I thought I even saw feathers around 1:05. I do wonder what kind of injuries these are causing to the birds. I know it's not human maliciousness, but it's generally at this exact point that we should recognize it's going to be a problem and address it.

Anyone remember the manatee thing?
http://www.livescience.com/19639-manatee-hearing-boats.html

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manatee+boat+injury

I haven't heard of one either, but the fact that we -have- heard of good cops blowing the whistle, even if they were forced out later, proves that there have been some good ones. And it's completely unbelievable that there aren't still some others out there, who haven't yet had to make that decision, but who will choose the right path when push comes to shove.

Tarring them with the same feather as the bad cops is doing them a disservice almost as bad as the coverups are for the rest of us. It's unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong.

I'm all for locking up the bad cops, and for treating those who cover up crimes by their fellow officers as equally guilty of those crimes. But I'm -not- fine with condemning people for crimes there is no evidence they participated in. I'm not willing to become what we are trying to fight against.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

We're never gonna know why that co-pilot triggered the feather control...

Thats a juvenile, you can tell by how grey / fluffy its feathers are.

Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! My darling!
Light goes the weather-wind and the feathered starling.
Down along under Hill, shining in the sunlight,
Waiting on the doorstep for the cold starlight,
There my pretty lady is, River-woman's daughter,
Slender as the willow-wand, clearer than the water.
Old Tom Bombadil water-lilies bringing
Comes hopping home again. Can you hear him singing?
Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! and merry-o!
Goldberry, Goldberry, merry yellow berry-o!
Poor old Willow-man, you tuck your roots away!
Tom's in a hurry now. Evening will follow day.
Tom's going home again water-lilies bringing.
Hey! Come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?

Are you sure? When he spreads out his tail feathers at 0:19 the tail looks rather more crow like to me.

http://naturemappingfoundation.org/natmap/facts/crow_vs_raven.html

Thats one seriously stressed bird. looks like its feather plucked its whole belly.

With grouse the only usable meat is the breast. well you could take your time and take all the feathers off and maybe make a stew with the carcase like Carl Weathers would, but it is not worth the time or effort, the boob meat is the main source, maybe make a dog meal out of the guts I am not sure. Hardly wasteful though.

***

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9273033/Re_Field_Dressing_Grouse

This seems to take more meat off the body, I like this method although personally I would just do both.

*quality

Woman is flighty.
Like a feather in the wind,
she changes in voice
and in thought.

Always a lovely,
pretty face,
in tears or in laughter,
it's untrue.

Woman is flighty.
like a feather in the wind,
she changes in voice
and in thought!

Always miserable
is he who trusts her,
he who confides in her
his unwary heart!

Yet one never feels
fully happy
who from that bosom
does not drink love!

Woman is flighty.
Like a feather in the wind,
she changes her words,
and her thoughts!

And where are their feathers?

It's not falsifying details. It's nonsensical to pose the problem so that surface irregularities are taken into consideration. Or the fact like in this video the feather started below the bowling ball.

It's a trivial 3-body problem. You can represent them by three balls, one of mass Heavy, one of mass Medium, one of mass Light. As long as Medium and Light start at the same distance from Heavy, Medium and Heavy will always hit first. You can run this test in an orbital simulator if you don't believe me.

Oh...so it's OK with you to simplify and 'falsify details' significantly by modeling the earth as a perfect sphere, but not ignore the mathematically insignificant and immeasurably small possible movement of the earth in some direction or another due to multiple immeasurably small gravities?! WHAT?!? ;-)

....Um...1 degree on earth is 111.2 KM, there's such a tiny difference (1 cm+-) they are in the same place for all possible measureable purposes, nothing like 1 deg apart. My scientific calculator won't give an answer, 1 deg * (1cm/111.2km) =0.00deg on it. (OK, it's not hard math...1/11120000 deg.) Because of this, yes, they WOULD cross the imaginary line, AND hit the earth at the same time by any possible measurement. If the smallest distance measureable is FAR larger than the distance they differ by, and the smallest time measureable is MUCH longer than the difference in time they hit, normal (and most abnormal) people say it's exactly the same.

And again...the experiment properly ignores any infinitely tiny immeasurable movement of the earth in ANY random direction for the obvious reasons already stated. There's far more difference based on the precise position of mercury than the position of the bowling ball and feather, especially when they are nearly touching...You know and understand this.

There's no such thing as acceleration of just the ball. Everything is relative; there are no fixed bodies. We just ignore the movement of the earth in these things, because as far as approximations go, it makes no practical difference.

They would not cross an imaginary line at the same time, since if the earth is modelled as a perfect sphere, it will be pulled slightly toward the bowling ball (the actual vector being somewhere between them because the feather has a small moment). If there's a 1 degree difference in the drop between the feather and ball, which looks about right for this experiment, this will result in a 1.7% advantage for the bowling ball hitting the earth first from the very slight movement of the earth.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

The trouble with teaching people that the bowling ball and feather will hit at, quoting the physicist in this clip, "exactly the same time", is that (relativity issues aside making the statement a joke anyway) it leads people to have a faulty understanding of how gravity actually works.

It's fine to teach that bowling balls and feathers will hit at *approximately* the same time, due to one mass in the equation being much higher than the other (allowing us to approximate it out), but it seems to never be taught this way. So these students end up with all sorts of wrong ideas about gravity when they get to me to work on n-body solvers.

It's the same problem, for example, as teaching elementary school kids that 5 divided by 0 is 0. It might make that teacher's life a little easier, but causes problems downstream.