreeing with me that this tiger is capable of attacking without provocation.
There's also no evidence that this tiger was taunted by anything more than simply being looked at. This cat has a prior history of attacking without provocation. And, it was the fault of the zoo and not the zookeeper herself.
No witnesses. No slingshots. No thrown objects. No confession.
Perhaps it would also help if I point out that this cat has previously attacked a human with no provocation? I'm sorry, but I feel that giving it food is a positive event. The zoo was found liable in that case by Cal/OSHA who concluded the cage was unsafe and that zoo officials knew this beforehand.
This is what metamod is for. A bunch of us are stuck here without mod points, and instead of staying on the sidelines, are motivated to respond to the ignorant and inhuman responses by a vocal few who were modded up by similar ignorant and indecent human beings. When this discussion swings by my metamod session, I'll enjoy making sure they don't unfairly moderate again.
Actually, they are conjecture. Nothing in that KNBC (a *Los Angeles* TV station 350mi away) news report other than a paragraph headline indicates a footprint on the fence -- the reporter fails to back up this "point" with anything at all. Secondly, the police did not make any speculation about whose or what the blood came from or how the blood got there. An easy to explain scenario was that the boy who was killed was trying to run away from the tiger using whatever means necessary and got blood all over the place. And how do we know this wasn't blood tracked around by the tiger?
About the zoo director, the issue is that he was caught lying to the media about the taunting. Furthermore, he has a history of being an untrustworthy, incompetent, and demoralizing manager, which just calls into question even more these "taunting" allegations. The SF Police found *nothing* to back up the taunting claims and stopped investigating. Apparently the footprint story wasn't credible and the blood locations were explained otherwise.
Cats will attack if you just look at them funny, or if they're hungry, or if they're just having a bad day. Why do you believe an overly-aggressive cat with a history of attacking humans will behave in a logical, rational fashion?
What part of "the cage was not designed and/or built properly" do you not understand?
Actually, there's no body of evidence at all that any of the three taunted the tigers. The SF Police stopped investigating after nothing, including witnesses (to taunting or other statements), ever showed up.
Cite *your* sources. And I don't mean an article full of conjecture and false statements fed to the press (and later deemed false by the same press) and police by the incompetent and demoralizing zoo director, Manuel Mollinedo.
Then you didn't read the later articles. That "witness" was fabricated by the zoo director. The police did not find any witnesses. They did not find any evidence of them climbing on or over the railing, and they certainly didn't find any foreign objects in the exhibit. These were all claims by the zoo director that he had no evidence for.
The police stopped investigating because even with the search of the impounded car and the cellphones and the zoo premises, no evidence of wrongdoing or even taunting (by standing on the fence, hollering, etc.) ever, ever showed up.
The enclosure was too short, and the zoo *knew* that. Tatiana, the tiger, had a history of aggressiveness and mauling without provocation. Anything else is just speculation.
You want speculation? The boys probably just had eye contact with this aggressive tiger, who took it as a challenge. Having had little to no punishment from attacking before, she leapt out of the undersized enclosure and took on the closest one.
I've seen housecats scale 10ft concrete walls with no problem -- why would one think 12ft is enough for a 350lb all-muscle tiger? Its reach from tiptoes to forepaws is likely already over 10ft. This is the zoo's fault for creating a dangerous situation by putting an overly-aggressive cat in too small of an enclosure.
You're obviously not reading anything past the first line of my messages. The zookeeper followed protocol. Cal/OSHA said the feeding cage was improperly designed and that the ZOO (meaning the director and others in charge) KNEW about this and did nothing to correct to flaw and protect Lori.
Also by reading the articles, AND just by reading my messages, you would know to STOP saying "he" in referring to Lori, who is a woman.
You're just not giving me anything positive to say about you, as you clearly are not reading anything that would torpedo your argument. That's called willful ignorance, and it is not a quality that is becoming of a decent human being.
Here's from the initial article. If the cage was built properly, Tatiana would not have been able to stick her paws through the bars and grab the zookeeper.
From an article last month (emphasis mine):
The feeding enclosure was not designed and/or built properly. This was not Lori Komejan's fault. Lori was properly doing her job.
1) This is the same tiger (Tatiana) that attacked and seriously injured a zookeeper (Lori Komejan) who was only doing her job just one year ago. The zoo initially blamed the attack on the zoo keeper.
From a later article:
2) Zoo director Manuel Mollinedo is incompetent and demoralizing:
3) The zookeepers knew the wall was too low:
4) The police didn't find any slingshots in the cars or on the brothers, anything unusual on their cellphones, foreign objects in the enclosure, or any witnesses to back up any suggestion of taunting, and suspended the investigation.
You can find more articles in the special section that SFGate has just for the tiger mauling.
But people will believe whatever they want to believe, right?
While every statement in your post is true, please note that, AFAIK, acrylic fibre is not currently used for long-haul runs, nor any single-mode applications. It's just not as efficient as glass fibre as far as attenuation goes.
While I don't work for any long-haul installers, and your point about glass fiber is true (and likely always will be), I use plastic fiber all the time for single-mode applications. And for long intra-building connections, it works great. Plastic single-mode fiber would work just fine for individual hookups to a fiber-to-the-neighborhood type of drop. And if the hookup is less than 150m away, multi-mode fiber would also work and be cheaper (with cheaper transceivers and CPE).
Fiber has none of these problems and is advantageous in every way except (currently) cost. Plastic fiber hopes to solve this last problem.
We've had plastic fiber for several years now. However, it is not the material itself that costs so much, it is the installation.
For all the people who are complaining about the summary/headline, please know that it is hard to fit all of the math in the headline. Please read the article for that. ScuttleMonkey redid my headline (although slightly more correct, he made it more vague).
For those who say there aren't refineries, ScuttleMonkey took out my quotes and put different ones in. I said the DoE is partially funding new refineries, the first of which will come online in Georgia -- also in the fine article.
Although I credit and thank ScuttleMonkey for greenlighting my submission whereas it was flatly ignored yesterday when I submitted it, please complain about his editing, and not my original content, if you feel the summary was vague or had omissions. You can compare both if you read the firehose submission (complain to me if you don't like that one).
For some reason, people have it stuck in their heads that plastic fiber is new. It's not. Also, it can carry 10Gb/s just fine. All the 100-300m links are class 1. In fact, I'm looking at a 50Km rated SFP that is Class 1. According to all the safety ratings, you can stare at its laser as long as you like. And wavelength has nothing to do with power. The 50Km SFP that I just mentioned is infrared.
It looks like they're solving problems, badly, that have already been solved. MS Windows and their broken "shortcuts" if anyone remembers? If I didn't think it was just plain ignorance, I would claim this was a well-disguised FUD piece.
I'm not looking for any moderation here, so please don't think I'm doing so. I saw one part of your argument, and I don't know if you meant it as hyperbole or believe it fully -- in other words, I'm saying it isn't black and white.
People need to understand that life is hard and often unfair, that they need to take responsibility for themselves and their kin, and that sometimes things get broken that you just can't fix - you have to cope and move on.
Everyone needs to understand life is hard and often unfair. Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves, their kin, and (what you left out of your statement) everyone else. Here's some hyperbole: I shoot your child. Do you say life is unfair, get medical attention, and move on? No, I must take responsibility, and you're definitely going to make sure *I* take responsibility, even if you don't know why at first your child has a gushing wound -- you're going to figure out why.
To rearrange your statement: Things definitely get broken that you *sometimes* just can't fix. There are times when something looks fixable, and you proceed to try, and then it only stays broken or gets worse. At that point, yes, I would agree that giving up and moving on is an option. At least you tried.
The easy way of course of explaining responsibility is the Yes/No Up/Down mentality, because that's what many people will only stick around to hear. It's evident here on slashdot and even more so with government officials. You try to advocate a nuanced solution and all they'll hear is that you want to entirely scrap a program or create something very expensive when what you actually said was neither.
Personal responsibility is a misnomer. It is a misused banner that people fly when they are the ones causing someone else grief through action or even inaction. The truth is closer to that everyone is everyone's responsibility. There are of course priorities, nuances, and obvious exceptions. But if everyone truly considers others' well-being before action or inaction (especially in advance!) we'd likely all be better off.
But I know better. Because I didn't clearly advocate one side or the other, this post will be tossed into the cosmic dust-bin or misinterpreted and misquoted to fit someone's binary thinking. That part may never be fully fixed, but I keep trying, even if in a small way.
Well, since you didn't read my other posts, who knows what you'll come up with next that's already been answered. The problem is with binary blobs undocumented by MSFT, not well known image formats that have never been a problem.
Please stop trolling and throwing out red herrings. Or do Arctic penguins really cause hair loss in theatrical attire?