Most of those 50 dead people voted in the last election because they were alive during the last election. They probably died during the months following that. People do die, y'know.
OK, but how about this. What about people who take part in the advanced polls, then die before the actual election day? Should their votes still count? They did, after all, cast them early. But on the day of the election, their votes don't necessarily represent the will of the current voting populace.
I remember reading that this exact issue was actually raised during the last US federal election. I never heard how it turned out. Do they still count advance ballots cast by people who died in the two weeks prior to the election?
I'm actually going to vote NDP. I like Layton. I think he's the best leader his party's ever had, and given the alternative, I'd rather preserve health care than demolish it...
If you're going to come out and publicly support a party, you really should learn at least a little bit about them. Layton is not "the best leader his party's ever had." Evidently, you're forgetting about a little guy named Ed Broadbent, who brought the party to its highest levels of support ever.
Public bathrooms. Public swimming pools. Public schools.
Think about the above three things, and then tell me you want public healthcare.
This is one of the perplexing paradoxes of a pro-capital-punishment society. You people think the government lacks the competence to run schools or hospitals, yet you put your faith in its ability to conclusively determine a person's guilt with enough certainty that you're willing to execute someone when that same government has concluded is "guilty." Mind-boggling.
[Re: Transitioning manual labour jobs to mechanical automation]
Thats been going on in the US since the 80s. It SUCKS.
I respectfully disagree. That automation is what keeps the price of so many products affordable. The increased profits from said automation are what have driven stock price increases that have allowed millions of people to enjoy a comfortable retirement. This is capitalism at its finest. If you don't like it, there are plenty of (miserable, socialist/communist) countries who'd be willing to take you in.
you now have as many adult tickets too, and the extra drink and popcorn sales.
FYI, studios don't see a single penny of concession sales. Concession sales are the exclusive profits for the cinemas themselves. In fact, that's where the theatres make the majority of their money.
Here's the Cluebat[TM] for that generation of kids, and for you: if it's enclosed within the boundaries of a TV screen, it's not reality.
Really? It's as simple as that, eh? So, Waco wasn't real? Ruby Ridge wasn't real? The Oklahoma City bombing, September 11th, the Iraq war, Somalia, the Bank of America robbery/shootout in North Hollywood, BTK, the Washington snipers - all not real?
Poor use of an example there, being that Starship Troopers is a oft-misunderstood anti-war satire.
Not to mention a great all-around movie. One of my all-time favorites. What's not to like? Comedy: Good ("The enemy cannot push a button if you disable his hand!") Nudity: Good (gratuitous shower scene) Violence: Good (I especially liked how they foreshadowed his football skills, which later came in handy when training ("Flip-6 3-hole"), as well as when he needed to drop a grenade into a giant bug's back). Space travel: Good How can any red-blooded male not like this movie?
It appears that people are becoming more and more addicted (or "drawn to" if you prefer a less inflamatory term) to video games as they become more interactive and realistic.
I wouldn't be so quick to draw such a "cause-and-effect." I actually think that the ever-increasing realism of some particular genres will work against the games. I mean, Mortal Kombat was fun when you could rip the loser's spine from his body, and it was obviously fake blood and gore. But what will happen when it actually looks like footage of a real man, actually ripping out another man's real spine? Of course, it will still just be a simulation, but is society ready for a generation of kids who literally can't tell reality from fantasy?
It's (relatively) easy to distance yourself from video game violence when it is so obviously CG, but technology will eventually approach the point where the video will achieve startling realism. What will that do to the kids who've grown up playing these games, and who have a pretty good idea of what an actual gunshot wound looks like? People complain that kids are desensitized to violence by today's video games, but as realistic as they are, no one would ever confuse them with actual video footage of an actual murder. What sort of desensitization effect will games have when they become indistinguishable from video of actual violent acts? Will the desensitization effect rise to a new level? Are we ready for the potential implications?
Or will game makers simply shy away from the truly graphic, photorealistic violence, and save such abilities for ever more realistic non-violent games, like racing or flying simulations? Then again, maybe a photorealistic "Flight Simulator 2010" is just what Al Queda needs to properly train for their next mission?
anyone actually paying attention to events in Iraq since 1991 should have known from day one that 17 UN resolutions and a breach of a treaty trumps it anyway.
Quick question: If Iraq's 17 UN resolution violations is cause to go to war, why do Israel's equally-impudent UN resolution violations warrant support? Why does the US pick-and-choose which UN resolutions it will unilaterally enforce, and which it will blatently defy?
This thread is huge and old, and no one will probably ever read this, but just in case you do, I wanted to thank you for your comment. I'm a Canadian, and up here, we have trouble understanding how on Earth the plurality of an entire nation could be duped into voting for such an egomaniacal, manipulative, war-mongering neanderthal like Bush twice. My perception was that I simply underestimating how many redneck, backwater NASCAR fans there are in the US. I have repeatedly asked Republican supporters to intelligently explain to me how they could continue to support Bush after the blatant failure of his administration so many levels. Stripping away rights with corporate driven DMCAs and opportunistically-timed bills like the USA-PATRIOT act. Bald-faced lies about WMDs to justify a war on a nation that hasn't fired a single shot at the US, just to make his friends rich. I always thought that knowing all that, anyone who would still vote for Bush must be just plain stupid. And I don't mean that to be insulting, I honestly couldn't see how an intelligent person could overlook all of that and still throw their support behind an individual who is so obviously bad for your country.
Your post, however, is the most eloquently-written explanation from a sincerely intelligent conservative supporter I've seen since the start of this whole Bush-era. You've actually given me a new, valuable insight into understanding why people still support Bush. I still disagree with your points and think Bush is the worst option, but at least I know have a clear picture of why people still support Bush, even after all the damage he's done. I'm not being sarcastic, I sincerely appreciate your comment.
It is ironic that Adobe mocks Nikon for their closed file format, while they are guilty of suing a person who reverse-engineered their precious format in the past.
No it is not. "Hypocritical," perhaps, but not ironic. People who use the word "irony" when they really mean "coincidence" or "hypocritical" irritate me.
And no, there's nothing "hypocritical" about Adobe's position either. They sued someone who went ahead and did reverse-engineer their product without permission. Adobe, however, has not yet carried out such actions. If they had turned around and reverse-engineered Nikon's format themselves, then yes, that would be hypocrical. But they are not doing that. They are simply asking for permission - something which DVD Jon did not do.
No hypocrisy here. And certainly no irony. No coincidences either.
What if Adobe prints in a huge black font in its manual, product box or emails to customers the message that unfortuantely due to lack of cooperation from Nikon they will not provide opening and editing of Nikon RAW files.
I think it would be quite presumtuous of Adobe to assume that if they force their customers to choose between Adobe and Nikon, that the customers will choose Adobe. Nikon and Adobe are both market leaders in their fields. People will not be as quick to forsake Nikon to stick with Adobe as you seem to presume.
You also assume that Nikon is the only company doing this. They are not.
Finally, you can still edit your Nikon images with Photoshop, you simply have to use a Nikon-provided plugin to get the RAW data from the camera. Big whoop. Why would a professional (or heck, even a hobbiest) who's already spent thousands of dollars on Nikon hardware, and thousands of dollars on Adobe software, suddenly dump one or the other, when there is a perfectly viable compromise already available, and when this is such an industry-standard practice?
I boycott companies who require flash to view their web sites
No offense, but that's just stupid and impractical. My wife and I were recently in need of a new vehicle. We did our research and found that virtually every car maker uses Flash on their websites. Nevertheless, we navigated around, priced out some configurations, and set up some test drives. In the end, we went with a Mazda 3 Sport GT, and we're very happy with it. However, Mazda's site happens to be one that employs Flash for the menus.
Had we subscribed to your naive, idealistic world view and boycotted them, we would have had our choices substantially limited, and would have ended up far less satisfied with our purchase. And for what? To make a stupid point about some web technology that you don't like?
So what you are saying is, in an emergency situation when your radio goes out, you have a 1 in 4 chance of actually recognizing the colors and not putting other people at risk? Good thing you went for a fourth opinion!
It's funny that you chose to highlight an extremely unlikely situation (that off all radios failing in an aircraft [yes, aircraft have multiple radios]), rather than raising the far more likely scenario of the numerous traffic stoplights I face during my daily commute.
If you're going to spend $30k or more on a plane a couple of hundred bucks for a GPS navigation system is insignificant. I would think that any pilot would want a GPS in their plane as a backup for other nav systems.
As others have already pointed out, an aviation-certified GPS unit is much, much more expensive than the casual commercial ones. And secondly, you're failing to consider the broad range of pilots outside your narrow window. For example, glider pilots. Their nav system is a compass, and they rarely file flight plans. They just launch, glide for a half-hour or so, and land. (I'm not considering cross-country glider pilots here). Why should those pilots be required to spend thousands of dollars for a GPS system (and lots of batteries, keeping in mind that gliders don't have any on-board power systems) to abide by this stupid hypothetical law?
If you're colorblind, you're not flying except as a passenger.
100% wrong. I'm a private pilot and am red-green colourblind. I am extremely qualified to speak about this topic.
When I went for my glider pilot's license, I took the "colour plate test", where they show you a book of 15 pictures with coloured bubbles, and you have to tell them what number you see. I got 2 correct out of 15 and was diagnosed as red-green colourblind. However, I was still allowed to have a pilot license, although being colour blind meant I had the following restrictions on my license: "Daytime VFR only in single-engined, land-based, non-high performance aircraft with a two-way radio."
I was determined to get these restrictions listed, so I took the "colour lantern" test, where they sit you down in a chair at one end of a room, and flash a series of 3 different colour lights at you (red, green, and white) through a pinhole in a box at the other end of the room. First they do the test with the lights in the room on, then they turn off the lights and do the test again to simulate nighttime. I failed the test.
However, I didn't have my glasses with me when I took the test the first time. So I convinced them to let me take the test again. I failed again.
The idea with colour blindness and flying is that if you're flying into an airport and your radio fails, the way they tell you whether or not it is safe to land is by flashing red and green lights at you from the control tower. These are no lasers, just regular, bright lights about the size of a radar gun a cop would use. Big flashlights.
So continuing on with my story, these other tests were really just to estimate whether or not I'd be able to differentiate the lights the control tower would be flashing at me. So the next logical test was to take me up in an airplane, and have the tower actually flash the lights at me to see if I could tell which was which. I failed.
Finally, I heard about another test I could try, called the Farnsworth D-15 color test. It's a long box with a bunch of bottle-cap-sized wooden plugs with coloured dots on one side and a number on the other. The doctor administering the test shows me what the plugs all look like in order, then dumps them on the desk and mixes them up. Then, he puts in the first plug, and I had to put in the rest, in order, going by the "next closest color" to the preceding one. I performed the task, they closed the lid, flipped the box over and opened the other side to see if the numbers were in order.
They were. I passed! So the restriction was removed from my license, and I am no longer considered "colour blind" as far as the civil aviation authority is concerned.
But my point was that even when I was considered colour blind, I was still allowed to be a pilot. It is not illegal to be a pilot if you're colour blind. You just have several restrictions on your license (dayting, VFR only, in single-engine, land-based aircraft with two-way radio).
FWIW, your country doesn't have a single university as good as Caltech OR MIT. And I don't even have to ask where you're from before making that determination.
Now that's just steroetypical American arrogance rearing its ugly head again. And you wonder why the rest of the world hates you.
FYI, there are actually a lot of other countries out there as good or better than MIT or Caltech. Of course, they're found in obscure, little-known countries like India, China, Britain, and Canada, but they're out there.
Perhaps if your "super-elite, best-in-the-world" US colleges focused a little more on their geography classes instead of their patriotism classes, you'd know that.
does it really make sense to tell someone a post is bullshit because they made a typo?
It was more than a typo - the substance of your post was completely inaccurate.
You claimed that on the shortest day of the year in Saskatoon, you only get 6 hours of daylight, so DST is a waste. I showed that you were wrong. Even on the shortest day in Saskatoon, you still get about 8 hours a daylight. That's enough to make DST worth considering (hell, the rest of the country does it - are they all wrong, and Saskatoon is right?)
Then, you claimed that in the summer, the shortest night in Saskatoon is only 4 hours long, which is also wildly inaccurate. It's actually almost double that.
So yeah, sorry if I disagreed with your point (I think DST is a good idea) based on the fact that your numbers were way off (which is true).
It certainly didn't (as you mentioned) take away from the truth of the post.
You're right - the typo didn't take away from the truth of your post. The incorrect data did.
I know if I were a potential employer, I'd look into how you acted in addition to your technical qualifications.
WTF? An ad hominem non sequitur personal attack? Is that how you guys debate out there in Saskatchewan?
In Saskatoon, which is southern Saskatchewan, the sun rises at around 09:50 in December towards the longest day of the year.
I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit. The "longest day of the year" would be in the middle of the summer. You're thinking of the shortest day of the year (that is, the winter solstice), which is around December 22. On that day, in 2004, the sun rose at 9:12 AM (a far cry from your claimed 9:50 AM), and set at 4:56 PM (again, you were waaaay off, claiming 4:20), for a total of roughly 8 hours of daylight (constrasted with your exaggerated claim of 6 hours).
In your summer, the shortest night would be the summer solstice, which is around June 22. Sticking with our 2004 example, on June 22, sunrise was at 4:45 AM, and sunset was at 9:30 PM, for a total daylight of 16 hours and 45 minutes of daylight. Which means there were 7 hours and 15 minutes of nighttime. I have no idea where in the world you ever got the idea that Saskatoon has ever only had "4 hours" of nighttime. Try doubling that.
About the only thing you got right in your post is that this particular method of manipulating the clocks doesn't really make sense in the more northerly lattitudes.
Impressive math, but the problem is that all new cars have headlights that are on all the time anyway. Nobody turns off their headlights during the day because, well, they can't. "Daytime Running Lights." Standard on all new cars. Safety feature.
All right, all right, I was wrong, whatever. My (apparently incorrect) info came from a show I'd seen on the Discovery channel about space travel, and one of the things they looked at was "why is NASA still using solid rocket boosters when they're so dangerous?" They had explained that it was the only way to achieve orbit. Apparently, they were oversimplifying a bit, and I got taken in. You can all quit modding me as a "Troll" now, allright? I get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of those 50 dead people voted in the last election because they were alive during the last election. They probably died during the months following that. People do die, y'know.
OK, but how about this. What about people who take part in the advanced polls, then die before the actual election day? Should their votes still count? They did, after all, cast them early. But on the day of the election, their votes don't necessarily represent the will of the current voting populace.
I remember reading that this exact issue was actually raised during the last US federal election. I never heard how it turned out. Do they still count advance ballots cast by people who died in the two weeks prior to the election?
I'm actually going to vote NDP. I like Layton. I think he's the best leader his party's ever had, and given the alternative, I'd rather preserve health care than demolish it...
If you're going to come out and publicly support a party, you really should learn at least a little bit about them. Layton is not "the best leader his party's ever had." Evidently, you're forgetting about a little guy named Ed Broadbent, who brought the party to its highest levels of support ever.
Public bathrooms. Public swimming pools. Public schools.
Think about the above three things, and then tell me you want public healthcare.
This is one of the perplexing paradoxes of a pro-capital-punishment society. You people think the government lacks the competence to run schools or hospitals, yet you put your faith in its ability to conclusively determine a person's guilt with enough certainty that you're willing to execute someone when that same government has concluded is "guilty." Mind-boggling.
[Re: Transitioning manual labour jobs to mechanical automation]
Thats been going on in the US since the 80s. It SUCKS.
I respectfully disagree. That automation is what keeps the price of so many products affordable. The increased profits from said automation are what have driven stock price increases that have allowed millions of people to enjoy a comfortable retirement. This is capitalism at its finest. If you don't like it, there are plenty of (miserable, socialist/communist) countries who'd be willing to take you in.
you now have as many adult tickets too, and the extra drink and popcorn sales.
FYI, studios don't see a single penny of concession sales. Concession sales are the exclusive profits for the cinemas themselves. In fact, that's where the theatres make the majority of their money.
Here's the Cluebat[TM] for that generation of kids, and for you: if it's enclosed within the boundaries of a TV screen, it's not reality.
Really? It's as simple as that, eh? So, Waco wasn't real? Ruby Ridge wasn't real? The Oklahoma City bombing, September 11th, the Iraq war, Somalia, the Bank of America robbery/shootout in North Hollywood, BTK, the Washington snipers - all not real?
Whew! What a relief!
Poor use of an example there, being that Starship Troopers is a oft-misunderstood anti-war satire.
Not to mention a great all-around movie. One of my all-time favorites. What's not to like? Comedy: Good ("The enemy cannot push a button if you disable his hand!") Nudity: Good (gratuitous shower scene) Violence: Good (I especially liked how they foreshadowed his football skills, which later came in handy when training ("Flip-6 3-hole"), as well as when he needed to drop a grenade into a giant bug's back). Space travel: Good How can any red-blooded male not like this movie?
It appears that people are becoming more and more addicted (or "drawn to" if you prefer a less inflamatory term) to video games as they become more interactive and realistic.
I wouldn't be so quick to draw such a "cause-and-effect." I actually think that the ever-increasing realism of some particular genres will work against the games. I mean, Mortal Kombat was fun when you could rip the loser's spine from his body, and it was obviously fake blood and gore. But what will happen when it actually looks like footage of a real man, actually ripping out another man's real spine? Of course, it will still just be a simulation, but is society ready for a generation of kids who literally can't tell reality from fantasy?
It's (relatively) easy to distance yourself from video game violence when it is so obviously CG, but technology will eventually approach the point where the video will achieve startling realism. What will that do to the kids who've grown up playing these games, and who have a pretty good idea of what an actual gunshot wound looks like? People complain that kids are desensitized to violence by today's video games, but as realistic as they are, no one would ever confuse them with actual video footage of an actual murder. What sort of desensitization effect will games have when they become indistinguishable from video of actual violent acts? Will the desensitization effect rise to a new level? Are we ready for the potential implications?
Or will game makers simply shy away from the truly graphic, photorealistic violence, and save such abilities for ever more realistic non-violent games, like racing or flying simulations? Then again, maybe a photorealistic "Flight Simulator 2010" is just what Al Queda needs to properly train for their next mission?
Food for thought.
anyone actually paying attention to events in Iraq since 1991 should have known from day one that 17 UN resolutions and a breach of a treaty trumps it anyway.
Quick question: If Iraq's 17 UN resolution violations is cause to go to war, why do Israel's equally-impudent UN resolution violations warrant support? Why does the US pick-and-choose which UN resolutions it will unilaterally enforce, and which it will blatently defy?
This thread is huge and old, and no one will probably ever read this, but just in case you do, I wanted to thank you for your comment. I'm a Canadian, and up here, we have trouble understanding how on Earth the plurality of an entire nation could be duped into voting for such an egomaniacal, manipulative, war-mongering neanderthal like Bush twice. My perception was that I simply underestimating how many redneck, backwater NASCAR fans there are in the US. I have repeatedly asked Republican supporters to intelligently explain to me how they could continue to support Bush after the blatant failure of his administration so many levels. Stripping away rights with corporate driven DMCAs and opportunistically-timed bills like the USA-PATRIOT act. Bald-faced lies about WMDs to justify a war on a nation that hasn't fired a single shot at the US, just to make his friends rich. I always thought that knowing all that, anyone who would still vote for Bush must be just plain stupid. And I don't mean that to be insulting, I honestly couldn't see how an intelligent person could overlook all of that and still throw their support behind an individual who is so obviously bad for your country.
Your post, however, is the most eloquently-written explanation from a sincerely intelligent conservative supporter I've seen since the start of this whole Bush-era. You've actually given me a new, valuable insight into understanding why people still support Bush. I still disagree with your points and think Bush is the worst option, but at least I know have a clear picture of why people still support Bush, even after all the damage he's done. I'm not being sarcastic, I sincerely appreciate your comment.
It is ironic that Adobe mocks Nikon for their closed file format, while they are guilty of suing a person who reverse-engineered their precious format in the past.
No it is not. "Hypocritical," perhaps, but not ironic. People who use the word "irony" when they really mean "coincidence" or "hypocritical" irritate me.
And no, there's nothing "hypocritical" about Adobe's position either. They sued someone who went ahead and did reverse-engineer their product without permission. Adobe, however, has not yet carried out such actions. If they had turned around and reverse-engineered Nikon's format themselves, then yes, that would be hypocrical. But they are not doing that. They are simply asking for permission - something which DVD Jon did not do.
No hypocrisy here. And certainly no irony. No coincidences either.
What if Adobe prints in a huge black font in its manual, product box or emails to customers the message that unfortuantely due to lack of cooperation from Nikon they will not provide opening and editing of Nikon RAW files.
I think it would be quite presumtuous of Adobe to assume that if they force their customers to choose between Adobe and Nikon, that the customers will choose Adobe. Nikon and Adobe are both market leaders in their fields. People will not be as quick to forsake Nikon to stick with Adobe as you seem to presume.
You also assume that Nikon is the only company doing this. They are not.
Finally, you can still edit your Nikon images with Photoshop, you simply have to use a Nikon-provided plugin to get the RAW data from the camera. Big whoop. Why would a professional (or heck, even a hobbiest) who's already spent thousands of dollars on Nikon hardware, and thousands of dollars on Adobe software, suddenly dump one or the other, when there is a perfectly viable compromise already available, and when this is such an industry-standard practice?
Yeah, I'm waiting until Sunday. Don't want another man's death on my conscience.
"Another?" How many deaths are already on your conscience???
(It's funny, laugh)
I boycott companies who require flash to view their web sites
No offense, but that's just stupid and impractical. My wife and I were recently in need of a new vehicle. We did our research and found that virtually every car maker uses Flash on their websites. Nevertheless, we navigated around, priced out some configurations, and set up some test drives. In the end, we went with a Mazda 3 Sport GT, and we're very happy with it. However, Mazda's site happens to be one that employs Flash for the menus.
Had we subscribed to your naive, idealistic world view and boycotted them, we would have had our choices substantially limited, and would have ended up far less satisfied with our purchase. And for what? To make a stupid point about some web technology that you don't like?
Get real.
So what you are saying is, in an emergency situation when your radio goes out, you have a 1 in 4 chance of actually recognizing the colors and not putting other people at risk? Good thing you went for a fourth opinion!
It's funny that you chose to highlight an extremely unlikely situation (that off all radios failing in an aircraft [yes, aircraft have multiple radios]), rather than raising the far more likely scenario of the numerous traffic stoplights I face during my daily commute.
I can see stoplights just fine, by the way.
The same things were said when Japan made a move to dominate the car industry, so what happened?
Nothing, that's what.
Methinks the residents of Flint, Michigan might disagree with you on that point.
If you're going to spend $30k or more on a plane a couple of hundred bucks for a GPS navigation system is insignificant. I would think that any pilot would want a GPS in their plane as a backup for other nav systems.
As others have already pointed out, an aviation-certified GPS unit is much, much more expensive than the casual commercial ones. And secondly, you're failing to consider the broad range of pilots outside your narrow window. For example, glider pilots. Their nav system is a compass, and they rarely file flight plans. They just launch, glide for a half-hour or so, and land. (I'm not considering cross-country glider pilots here). Why should those pilots be required to spend thousands of dollars for a GPS system (and lots of batteries, keeping in mind that gliders don't have any on-board power systems) to abide by this stupid hypothetical law?
If you're colorblind, you're not flying except as a passenger.
100% wrong. I'm a private pilot and am red-green colourblind. I am extremely qualified to speak about this topic.
When I went for my glider pilot's license, I took the "colour plate test", where they show you a book of 15 pictures with coloured bubbles, and you have to tell them what number you see. I got 2 correct out of 15 and was diagnosed as red-green colourblind. However, I was still allowed to have a pilot license, although being colour blind meant I had the following restrictions on my license: "Daytime VFR only in single-engined, land-based, non-high performance aircraft with a two-way radio."
I was determined to get these restrictions listed, so I took the "colour lantern" test, where they sit you down in a chair at one end of a room, and flash a series of 3 different colour lights at you (red, green, and white) through a pinhole in a box at the other end of the room. First they do the test with the lights in the room on, then they turn off the lights and do the test again to simulate nighttime. I failed the test.
However, I didn't have my glasses with me when I took the test the first time. So I convinced them to let me take the test again. I failed again.
The idea with colour blindness and flying is that if you're flying into an airport and your radio fails, the way they tell you whether or not it is safe to land is by flashing red and green lights at you from the control tower. These are no lasers, just regular, bright lights about the size of a radar gun a cop would use. Big flashlights.
So continuing on with my story, these other tests were really just to estimate whether or not I'd be able to differentiate the lights the control tower would be flashing at me. So the next logical test was to take me up in an airplane, and have the tower actually flash the lights at me to see if I could tell which was which. I failed.
Finally, I heard about another test I could try, called the Farnsworth D-15 color test. It's a long box with a bunch of bottle-cap-sized wooden plugs with coloured dots on one side and a number on the other. The doctor administering the test shows me what the plugs all look like in order, then dumps them on the desk and mixes them up. Then, he puts in the first plug, and I had to put in the rest, in order, going by the "next closest color" to the preceding one. I performed the task, they closed the lid, flipped the box over and opened the other side to see if the numbers were in order.
They were. I passed! So the restriction was removed from my license, and I am no longer considered "colour blind" as far as the civil aviation authority is concerned.
But my point was that even when I was considered colour blind, I was still allowed to be a pilot. It is not illegal to be a pilot if you're colour blind. You just have several restrictions on your license (dayting, VFR only, in single-engine, land-based aircraft with two-way radio).
You may not like it - but it IS true.
No, it's not. I'll even use your own source to prove you wrong (your link is broken, by the way). The original poster said:
your country doesn't have a single university as good as Caltech OR MIT.
Well, according to your list, the University of Cambridge (in the UK) ranks higher than both MIT and Caltech.
So the original poster was wrong, according to your own data.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of a grammer flame, a minor correction to my post:
"there are actually a lot of other countries out there with colleges as good or better than MIT or Caltech."
FWIW, your country doesn't have a single university as good as Caltech OR MIT. And I don't even have to ask where you're from before making that determination.
Now that's just steroetypical American arrogance rearing its ugly head again. And you wonder why the rest of the world hates you.
FYI, there are actually a lot of other countries out there as good or better than MIT or Caltech. Of course, they're found in obscure, little-known countries like India, China, Britain, and Canada, but they're out there.
Perhaps if your "super-elite, best-in-the-world" US colleges focused a little more on their geography classes instead of their patriotism classes, you'd know that.
does it really make sense to tell someone a post is bullshit because they made a typo?
It was more than a typo - the substance of your post was completely inaccurate.
You claimed that on the shortest day of the year in Saskatoon, you only get 6 hours of daylight, so DST is a waste. I showed that you were wrong. Even on the shortest day in Saskatoon, you still get about 8 hours a daylight. That's enough to make DST worth considering (hell, the rest of the country does it - are they all wrong, and Saskatoon is right?)
Then, you claimed that in the summer, the shortest night in Saskatoon is only 4 hours long, which is also wildly inaccurate. It's actually almost double that.
So yeah, sorry if I disagreed with your point (I think DST is a good idea) based on the fact that your numbers were way off (which is true).
It certainly didn't (as you mentioned) take away from the truth of the post.
You're right - the typo didn't take away from the truth of your post. The incorrect data did.
I know if I were a potential employer, I'd look into how you acted in addition to your technical qualifications.
WTF? An ad hominem non sequitur personal attack? Is that how you guys debate out there in Saskatchewan?
In Saskatoon, which is southern Saskatchewan, the sun rises at around 09:50 in December towards the longest day of the year.
I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit. The "longest day of the year" would be in the middle of the summer. You're thinking of the shortest day of the year (that is, the winter solstice), which is around December 22. On that day, in 2004, the sun rose at 9:12 AM (a far cry from your claimed 9:50 AM), and set at 4:56 PM (again, you were waaaay off, claiming 4:20), for a total of roughly 8 hours of daylight (constrasted with your exaggerated claim of 6 hours).
In your summer, the shortest night would be the summer solstice, which is around June 22. Sticking with our 2004 example, on June 22, sunrise was at 4:45 AM, and sunset was at 9:30 PM, for a total daylight of 16 hours and 45 minutes of daylight. Which means there were 7 hours and 15 minutes of nighttime. I have no idea where in the world you ever got the idea that Saskatoon has ever only had "4 hours" of nighttime. Try doubling that.
About the only thing you got right in your post is that this particular method of manipulating the clocks doesn't really make sense in the more northerly lattitudes.
Impressive math, but the problem is that all new cars have headlights that are on all the time anyway. Nobody turns off their headlights during the day because, well, they can't. "Daytime Running Lights." Standard on all new cars. Safety feature.
All right, all right, I was wrong, whatever. My (apparently incorrect) info came from a show I'd seen on the Discovery channel about space travel, and one of the things they looked at was "why is NASA still using solid rocket boosters when they're so dangerous?" They had explained that it was the only way to achieve orbit. Apparently, they were oversimplifying a bit, and I got taken in. You can all quit modding me as a "Troll" now, allright? I get it.