After Hurricane Katrina, I got to see what salt water did to some furniture from the house where I grew up. The furniture sat in 27 inches of water for several weeks.

The other night I watched a Hurricane Sandy report on salt water in the subway system and a discussion of how the machinery will have to be taken apart and cleaned.

>> ^Stu:

You know why kids didn't used to act up in school when I was younger? We got hit. Kids today have no fear of authority. They used to send us to the teacher with a paddle and if she wasn't there, we went to the one with the meter stick. Fuck it. Hit your kids. That's what is wrong with this country. No one has respect anymore.


A child isn't a stereo, it isn't a broken piece of machinery you need to FIX. Some people say "Well my kid was doing something I didn't like so I hit him...and he stopped doing it." REALLY!?!? Is that ALL That happened? You sure that being the sentient human that he is that striking your child didn't effect him in any way whatsoever?!?

I'm blatantly stealing this shit from Louis CK btw, sometimes comedians are the greatest bearer of truth we have.

The narrator's cheerful, energetic voice combined with the ballet of machinery, not to mention the product that's being manufactured which has never failed to fascinate.....oh and don't forget the Moog soundtrack???-"Two tumbs uuuuup!"

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
FAA is going to freak if they find this video and incident has not been reported. o.0

I'm right there with you, that may in fact be one hell of a major no-no and I hope they were over empty lands.
I wonder under normal regulations if they are actually even supposed to continue operating in an event like that, considering all the regulations put on flying (there are a lot). I know it looks like some guy's dumpy car just lost a side door, no biggy, but in flying they breath fire down your neck for missing certain bolts or those said bolts even being remotely loose... I'll have to look and see if a pilot can make a judgment call concerning no mandatory operation machinery attached to the craft coming off (that may be part of the main fuselage!)
I did look and see that the national statistic on flights that should have remained grounded getting fixed (some problems not so big, some big enough that when the plane landed emergency crews were needed to put out fires, not including MANY of the emergency landings at the wrong airport before the plane truly does CRASH) that number comes in at around 65000 flights over six years... This is from the FAA, so we're talking about mostly small business's up to large airlines like Delta. BUT, it must always be remembered that they do a better job than your average driver and their car by far; they just have much more "flashier" endings I guess you could say. Which makes the media frenzy about it like a feeding pool that CNN & FOX News ALIKE, engorge until nothing is left but the tasteless morsels that just reiterate everything we have been told by them before this...it is unfortunate that not only we are exposed to this media circus, but also that 'flying' is being dragged through the toxin-filled-sludge created by our media-hype-elite...
I'd figure the ONE group of people that might actually take great care of their machinery is the smaller business and solo-flyer's. I know one of my grandfather's brother spent hours on end with his plane making sure it was in tip-top shape and making sure his flight plans were exacting (he was kinda a bush-pilot, so that was important to him, if you know what I mean). A small off-topic element to this: I remember going through his flight plans and maps that went up through the Western U.S., into Western Canada, then into lower Alaska...it was amazing to see what detail he went into to get the job done; I would feel very safe flying with him if I ever did, because of the extreme measures he went to to get everything right...
I wonder if the pilot had to worry about anything when they landed, it's impossible to see from the clip, but you don't see if it goes up at all and hits the plane--but, I'd assume since everyone is acting basically happy and fine (no panic at all) I assume that the rest of that flight went normally, except for that and the large amounts of paperwork that wold follow it... (Assuming they weren't idiotic and DID report it...)


Found a little blurp about it here.

Quote
Nah it wasn't our fault. There were ten 'other' jumpers before us. Some were new and didn't know how to operate it. On takeoff they failed to close it properly and then in the back from held it down with there feet till 2500 where two of them stood up to close it properly. When they stood on it it was pushed below the stops on either side (the angle iron shaped things) and then turned the handle. I am assuming the locking pin went below the frame of the door. At height they stood to open the door - stepping on the door and turning the handle. The door didn't rise. They then stood on it harder with no change to the result. They then stood on it harder and pushed it down into the wind and it caught air and took off. One of the coolest things I have ever seen. The door landed in the quarry and has been recovered - it needs about $100 in repairs and will be back in action this weekend (or so i have been told).

Was looking for more on it but so far zip.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

FAA is going to freak if they find this video and incident has not been reported. o.0


I'm right there with you, that may in fact be one hell of a major no-no and I hope they were over empty lands.

I wonder under normal regulations if they are actually even supposed to continue operating in an event like that, considering all the regulations put on flying (there are a lot). I know it looks like some guy's dumpy car just lost a side door, no biggy, but in flying they breath fire down your neck for missing certain bolts or those said bolts even being remotely loose... I'll have to look and see if a pilot can make a judgment call concerning no mandatory operation machinery attached to the craft coming off (that may be part of the main fuselage!)

I did look and see that the national statistic on flights that should have remained grounded getting fixed (some problems not so big, some big enough that when the plane landed emergency crews were needed to put out fires, not including MANY of the emergency landings at the wrong airport before the plane truly does CRASH) that number comes in at around 65000 flights over six years... This is from the FAA, so we're talking about mostly small business's up to large airlines like Delta. BUT, it must always be remembered that they do a better job than your average driver and their car by far; they just have much more "flashier" endings I guess you could say. Which makes the media frenzy about it like a feeding pool that CNN & FOX News ALIKE, engorge until nothing is left but the tasteless morsels that just reiterate everything we have been told by them before this...it is unfortunate that not only we are exposed to this media circus, but also that 'flying' is being dragged through the toxin-filled-sludge created by our media-hype-elite...

I'd figure the ONE group of people that might actually take great care of their machinery is the smaller business and solo-flyer's. I know one of my grandfather's brother spent hours on end with his plane making sure it was in tip-top shape and making sure his flight plans were exacting (he was kinda a bush-pilot, so that was important to him, if you know what I mean). A small off-topic element to this: I remember going through his flight plans and maps that went up through the Western U.S., into Western Canada, then into lower Alaska...it was amazing to see what detail he went into to get the job done; I would feel very safe flying with him if I ever did, because of the extreme measures he went to to get everything right...

I wonder if the pilot had to worry about anything when they landed, it's impossible to see from the clip, but you don't see if it goes up at all and hits the plane--but, I'd assume since everyone is acting basically happy and fine (no panic at all) I assume that the rest of that flight went normally, except for that and the large amounts of paperwork that wold follow it... (Assuming they weren't idiotic and DID report it...)

Race car drivers, sky divers, scuba divers, high voltage line repair guys, anyone who works around machinery, tree trimmers, .......etc. Lots of jobs out there can kill you in freak ways that no matter how much you prepare you'll still die. And none of the stuff you're working on will protect you either when those things happen.

At least with an animal, if you're in a pack of them one going nuts might end up being the pack of them on you or the others protecting you. A lot like groups of people...once you get enough people together, one guy doing something stupid go either way. More people joining in or people quashing it.......

Think it'd be cool, especially if you raised them....you could probably tell more easily WTF is up with a big cat than WTF up with your teenage daughter.

>> ^A10anis:

I'm afraid I cannot see any correlation between driving a car, and climbing into a cage with a lion! A car is an inanimate object. It is not susceptible to whims, or moods, and has not existed for millennia with the sole purpose of tearing living animals apart to feed it's family. Of course they both have risks - putting on your socks has risks. But there are rational risks, and bloody stupid risks. Your example, which compares one as equatable to the other is, frankly, a non-sequitur. As for
Steve Irwin; His death, as any, was tragic. But here was an "expert" who, despite his knowledge, died at the hands of a wild animal. I think that proves my point, there are NO experts.


Although the car is inanimate, it is susceptible to whims and moods -- certainly the whims and moods of other drivers (and yourself), but arguably also the occasional "quirk" in the machinery or state of some parts that can exhibit itself almost like a living thing. Perhaps it was a poor example or non-sequitur (RIP Mitch Heberg), but it makes sense to me anyway.

Maybe there are no "experts" with these wild animals (-- maybe there are no expert drivers?) but the difference between a rational risk and a bloody stupid risk is subjective, and I think that the people that work with these animals for a living (or as their passion) are personally quite comfortable with what they are doing, and believe that the risks they are taking are rational. Even if they know/believe that what they are doing has more risk of injury/death than other jobs/hobbies/activities, they feel that it is worth doing.

We don't have to agree with them. I find things like smoking or bungee jumping to be bloody stupid risks (or more accurately activities with an extremely poor cost-benefit analysis), but to people that do and love those things, my personal difference of opinion with them is of no concern (nor should it be). Life's a messy thing; no matter how much padding or how many safety nets we surround ourselves with our luck will run out eventually. I think that for the dude in this video (and for Steve Irwin), the chance to live their lives loving what they do is worth the risk of dying from it.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

If somebody double-parks you in like that, I think it is basically reasonable to give them a "nudge" if it will buy you enough room to get out. But as mentioned by @Payback, it looked like there was likely enough room to squeak through at the correct angle either without hitting either car, or certainly after a light push or two of the offending car.
Being pissed off makes us take things further than necessary, but I'd still say that is not much of an excuse for when he tried to do a sustained push and the rear end slid around into the innocent bystander car to the right.
I kinda miss the good old days, when cars had bigass bumpers and weren't afraid to use 'em. My first car was a 1979 Lincoln Continental. That thing had a huge bumper with thick rubber pads at the contact points, not to mention what seemed like a 20' long hood (that was 60% empty, not like modern cars where the machinery fills the entire hood). In that car, high mass + thick bumper = anything blocking your path wouldn't stay there for long.


Yeah, also meant that in a crash you died.

Seriously, crash in a new car compared to an old car and you are umpteen times more likely to walk away from the accident. I think more easily dinted bumpers is a small price to pay for being alive.

If somebody double-parks you in like that, I think it is basically reasonable to give them a "nudge" if it will buy you enough room to get out. But as mentioned by @Payback, it looked like there was likely enough room to squeak through at the correct angle either without hitting either car, or certainly after a light push or two of the offending car.

Being pissed off makes us take things further than necessary, but I'd still say that is not much of an excuse for when he tried to do a sustained push and the rear end slid around into the innocent bystander car to the right.

I kinda miss the good old days, when cars had bigass bumpers and weren't afraid to use 'em. My first car was a 1979 Lincoln Continental. That thing had a huge bumper with thick rubber pads at the contact points, not to mention what seemed like a 20' long hood (that was 60% empty, not like modern cars where the machinery fills the entire hood). In that car, high mass + thick bumper = anything blocking your path wouldn't stay there for long.

Yeah legalize it.

It's ridiculous how much money is spent trying to combat a substance that is in more ways than not safer or has greater benefits than alcohol. Estimates vary but most reviews I've seen range the cost of combating such a 'drug' as more than $10 billion per year in the US alone.

Example:
2010 had the US spend $15+ billion at Federal level and another $25+ at state level on the war on drugs.
That's $40 billion that could go towards medical, social, education programs, or even to work towards paying off some depts.

This site's stats seem to be including more than marijuana, but at near the end of April 2012, the total is already over $12 billion, almost 13.
http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

An estimated 50% give/take of citizens have used or use the substance.

Supply and demand encourage drug syndicates to form and become more ruthless in their enterprises, the prohibition on alcohol is a decent example.

The substance when consumed is significantly safer with heavy machinery like public driving etc than alcohol (not saying that driving stoned should be encouraged, but far less dangerous then alcohol), and it's common place behavioral effects leave the consumer with greater control re social behavior and better rational processing opposed to alcohol when high levels of the substances are compared.
Not trying to smash booze, just highlighting that if 1 is acceptable, then the other dam well should be as well.

Governments allow smoking Tabasco to be legal because of the taxation/financial benefits despite the well known and documented issues with the substance.

The medicinal properties alone should be enough to give the substance leeway that most other recreational drugs wouldn't receive.

Rather than spending money against it, regulating it would make it safer for use while also turning a profit for the government and being legal it could then be taxed to further the financial return.

As far as i know, no one has ever died from an overdose of marijuana.

I personally haven't used it for a few years (save the rare one-off opportunistic occasions) but am a strong advocate that it's a good and/or reasonable substance for personal use.

>> ^lantern53:

Any 'Occupy' event is protected by free speech as long as you are assembled in a lawful manner. When you 'occupy' an area in violation of the law, you risk arrest.
But meeting at the local church is out because these people don't like Christianity, and they won't meet any other legal place because it would not elicit the press coverage they desire.


you have no idea what you are talking about.
many of the rights you enjoy were hard fought by practices implemented by the OWS movement but they are in no way a "new" practice.
this is about clogging the cogs of the machinery of government and business and little to do with press coverage.
why?
because those in power will ALWAYS attempt to marginalize the voices of those who challenge said power.
as we speak the senate is voting on NEW restrictions which makes certain protest areas a felony and no longer a misdemeanor.
think that is a coincidence?
that the bill being passed just happens to coincide with the OWS protestor population rising?

and lets not forget st paul and the RNC convention in 2008 and the authoritarian practices implemented by the st paul police and the so-called "free-speech" zones set miles away from the actual events.

you can go all the way back to the early 1900's and find how protestors got their message across.the labor movement comes to mind.
or the civil rights.
vietnam protests.
there were deaths at the hand of police and hired security firms.
beatings and maimings.
intimidations and bullying.
but those protestors used the very same tactics being used by OWS...
hell,they perfected those tactics.
and they are extremely effective.

i could go on...
but you are obviously an authoritarian and the magnificent history of peoples movements in america are lost on you.
and the comment about the OWS movement disliking chritianity just seems fabricated,or at its best painted with an extremely broad brush.
it still smacks of you not knowing what you are talking about.

I don't know why messenger sifted this, but as someone who gets paid to think about math, there are several features of this video that struck me as unusually worthwhile. Here are the two unusual points that I saw here:

1) Math is whatever we define it to be. The test of a new idea is whether it is self-consistent and whether it solves a problem that someone else is interested in. This is a good message for anyone who comes up against difficult abstract problems in their life.

2) To argue about a certain set of objects, you need to work within the framework of a theory that defines those objects. Specifically, to argue about infinite decimals, you need to work within the machinery of calculus. Hidden assumptions often make a true argument incomplete, or a plausible argument vacuous. We waste so many hours in heated arguments that are just a disagreement on definitions or assumptions.

>> ^messenger:

Several people have already risen to your challenge to define fascism. Googling it reveals many dictionary and encyclopaedic definitions (unless you've got a thing against truthiness). None bear any resemblance to Obama. Your move.
I agree with what you're saying and I'm trying to show that you're not telling us anything the average adult doesn't already know about American presidents. It's like telling everyone that alcohol gets you drunk. If you did, someone would probably say, "Yes, and what's your point?" Get it now?

Who here has been able to define their terms? Apart from one moron who copy-pasted the dictionary, shit which would not even fly in grade school, only me. So, my work must frame the discussion.

My narrow definition, which is a distillation of the work of experts, is both more elegant and more comprehensive than any you'll find in a dictionary. However, even those blunt instruments, except where they make amateur mistakes like placing dictatorship as an essential tenet of fascist ideology, closely describe modern US political conditions. Where do you see a deviation?

These observations are important. The POTUS is an immensely influential and historically significant individual. His supporters have to be confronted with the character of the man they're empowering.

I'm not here to tell you alcohol gets you drunk. I'm here to tell you to stop drinking while operating heavy machinery.

Ahhh... the Ballad of Hinge Thunder!

Medical device sales man. Starts out trying to pronounce weird eletrostaticdiscombubulator machinery. Ends up almost losing his child because he can't understand anyone.

I always liked that one as it wasn't really fantasy or science fiction just a story about someone with Aphasia told from his perspective.
>> ^spoco2:

I have this episode burned into my brain as it was one of a few 80s Twilight Zone episodes the my dad had taped off the tv, so I watched this, plus the one where the man slowly loses the ability to speak english (to him and us it starts seeming like everyone is using the wrong words for things), and one where a food critic does a bad review of a Chinese Restaurant and is doomed to eternally eat there when he gets a bad fortune cookie.
Yup, that's it for me and the Twilight Zone of the 80s, just those stories, burned in there!