Visit this site [url redacted] for more information on Regulation 44. We have now released a revised and updated Children's Homes Regulations and Quality Standards friendly Regulation 44 Visit Template and a Visitors Compliance Pack which is available from our store. There is a clear expectation on regulation visitors to be up to date with their knowledge and how they impact a service may be commented on in the Inspection Report.Follow Us :[url redacted]

I respect your position and defence of it. I must say though that on inspection, the quoted reasoning can and therefore probably has been used in the past to condone slavery in America, and other awful stuff.

The problem with it is that you state your dedication to something regardless of the morality of it.

I'm trying to think of other things that have used the same reasoning. Sexism, bullfighting, fox hunting, anti-semitism, age old wars like the irish feud (until common sense prevailed)?

It really isn't a great way to set out your stall. There are so many things that we used to think were ok that needed to change, and the world is a better place because we didn't follow that "it's tradition" ethos.

I'd agree mostly, but if you'll notice, the wings are translucent and the big dark furry shape probably should have been noticed if he had been checking thoroughly.

Also, on a normal plane, wings tend to be full of fuel so internal wing inspections would be problematic at best, and the control arms and cables on an ultralight can certainly get blocked by a foreign body. Personally, the cat being where it was, I would have at least used that opening to check for visible cable fraying and would have most likely found him.

I'd also be looking for damage caused by the rodents the cat was probably hunting for to begin with.

@newtboy - I'm blown away at how certain you are it's all fake. I suggest you do what I did: Instead of using paper on your screen, just take a screenshot and insert into an image editor and inspect things there.

I cut the three tiles out and pasted them side-by-side and they are in fact the same color: http://i.imgur.com/e5lcV5P.png

I dragged straight lines on the checkerboard before and after the dots were added, and it has only straight lines.

I copied/pasted the blue tabletop, rotated it and it fit perfectly on the other one: http://i.imgur.com/QzT8nc8.png

Nothing was fudged in the video. It just shows how powerfully your brain is latching onto what it believes it is seeing.

It's like that dress photo from a few weeks ago. "Is it white and gold or purple and black?!" Many people were hardcore in one direction or the other.

The only one that left me confused is the pills. 1) He said they were red and blue, but they were yellow and turquoise. 2) They had holes in the pills allowing the background color through; it was only there that they looked colored, otherwise they were just gray. I suspect they were just trying to shoe-horn in a red pill blue pill Matrix reference.

Fire inspector goes out to fireworks barge to inspect fire control apparatus.

"Ah... very good. So what does this button do?"

"NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

No, I'm comfortable railing against it, thanks. I’m from another time because it’s an infantile word (ducky, horsy, potty, selfie) for an infantile practice. I am so sick of seeing everyone’s smug pasty bloated shit-eating grins at arms-length and closer. You can almost smell the bad breath coming off the picture. Or the bathroom mirror pictures, with people looking intently at the iphone, as if it took 20 complex steps to take a freakin picture of yourself. Or the avatars taken with a webcam, where they have that stupid blank look people have when they are looking at their computer screen.

I see former colleagues who look ridiculous on those business connection sites, what makes you think I want to see your pockmarked aging face that close up? What do people do with this stuff, sit back and run a slideshow on their computer while they gaze at themselves? Someone at a previous company had her cubicle walls filled with head shots of a woman, who I assumed was her partner. Nope, on closer inspection they all turned out to be pictures of her. Again, I’m from another time.

You rely on the government for national defense, you idiot. You know why? Because in the real world you can't defend yourself from foreign armies and terrorists. You depend upon the police for protection no matter how many guns you might have.

Where the disconnect here is the idiotic notion that we don't need government for things like health care regulation. The reality is ACA didn't just come out of the blue. It came from an obvious systemic problem within the overwhelmingly market controlled system.

You can keep mindlessly babbling all you want that government intervention is always bad, but that is turning an idiotically blind eye to basic US history, where there are ridiculous number of examples the government getting involved to effectively regulate industries are undeniably good, like the Meat Inspection Act, Food and Drug Administration, making it illegal to put lead in paint, regulations for car safety, regulations on buildings so you can't for example put asbestos in the walls, requiring labels on food so you know what ingredients are in them, so you could avoid nuts if you have a deadly nut allergy.

You know why? Because, despite your delusions, you can't inspect all your food, wear a mask when you walk into every building you go into to protect from asbestos, know that the tires you are buying don't have an excessively high chance of blowing off your car and killing you, ensure the air you breathe doesn't have too much lead in it, etc. etc. etc.

You're dependent on the government for all that, and it has massively improved your quality of life, and it has nothing to do with your self pride or dignity, so cut the utter bullcrap.

Sweet debate! Sweet coin! Sweet, kissable, oh so face fuckable lady in more detail than EVER. Why must they spend so little time inspecting that face, and so much time on the leaves??

"I'm the best damn inspector in the business and i'm here to inspect this dam!"

Haha instant classic...

Foulbrood is not cleanable. If you get it in this hive, say goodbye to your $600, or become a bee killer. Some people think it can be disinfected with fire, but not on plastic (and I don't trust that on wood either, miss one tiny spot and lose another hive or more).
Yes, you are right, you still need to inspect the hive, meaning you have to separate it and look at individual frames. That might be harder with the special frames, you might not be able to ever remove them. I can't tell.
The brood is in the box below, and should have a queen excluder between the boxes so you never get brood in the honey frames.
No idea how well it works, but I can tell it will leave the hive messy, with raw honey covering the bottom of the hive and caps and wax split and filling the empty spaces. The bees will eventually clean it up, but it will take time.
EDIT:also, if your bees don't fill out the frames perfectly, they might not split (because two or more are connected). Then what?
You are right, just jumping into beekeeping is not good, and can hurt other people's bees (like if you get foulbrood and leave the infected hive for other bees to scavenge). I can only hope that when you buy one, they strongly suggest people join bee keeping clubs and/or buy certain good books to learn. Even if they do, there will be bad beekeepers, and poorly placed bees.

There were multiple factors involved, and in the case of the Titanic sinking it was possibly partly related to the water temperature and the properties of both the steel hull and the rivets, as well as the design and the careless operation of the vessel.

Before the wreck was found, much more was made of the design of the watertight bulkheads which only went up to E deck. This allowed any four to be compromised without sinking the vessel, but six were breached in the Titanic, so as the boat tilted more, water could flow over the top of the bulkheads.

More recently, since inspection of the wreck became possible, metallurgy has been blamed much more. The hole made by the iceberg was straight and at the bottom of steel panels, indicating rivet failure. Testing of the steel used in the construction also found quality issues there, impurities would have made it more brittle than intended.

The first video on the subject that came up was this one:

"For those who are wondering, I convinced my interviewees that the bet was not a scam: they could inspect the coin, flip it themselves, use their own coin etc. I explained that the experiment was intended to explore their approach to risk. It was fear of losing $10, not distrust, that led them to decline the bet."

And here I was just about to point out that any bloke on the street offering me a similar bet is a con artist by default. Sometimes it is good to check YT comments first.

This video lacks a lot of salient details.

Yes, the F35 is aiming at the A10 because contractors want jobs (something to do).

However, the strength of the A10 is also its weakness. Low and slow also means that it takes you a long time to get to your troops. Fast jets arrive much sooner (significantly so). A combination of both would be ideal. F35 to get there ASAP, and A10 arriving later to take over.

It's not really worth debating the merit of new fighters. You don't wait for a war to start developing weapons.

Yes, our recent enemies are durkas with small arms, and you don't need an F35 to fight them - but you also don't even need to fight them to begin with - they aren't an existential threat. Terrorist attacks are emotionally charged (well, until they happen so often that you get used to hearing about them, and they stop affecting people), but they are nothing compared to say, a carpet bombing campaign.

The relevance of things like the F35 is to have weapons ready and able to face a large national power, should a nation v nation conflict arise with a significant other nation. In the event that such a conflict ever does, you don't want to be caught with your pants down.

Defense spending costs scale with oversight requirements.

Keep in mind that money pays people. Even materials are simply salaries of the material suppliers. The more people you put on a program, the more that program will cost.

Yes, big contractors make big profits - but the major chunk of their charges is still salaries.

Let me explain what is going on.

Remember the $100 hammers?
In fact, the hammer still cost a few bucks. What cost 100+ bucks was the total charges associated with acquiring a hammer.
Everything someone does in association with acquiring the hammer, gets charged to a charge code that's specific for that task.

Someone has to create a material request - $time.
Someone has to check contracts for whether or not it will be covered - $time.
Someone has to place the order - $time.
Someone has to receiver the package, inspect it, and put it into a received bin - $time.
Someone has to go through the received items and assign them property tags - $time.
Someone has to take the item to the department that needed it, and get someone to sign for it - $time.
Someone has to update the monthly contract report - $time.
Someone has to generate an entry in the process artifacts report, detailing the actions taken in order to acquire the hammer - $time.
Someone on the government side has to review the process artifacts report, and validate that proper process was followed (and if not, punish the company for skipping steps) - $time.

Add up all the minutes here and there that each person charged in association with getting a hammer, and it's $95 on top of a $5 hammer. Which is why little things cost so much.

You could say "Hey, why do all that? Just buy the hammer".
Well, if a company did that, it would be in trouble with govt. oversight folks because they violated the process.
If an employee bought a hammer of his own volition, he would be in trouble with his company for violating the process.
The steps are required, and if you don't follow them, and there is ever any problem/issue, your lack of process will be discovered on investigation, and you could face massive liability - even if it's not even relevant - because it points to careless company culture.

Complex systems like jet fighters necessarily have bugs to work out. When you start using the system, that's when you discover all the bits and pieces that nobody anticipated - and you fix them. That's fine. That's always been the case.



As an airplane example, imagine if there's an issue with a regulator that ultimately causes a system failure - but that issue is just some constant value in a piece of software that determines a duty cycle.

Say for example, that all it takes is changing 1 digit, and recompiling. Ez, right? NOPE!

An engineer can't simply provide a fix.

If something went wrong, even unrelated, but simply in the same general system, he could be personally liable for anything that happens.

On top of that, if there is no contract for work on that system, then an engineer providing a free fix is robbing the company of work, and he could get fired.

A company can't instruct an engineer to provide a fix for the same reasons that the engineer himself can't just do it.

So, the process kicks in.

Someone has to generate a trouble report - $time.
Someone has to identify a possible solution - $time.
Someone has to check contracts to see if work on that fix would be covered under current tasking - $time.
Say it's not covered (it's a previously closed [i.e. delivered] item), so you need a new charge code.
Someone has to write a proposal to fix the defect - $time.
Someone has to go deal with the government to get them to accept the proposal - $time.
(say it's accepted)
Someone has to write new contracts with the government for the new work - $time.
To know what to put into the contract, "requrements engineers" have to talk with the "software engineers" to get a list of action items, and incorporate them into the contract - $time.
(say the contract is accepted)
Finance in conjuration with Requirements engineers has to generate a list of charge codes for each action item - $time.
CM engineers have to update the CM system - $time.
Some manager has to coordinate this mess, and let folks know when to do what - $time.
Software engineer goes to work, changes 1 number, recompiles - $time.
Software engineer checks in new load into CM - $time.
CM engineer updates CM history report - $time.
Software engineer delivers new load to testing manger - $time.
Test manager gets crew of 30 test engineers to run the new load through testing in a SIL (systems integration lab) - $time.
Test engineers write report on results - $time.
If results are fine, Test manager has 30 test engineers run a test on real hardware - $time.
Test engineers write new report - $time.
(assuming all went well)
CM engineer gets resting results and pushes the task to deliverable - $time.
Management has a report written up to hand to the governemnt, covering all work done, and each action taken - documenting that proper process was followed - $time.
Folks writing document know nothing technical, so they get engineers to write sections covering actual work done, and mostly collate what other people send to them - $time.
Engineers write most the report - $time.
Company has new load delivered to government (sending a disk), along with the report/papers/documentation - $time.
Government reviews the report, but because the govt. employees are not technical and don't understand any of the technical data, they simply take the company's word for the results, and simply grade the company on how closely they followed process (the only thing they do understand) - $time.
Company sends engineer to government location to load the new software and help government side testing - $time.
Government runs independent acceptance tests on delivered load - $time.
(Say all goes well)
Government talks with company contracts people, and contract is brought to a close - $time.
CM / Requirements engineers close out the action item - $time.

And this is how a 1 line code change takes 6 months and 5 million dollars.

And this gets repeated for _everything_.

Then imagine if it is a hardware issue, and the only real fix is a change of hardware. For an airplane, just getting permission to plug anything that needs electricity into the airplanes power supply takes months of paper work and lab testing artifacts for approval. Try getting your testing done in that kind of environment.



Basically, the F35 could actually be fixed quickly and cheaply - but the system that is in place right now does not allow for it. And if you tried to circumvent that system, you would be in trouble. The system is required. It's how oversight works - to make sure everything is by the book, documented, reviewed, and approved - so no money gets wasted on any funny business.

Best part, if the government thinks that the program is costing too much, they put more oversight on it to watch for more waste.
Because apparently, when you pay more people to stare at something, the waste just runs away in fear.
Someone at the contractors has to write the reports that these oversight people are supposed to be reviewing - so when you go to a contractor and see a cube farm with 90 paper pushers and 10 'actual' engineers (not a joke), you start to wonder how anything gets done.

Once upon a time, during the cold war, we had an existential threat.
People took things seriously. There was no F'ing around with paperwork - people had to deliver hardware. The typical time elapsed from "idea" to "aircraft first flight" used to be 2 years. USSR went away, cold war ended, new hardware deliveries fell to a trickle - but the spending remained, and the money billed to an inflated process.

-scheherazade

Also he should have never been pulled over as he has dealer plates and is exempt from inspection sticker thing.

Took him to the hospital and after was released from custody with no charges.

Jesus, fucking hostile much? Thanks for posting a proper news link which this thread was lacking, but I'm not sure you read it thoroughly. "Parks shall not be used for business or social services." Nobody can sell or give away food there, to rich people or to homeless people. No hot dog stands unless they get a letter from the city.

The fact that the mayor amended his statement from "feeding the homeless just enables them" to "you can feed the homeless, but only indoors" belies his real feelings on the matter, but his excuse does have lots of precedent behind it. Cities mandate permits for all kinds of stuff, especially on public land. Not only that, but if you serve the food closer to the kitchen it stays hotter longer which reduces the risk of food poisoning. So, food safety? Technically yes. Not making the occasional exception for charity? Pretty shitty. I wonder what would happen if they asked for a permit.

And "catered food" describes how it was prepared, not how it is served. It is purchased from a business with inspected kitchens and health ratings, not from some person's back room where they leave the chicken out unrefrigerated covered in rat shit. It also usually comes in identical bins like that, whereas a randomized tupperware collection would look more like something privately prepared. It was just an observation which could indicate (or preclude) more food safety issues.

Do church kitchens have health inspections since they are not restaurants? Maybe that's the next thing the mayor can crack down on to keep the homeless hungry so they learn to get a job.

In conclusion, I hate writing follow-ups to internet comments, because now I know there's going to be another round to which I will probably not respond. Don't be offended.