I was in the Navy in the 80's. I've had to sit through the Forrestal film more times than I can count.
Another siginificant blaze (and one which is lesser known) is the one on USS Enterprise in 1969. I don't know about the TV footage which is shown, but in the Navy's movie, some of the footage shown is actually from the Enterprise and not the Forrestal.
The Navy learned a great deal from these incidents and developed firefighting systems and training programs in response.
BTW, the Forrestal's nickname became the "USS Forest-Fire" after that.
"The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time".
Was this supposed to be a joke, or just yet another product of the stellar American education system?
In short, as long as the government is affording specific legal rights to married partners which are not extended to homosexual partners, the law is discriminatory...
Not true. Homosexuality is a behaviorial aspect. The law IS discriminatory with regard to behavior all the time. If fact, the whole reason for having law at all is that some behaviors are considered proper for society and others are not.
For some reason, probably because of racial discrimination, we've gotten it into our heads that all discrimination is wrong. But we discriminate all the time whether it's in our choice of friends, or even the brand of shampoo we use.
The law, too, must discriminate. It must say that certain behaviors (stealing, rape, whatever) are inappropriate. So there is nothing wrong with the law being discriminatory when it comes to behavior.
Why is acting normal more important than acting in a manner that makes you feel happy and comfortable?
Well, if what makes you feel happy and comfortable is self-destructive, then that behavior should be discouraged.
Personally, I don't care too much if someone wants to be self-destructive, but the problem with self-destructive people is that they tend to take others down with them.
I always find it ironic that many of the people who are SO concerned about privacy are the same people who are always yakking on their cell phones, in public, about everything.
If you really want a private conversation with someone, you need to meet them face-to-face.
Amen to that. I was just diagnosed with Type 2 last year. Fortunately we caught it in the early stages (I was barely over the "line") and I seem to be able to control it through watching my diet and daily exercise.
My sister-in-law, however, is not doing well. Even glucophage has not been able to bring her blood sugar under control. Just recently she began having to inject insulin. She would be a good candidate for this drug.
Many people who joke about diabetes now probably don't realize that they already have it, or are well on their way to getting it.
I have never worked anywhere that demanded THAT much of my time. Of course, there were times when work got in the way of family life. But there were trade offs: My daughter was the first kid in her school to have her own computer; the first kid to have high speed internet access; her enterprise school had a great computer classroom, and a good webpage, thanks to "Dad". She had her own library card and learned early on how to search for and reserve books online. Then there was all the help with research, report layouts, science projects.
Here, let me ask her.... Her response: "It's great! Every time I have a computer problem I can just go to you. I don't have to suffer like my friends."
If he had not had a spreadsheet, he probably would have come to me first and asked for a report (like back in the good old days when nobody had a PC on their desk). At which point I would have showed him how to use the query manager (a 20+ year-old product) and, voila!
Using your logic, if he were building something, one would say he was more productive for using a crescent wrench to bang in a nail, instead of walking over to his neighbor to borrow a hammer.
I can only partially agree with you. Spreadsheets are great tools, but what I see are people using them for everything; i.e., for jobs they were never intended to do.
Example: recently I had a user ask me to split a large file up into smaller files of ~60K records each. Why? So that they would fit in his spreadsheet. Instead, I offered to show him how to use the systems query product to get the information he was looking for. It opened up a whole new world for him. He used to download screeds of data to his PC, then manipulate it within a spreadsheet. Now he can do the same things in a fraction of the time with the query manager. In this case, the spreadsheet was a hindrance to productivity.
I agree with you. That's why I've left information about important passwords, etc. in my safety deposit box at the bank. None of the information is terribly important, but it would be, as you say, a PITA if my family needed to cancel or change the webspace on the server I use.
It is just another part of one's estate. A man should tell his family about these things.
Maybe he meant the wrong way first. An American will look to the left first, and sometimes begin stepping off the curb before looking right. This can be deadly in, say, England, where people drive on the left side of the road.
I thought about this years ago. I don't really have any important information to impart to my loved ones, but I'm sure it would be helpful for them if they were to know passwords to the home router/firewall, webspace, etc.
Directions to this information are in my safety deposit box at the bank, along with our wills, etc.
Some may laugh, but consider: Why leave hassles with your family (especially technically ignorant ones, like mine)? If they have easy access to these things then they can change or cancel services, modify settings, etc.
I wholheartedly agree. For example: before the printing press there was little desire people to learn to read. Even much of the nobility were illiterate. With printed material becoming so easy to reproduce and distribute, a desire to read was sparked among all classes.
I see. But you write LCMS, which I understand to mean the Missouri Synod. All the LCMS members I've known are pretty conservative. The LCUSA(?) seems pretty liberal.
It's just that you don't often see anyone talking about "total depravity" outside traditional reformed circles (of which I am a part).
Slashdot Mirror
At least that's one ship which will be devoid of the sound of pneumatic paint-chippers.
I was in the Navy in the 80's. I've had to sit through the Forrestal film more times than I can count.
Another siginificant blaze (and one which is lesser known) is the one on USS Enterprise in 1969. I don't know about the TV footage which is shown, but in the Navy's movie, some of the footage shown is actually from the Enterprise and not the Forrestal.
The Navy learned a great deal from these incidents and developed firefighting systems and training programs in response.
BTW, the Forrestal's nickname became the "USS Forest-Fire" after that.
"The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time".
Was this supposed to be a joke, or just yet another product of the stellar American education system?
In short, as long as the government is affording specific legal rights to married partners which are not extended to homosexual partners, the law is discriminatory...
Not true. Homosexuality is a behaviorial aspect. The law IS discriminatory with regard to behavior all the time. If fact, the whole reason for having law at all is that some behaviors are considered proper for society and others are not.
For some reason, probably because of racial discrimination, we've gotten it into our heads that all discrimination is wrong. But we discriminate all the time whether it's in our choice of friends, or even the brand of shampoo we use.
The law, too, must discriminate. It must say that certain behaviors (stealing, rape, whatever) are inappropriate. So there is nothing wrong with the law being discriminatory when it comes to behavior.
Why is acting normal more important than acting in a manner that makes you feel happy and comfortable?
Well, if what makes you feel happy and comfortable is self-destructive, then that behavior should be discouraged.
Personally, I don't care too much if someone wants to be self-destructive, but the problem with self-destructive people is that they tend to take others down with them.
I always find it ironic that many of the people who are SO concerned about privacy are the same people who are always yakking on their cell phones, in public, about everything.
If you really want a private conversation with someone, you need to meet them face-to-face.
You're right. That's where I am, at the moment. It's getting tougher NOT to be diabetic these days.
Amen to that. I was just diagnosed with Type 2 last year. Fortunately we caught it in the early stages (I was barely over the "line") and I seem to be able to control it through watching my diet and daily exercise.
My sister-in-law, however, is not doing well. Even glucophage has not been able to bring her blood sugar under control. Just recently she began having to inject insulin. She would be a good candidate for this drug.
Many people who joke about diabetes now probably don't realize that they already have it, or are well on their way to getting it.
I have never worked anywhere that demanded THAT much of my time. Of course, there were times when work got in the way of family life. But there were trade offs: My daughter was the first kid in her school to have her own computer; the first kid to have high speed internet access; her enterprise school had a great computer classroom, and a good webpage, thanks to "Dad". She had her own library card and learned early on how to search for and reserve books online. Then there was all the help with research, report layouts, science projects.
Here, let me ask her.... Her response: "It's great! Every time I have a computer problem I can just go to you. I don't have to suffer like my friends."
I'm a (minor) hero.
I see your point, but I must still disagree.
If he had not had a spreadsheet, he probably would have come to me first and asked for a report (like back in the good old days when nobody had a PC on their desk). At which point I would have showed him how to use the query manager (a 20+ year-old product) and, voila!
Using your logic, if he were building something, one would say he was more productive for using a crescent wrench to bang in a nail, instead of walking over to his neighbor to borrow a hammer.
...The spreadsheet is productive, very...
I can only partially agree with you. Spreadsheets are great tools, but what I see are people using them for everything; i.e., for jobs they were never intended to do.
Example: recently I had a user ask me to split a large file up into smaller files of ~60K records each. Why? So that they would fit in his spreadsheet. Instead, I offered to show him how to use the systems query product to get the information he was looking for. It opened up a whole new world for him. He used to download screeds of data to his PC, then manipulate it within a spreadsheet. Now he can do the same things in a fraction of the time with the query manager. In this case, the spreadsheet was a hindrance to productivity.
SuperCalc rules!
I see.
So...
San Jose = Silicon Valley.
Hollywood = Silicone Valley.
I agree with you. That's why I've left information about important passwords, etc. in my safety deposit box at the bank. None of the information is terribly important, but it would be, as you say, a PITA if my family needed to cancel or change the webspace on the server I use.
It is just another part of one's estate. A man should tell his family about these things.
Maybe he meant the wrong way first. An American will look to the left first, and sometimes begin stepping off the curb before looking right. This can be deadly in, say, England, where people drive on the left side of the road.
I thought about this years ago. I don't really have any important information to impart to my loved ones, but I'm sure it would be helpful for them if they were to know passwords to the home router/firewall, webspace, etc.
Directions to this information are in my safety deposit box at the bank, along with our wills, etc.
Some may laugh, but consider: Why leave hassles with your family (especially technically ignorant ones, like mine)? If they have easy access to these things then they can change or cancel services, modify settings, etc.
Yes, but look at the context of how it was used. Are you saying that the rebuilding of Collusus was a solemn ceremony or a sacrament?
How about using, "In memory of D-Day...", instead?
"In celebration of D-Day,...
Hooray! Thousands of people died! Let's par-tay!
I like what P.J. O'Rourke said along the same lines: "Everyone wants to save the Earth; nobody wants to help Mom clean up the kitchen."
Ugh! You mean with pink walls and everything?
Is this map before or after the entire town was moved (after Homer's untimely stint as town Sanitation Manager)?
Can't wait to share the road with semis and dump trucks in one of those pods.
I wholheartedly agree. For example: before the printing press there was little desire people to learn to read. Even much of the nobility were illiterate. With printed material becoming so easy to reproduce and distribute, a desire to read was sparked among all classes.
I see. But you write LCMS, which I understand to mean the Missouri Synod. All the LCMS members I've known are pretty conservative. The LCUSA(?) seems pretty liberal.
It's just that you don't often see anyone talking about "total depravity" outside traditional reformed circles (of which I am a part).
[confessional*] Lutherian church
Is this a particular Lutheran synod? I've never heard of it.