Small aircraft aren't allowed near LAX or in other high-traffic air corridors in the US either. Is it possible that if you've got too many transponders for the air traffic controllers to keep track of, then you've also got too many aircraft for the planes themselves to avoid running into each other? In other words, don't assume that once they upgrade the software, that you'll automatically be able to fly your small aircraft anywhere you want -- too many planes in too small an air space will ALWAYS be a safety hazard, no matter how competent your controllers are.
As far as the sound levels, you are probably correct. The objective of the studies is not to document the annoyance caused by airplanes, but rather to make the citizen's complaints go away. When you start out with a pre-determined conclusion, then your methodology really isn't all that important.
And my wife will tell you, I scream 'F*** you Rick Berman!' during the credits every time I see it.
You think you've got it bad? My wife is really pissed, 'cause I scream the same thing, only during sex!
My wife said "It's bad enough that you watch the f'ing movie during sex, screaming Rick Berman's name is simply unacceptable!" To which I replied, "Hey, I paid $14 for tickets, I'm gonna watch the movie, no matter what else I might be doing at the time!" Yeah, we can't go back to that theater, either...
When we have a young Jean-Luc Picard on the screen, you can have more tea sipping. As long as he is not so young that he still has his hair... that would be simply unacceptable -- Picard with hair!
I can't believe they found a lawyer who thought this was a good idea.
Ask an engineer, "How much is 2 + 2", and they will reply, "4."
Ask an english major, and they will reply, "Uh... 5?"
Ask a lawer, and they will draw the curtains, then lean in close and whisper, "How much would you like it to be?"
they've gotten something out of this move. Most likely what they've gotten out of this move is a flood of harassing email from newly created "SRJC_xxx@yahoo.com" accounts, most of it addressed to kfiori@santarosa.edu & mrudolph@santarosa.edu . Not sure if I would count that as a big "win" in the publicity department!
Three things I've learned from dealing with school officials:
1) Anytime you make a complaint about a specific action of a teacher, their immediate response will be "I have no recollection of that event." It is as if the teacher's union trains them all to say this. If you persist and present evidence, later they may suddenly "remember" what actually happened.
2) Any school or district staff absolutely will not admit they made a mistake or apologize. Ever. I believe their reasoning is "If we apologized, that would be an admission of guilt, and would be used against us in a lawsuit." Their reasoning is flawed, in that their "never back down" attitude in fact makes it much MORE likely that they will be sued.
3) You can get them to back down by threatening a lawsuit or to bring the matter up in an open meeting of the school board, but only if you guarantee them that nobody else will ever find out that they backed down! Their reasoning for this makes sense -- "If we give in to you, then we will have to give in to every parent that makes the same complaint." You need to give them an out to save face, an alternative explanation for their action other than "the kid's son requested this".
If you are willing to pursue it, every school board has public meeting in which you can sign up to talk for a limited amount of time. The school board members are not part of the district staff, they are elected private citizens. Most of them ran for school board in the first place because the school pissed them off at some point, and thus they are much more likely to be sympathetic to valid concerns of a parent than the people that make their living ignoring parent's complaints. And, if you get upset enough at the school, you will start contemplating running for the school yourself. It is a huge time and energy sink, but if you can make room for it in your schedule, I say go for it!
Newspapers, journalist (tv and print), and the those who taught them, have a lot invested in the current system. As such they strive to portray their columns as always without bias and to portray blogs as always biased. Absolutely. In fact, Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced!" Aw shit... I can't say that with a straight face! As Jon Stewart said, they do report two sides to every issue -- both Bush's and Cheney's!
I agree that everyone has a bias, and I always attempt to factor that bias in whenever I listen to them. Sure, it would be helpful if they would go ahead and admit that bias to make it easier to evaluate what they are saying, but that's not how the game is played. It appears to me that outfits like Al Jazeera, which I would expect to have a huge bias, due a better job of sticking to principles of journalistic integrity than the huge media corporations like Murdoch's.
Traditional journalism and investigative reporting are dead. They sealed their own fate when they decided entertainment was more important than fact checking. This does leave a vacuum now where it is harder than ever to know what to believe, and the "echo chamber" effect certainly doesn't help. But surely the internet at least has the potential for implementing some sort of trust algorithm, or at least for democratizing what is accepted as truth.
The judge might read a fact that was specifically excluded from evidence, on any number of grounds. I was under the impression that it was the judge that decided what should be excluded from evidence in the first place.
Yes, it is an adversarial system. Unless the blogger is committing fraud, anything that a judge might read in a blog is an argument that should have been put forth by one side or the other. (You don't think lawyers ever cite cases that has been overturned by subsequent case law?) I do admit that there is a problem in that bloggers aren't bound by the same rules of ethics as lawyers, but I believe the average blogger is still a lot more truthful than the worst lawyer. Take Jack Thompson for example -- he was allowed to spout bullshit in court for years before they finally disbarred him. I suspect judges reaching a consensus on which blogs they should simply ignore would by much more swift then bar associations (a trade guild designed to protect lawyers) reaching a consensus to silence a bad lawyer.
members of the Court and their staff will have to refrain from reading any blog post relating to a pending case, no matter who it is written by. I sincerely doubt that someone can progress to the level of appointment to the supreme court without having learned to recognize bullshit when they see it, so I don't see the rationale for this.
Why should a blog be treated any differently than an amicus curiae brief? People are entitled to have and express their opinions, and judges have the right to not read them. Personally, I think crowdsourcing legal arguments would make for better law; there would be fewer missed points in arguments, and therefore fewer bad precedents. Finally, I don't see how telling bloggers to STFU could be viewed as anything but a violation of the First Amendment. What may be valid is the blocking of jurors' access to blogs, as jurors aren't allowed access to any evidence not approved by the judge.
In many ways, the Netherlands is a very enlightened country. Unfortunately, I live in the good ol' USA, where traffic regulations are frequently (but not always) regarded as a revenue source, not a means for promoting safety. For example, the small town of North Plains, Oregon, has the luck that highway 26 (a freeway) runs through a corner of their city limits, so they frequently post one of their half dozen police on the freeway with a radar gun, clocking every car on the freeway as they enter city limits. They then chase everyone going a few mph over the limit, and usually pull them over outside of city limits. Contest you ticket, and you get to deal with a retired judge presiding in the town recreation center who has already decided you are guilty (literally; I asked if I could check the statute cited, and he said he didn't need to bring a copy of the statues to court because he had already reviewed by case and decided I was guilty) and simply rubberstamps whatever the police said. They claim they do this for the "safety of their town residents" but it is obvious that the majority of funding for their police department comes directly from fines issued to motorists on the freeway.
Unless Wikipedia is lying again, in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #27, Tolkien describes Hobbits thus:
I picture a fairly human figure, not a kind of 'fairy' rabbit as some of my British reviewers seem to fancy: fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown). The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur. Clothing: green velvet breeches; red or yellow waistcoat; brown or green jacket; gold (or brass) buttons; a dark green hood and cloak (belonging to a dwarf).
If you don't think "slightly pointed" is the same as "pointed", perhaps you don't consider "slightly pregnant" the same as "pregnant" either.
Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
Speed limits are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
Because once introduced, this bacteria would inevitably spread to sand everywhere, turning sandboxes, beaches, beach volleyball courts, and even kitty litter to stone! Won't somebody please think of the children, bikini-clad babes, and small household pets!
I propose genetically engineering bacteria that turn sand into chocolate in an attempt to speed up dessertification, with a side effect of feeding starving refugees.
Other invasive species that were intentionally introduced but are now wrecking havoc in the northwest include English Ivy, Himalayan Blackberry, and Californians.
So the solution is obvious -- we should kill ourselves off. I nominate you to be first in line! I'm sure you feel honored to make this small sacrifice for the good of our planet!
Slashdot Mirror
Small aircraft aren't allowed near LAX or in other high-traffic air corridors in the US either. Is it possible that if you've got too many transponders for the air traffic controllers to keep track of, then you've also got too many aircraft for the planes themselves to avoid running into each other? In other words, don't assume that once they upgrade the software, that you'll automatically be able to fly your small aircraft anywhere you want -- too many planes in too small an air space will ALWAYS be a safety hazard, no matter how competent your controllers are.
As far as the sound levels, you are probably correct. The objective of the studies is not to document the annoyance caused by airplanes, but rather to make the citizen's complaints go away. When you start out with a pre-determined conclusion, then your methodology really isn't all that important.
That certainly brings new meaning to the phrase "Blue screen of death"!
And my wife will tell you, I scream 'F*** you Rick Berman!' during the credits every time I see it.
You think you've got it bad? My wife is really pissed, 'cause I scream the same thing, only during sex!
My wife said "It's bad enough that you watch the f'ing movie during sex, screaming Rick Berman's name is simply unacceptable!" To which I replied, "Hey, I paid $14 for tickets, I'm gonna watch the movie, no matter what else I might be doing at the time!" Yeah, we can't go back to that theater, either...
You agreed to marry a woman who has never even seen Star Trek??? What the blazes is wrong with you, man!
She must be great in the sack, eh?
When we have a young Jean-Luc Picard on the screen, you can have more tea sipping. As long as he is not so young that he still has his hair... that would be simply unacceptable -- Picard with hair!
I've seen this before... didn't these used to be called "outhouses"?
I can't believe they found a lawyer who thought this was a good idea.
Ask an engineer, "How much is 2 + 2", and they will reply, "4."
Ask an english major, and they will reply, "Uh... 5?"
Ask a lawer, and they will draw the curtains, then lean in close and whisper, "How much would you like it to be?"
they've gotten something out of this move. Most likely what they've gotten out of this move is a flood of harassing email from newly created "SRJC_xxx@yahoo.com" accounts, most of it addressed to kfiori@santarosa.edu & mrudolph@santarosa.edu . Not sure if I would count that as a big "win" in the publicity department!
Three things I've learned from dealing with school officials:
1) Anytime you make a complaint about a specific action of a teacher, their immediate response will be "I have no recollection of that event." It is as if the teacher's union trains them all to say this. If you persist and present evidence, later they may suddenly "remember" what actually happened. 2) Any school or district staff absolutely will not admit they made a mistake or apologize. Ever. I believe their reasoning is "If we apologized, that would be an admission of guilt, and would be used against us in a lawsuit." Their reasoning is flawed, in that their "never back down" attitude in fact makes it much MORE likely that they will be sued.
3) You can get them to back down by threatening a lawsuit or to bring the matter up in an open meeting of the school board, but only if you guarantee them that nobody else will ever find out that they backed down! Their reasoning for this makes sense -- "If we give in to you, then we will have to give in to every parent that makes the same complaint." You need to give them an out to save face, an alternative explanation for their action other than "the kid's son requested this".
If you are willing to pursue it, every school board has public meeting in which you can sign up to talk for a limited amount of time. The school board members are not part of the district staff, they are elected private citizens. Most of them ran for school board in the first place because the school pissed them off at some point, and thus they are much more likely to be sympathetic to valid concerns of a parent than the people that make their living ignoring parent's complaints. And, if you get upset enough at the school, you will start contemplating running for the school yourself. It is a huge time and energy sink, but if you can make room for it in your schedule, I say go for it!
Newspapers, journalist (tv and print), and the those who taught them, have a lot invested in the current system. As such they strive to portray their columns as always without bias and to portray blogs as always biased. Absolutely. In fact, Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced!" Aw shit... I can't say that with a straight face! As Jon Stewart said, they do report two sides to every issue -- both Bush's and Cheney's!
I agree that everyone has a bias, and I always attempt to factor that bias in whenever I listen to them. Sure, it would be helpful if they would go ahead and admit that bias to make it easier to evaluate what they are saying, but that's not how the game is played. It appears to me that outfits like Al Jazeera, which I would expect to have a huge bias, due a better job of sticking to principles of journalistic integrity than the huge media corporations like Murdoch's.
Traditional journalism and investigative reporting are dead. They sealed their own fate when they decided entertainment was more important than fact checking. This does leave a vacuum now where it is harder than ever to know what to believe, and the "echo chamber" effect certainly doesn't help. But surely the internet at least has the potential for implementing some sort of trust algorithm, or at least for democratizing what is accepted as truth.
The judge might read a fact that was specifically excluded from evidence, on any number of grounds. I was under the impression that it was the judge that decided what should be excluded from evidence in the first place.
Yes, it is an adversarial system. Unless the blogger is committing fraud, anything that a judge might read in a blog is an argument that should have been put forth by one side or the other. (You don't think lawyers ever cite cases that has been overturned by subsequent case law?) I do admit that there is a problem in that bloggers aren't bound by the same rules of ethics as lawyers, but I believe the average blogger is still a lot more truthful than the worst lawyer. Take Jack Thompson for example -- he was allowed to spout bullshit in court for years before they finally disbarred him. I suspect judges reaching a consensus on which blogs they should simply ignore would by much more swift then bar associations (a trade guild designed to protect lawyers) reaching a consensus to silence a bad lawyer.
members of the Court and their staff will have to refrain from reading any blog post relating to a pending case, no matter who it is written by. I sincerely doubt that someone can progress to the level of appointment to the supreme court without having learned to recognize bullshit when they see it, so I don't see the rationale for this.
Why should a blog be treated any differently than an amicus curiae brief? People are entitled to have and express their opinions, and judges have the right to not read them. Personally, I think crowdsourcing legal arguments would make for better law; there would be fewer missed points in arguments, and therefore fewer bad precedents. Finally, I don't see how telling bloggers to STFU could be viewed as anything but a violation of the First Amendment. What may be valid is the blocking of jurors' access to blogs, as jurors aren't allowed access to any evidence not approved by the judge.
No, just new to the concept of proofreading. My typing rate is 50 WPM, which I suspect is slightly faster than my thinking rate.
In many ways, the Netherlands is a very enlightened country. Unfortunately, I live in the good ol' USA, where traffic regulations are frequently (but not always) regarded as a revenue source, not a means for promoting safety. For example, the small town of North Plains, Oregon, has the luck that highway 26 (a freeway) runs through a corner of their city limits, so they frequently post one of their half dozen police on the freeway with a radar gun, clocking every car on the freeway as they enter city limits. They then chase everyone going a few mph over the limit, and usually pull them over outside of city limits. Contest you ticket, and you get to deal with a retired judge presiding in the town recreation center who has already decided you are guilty (literally; I asked if I could check the statute cited, and he said he didn't need to bring a copy of the statues to court because he had already reviewed by case and decided I was guilty) and simply rubberstamps whatever the police said. They claim they do this for the "safety of their town residents" but it is obvious that the majority of funding for their police department comes directly from fines issued to motorists on the freeway.
Unless Wikipedia is lying again, in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #27, Tolkien describes Hobbits thus:
I picture a fairly human figure, not a kind of 'fairy' rabbit as some of my British reviewers seem to fancy: fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown). The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur. Clothing: green velvet breeches; red or yellow waistcoat; brown or green jacket; gold (or brass) buttons; a dark green hood and cloak (belonging to a dwarf).
If you don't think "slightly pointed" is the same as "pointed", perhaps you don't consider "slightly pregnant" the same as "pregnant" either.
Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
Speed limits are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
Your new to the concept of "laws", aren't you?
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" [not property] is a purely American construction, found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. This is Europe; the closest they would have is "Liberté, égalité, fraternité"
The Somali pirates have web sites now?!?
Sure, that explains the small brains... but what explains the pointed ears and large, hairy feet?
I prefer the more scientific notion that people are merely a strand of DNA's tool to make more copies of itself.
Because once introduced, this bacteria would inevitably spread to sand everywhere, turning sandboxes, beaches, beach volleyball courts, and even kitty litter to stone! Won't somebody please think of the children, bikini-clad babes, and small household pets!
I propose genetically engineering bacteria that turn sand into chocolate in an attempt to speed up dessertification, with a side effect of feeding starving refugees.
Other invasive species that were intentionally introduced but are now wrecking havoc in the northwest include English Ivy, Himalayan Blackberry, and Californians.
So the solution is obvious -- we should kill ourselves off. I nominate you to be first in line! I'm sure you feel honored to make this small sacrifice for the good of our planet!