People don't just collect them. They enjoy shooting them. I don't own any, yet I can see why firing some FMJs from a Bushmaster would be fun. Similarly, people like to get drunk (a much more common hobby). I can also see why that might be fun. As you might expect, that hobby results in many more fatalities than all gun related deaths, yet the prohibition of alcohol is not on the table.

This myth that guns only exist to kill things needs to go. Most guns never kill anything. They are fun to shoot, just like slingshots and boomerangs. I would never say the only purpose of a boomerang is killing. For all of the above the primary purpose is entertainment. I'm of the opinion that methods of entertainment should not be forcibly banned by the government unless they represent a significant problem. I won't be convinced that ARs have crossed that threshold until everyone is willing to kiss off their liquor as well.

@bobknight33 your oversimplified numbers don't tell the entire story, because you don't understand marginal tax rates.

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2013-federal-income-tax-brackets-and-marginal-rates/

"Keep in mind that the tax rates listed in these tables are marginal rates. That means that you do not owe your rate on all of your income. For example, if you single, you earn $100,000 per year, and Scenario 2 (tax cuts expire for all) is the prevailing law, you would not owe 31% on all of your income — you would not owe $38,000 to the federal government. You would owe 15% of 36,250, 28% of $51,600 (the difference between the top and the threshold of the second tax bracket), and 31% of $12,150 (the difference between your income and the threshold of the third tax bracket).

That calculation results in $5,437.50 plus $14,448 plus $3,766.50, or $23,652. That’s an effective tax rate of about 23.7% before your credits are taken into account, assuming your taxable income is the same as your gross income. Your effective tax rate could be much lower if deductions have already reduced your taxable income to $100,000 from a larger gross income. For example, if a 401(k) contribution reduced your taxable income from $115,000 to $100,000, you would still use the same tax calculation I’ve described here, but your effective tax rate would be 20.6%."

@dag Don't get me wrong, I like most of the system on the sift. And I agree it should take a while to get used to all the nooks and crannies.

I just feel like limiting powerpoints to years active seems like a high threshold.. Maybe months would be better?

But then again, I don't see why limiting power points is a good idea in the first place, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about. I still feel your star level is more than enough to judge how much power you can have. Adding limits on power points on top of that just seems a bit too much.

Also, @lucky760 - is it bad that some people are "collecting" power points? if so, maybe add some sort of expiration dates to the points? and why is it bad?

IF YOU THOUGHT HEALTH CARE WAS EXPENSIVE BEFORE, WAIT UNTIL OBAMARXCARE MAKES IT FREE!


Although some of the "fiscal cliff" taxes can be avoided through a deal made in Congress, new ObamaCare taxes are guaranteed to kick in on January 1, amounting to $268 billion tax hike.

The Obamacare Medical Device Tax – a $20 billion tax increase: Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will increase the cost of your health care – making everything from pacemakers to prosthetics more expensive.

The Obamacare “Special Needs Kids Tax” – a $13 billion tax increase: The 30-35 million Americans who use a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2,500 (currently the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap).

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are several million families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.

The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income – a $123 billion tax increase: This is a new, 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:


The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions – a $15.2 billion tax increase: Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans. This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.

The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike --an $86.8 billion tax increase: The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits. Under this tax hike, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate instead. This is a direct marginal income tax hike on small business owners, who are liable for self-employment tax in most cases.

Not only does this tax increase costs on companies, it also increases costs on hospitals, doctors and people in need of medical treatment that requires medical devices to be used. As a consequence of this, biomedical or medical device engineering firms are already laying off workers who develop crucial medical products due to the "unforeseen" costs, or in other words, the costs of ObamaCare. Not to mention, the more money these companies pay to the government, the less money they have to invest in research and development.

With this new medical device tax, students who pay large sums of money to get degrees in the field of biomedical engineering, just like doctors, will no longer see the benefits of going into the field and therefore, we will have a shortage of engineers developing new medical device technology. The medical device tax is a death sentence for American medical innovation.

OWN IT, LIBS!

Lv,

QM

Looks like both are at fault here. The SUV didn't stop, and the plane is coming in way too low. Look at this satellite image of the airport, those yellow arrows pointing to the white line indicates a displaced threshold. Planes can takeoff from the displaced threshold, but they are not supposed to land on it.

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

The linear no threshold model for low dose exposure cancer risk is falling out of favor in the scientific community btw, imma upvote because all of this other illustrations are really excellent. The correlation between amounts of cancer and low dose radiation in many new and old studies seems to point to some threshold where low dose presents no harm. More studies need to be done to find exactly what this is. LNT is still ok for determining upper bounds of risk, but shouldn't be used for lower bound analysis. Which means to say a study could say 100 people have a risk of cancer deaths, but there is also possibility that the number could be 0. More studies into thresholds or even hormesis need to be conducted

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Maybe we need sub bronze, or tin stars?>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^bareboards2:
Sweetie, you are two vids away from bronze. Your situation is easily fixed with a minimum of effort.

I was wondering if anyone would take the time to check that. (I was surprised when I noticed it just a few weeks ago, because I'm honestly not sure where some of those stars came from. I know I wasn't very close right after 4.0, and kinda lost interest out of frustration at the time.) I'm sure it doesn't bolster my argument that I'm also sitting on 7 Power Points at the moment. (I'd have to go look up what they're even good for pre-Bronze.)
While I agree with you that thresholds are good things in a largely self-moderated community such as the Sift, I think some of the Bronze level powers would be perfectly safe in the hands of folks with far fewer than 25 Star Points.

>> ^bareboards2:

Sweetie, you are two vids away from bronze. Your situation is easily fixed with a minimum of effort.

I was wondering if anyone would take the time to check that. (I was surprised when I noticed it just a few weeks ago, because I'm honestly not sure where some of those stars came from. I know I wasn't very close right after 4.0, and kinda lost interest out of frustration at the time.) I'm sure it doesn't bolster my argument that I'm also sitting on 7 Power Points at the moment. (I'd have to go look up what they're even good for pre-Bronze.)

While I agree with you that thresholds are good things in a largely self-moderated community such as the Sift, I think some of the Bronze level powers would be perfectly safe in the hands of folks with far fewer than 25 Star Points.

Sweetie, you are two vids away from bronze. Your situation is easily fixed with a minimum of effort.

Talk to eric3579 -- he's always been generous with finding siftable vids that he himself doesn't want to post. He has given me several Top 15 vids... you might even earn some power points out of the deal, if he is still being generous (it's been awhile since he has shared with me.)

I'm glad that there are thresholds that need to be met in order to gain certain powers. It doesn't stop the odd Self-Destructo from using their powers to wreck havoc when they leave, but certainly it slows down folks who are bent that way from the beginning.

Two vids and you can dead head to your heart's content, my friend! No need to keep yourself hobbled.


>> ^ReverendTed:

Two things in your post really play off each other. Dead videos and the random feature.
Sometimes I'll sit down and just start hitting Random, occasionally tracking through the Related videos (much in the same way one can get lost on a Wikipedia journey). But I'm often struck by the number of dead videos (account closed, video removed, copyright claim, etc).
I'd love to report them (or attempt to repair them), but my bronze star got revoked in the 4.0 reorg.

I did a little amateur investigation, a bit of reading and some numbers but you can skip to the bottom for a summary.

The plane is a Stinson 108-3, 16500 foot service ceiling, 2400 pound gross weight limit (1300 empty weight), 50 gallon fuel capacity. Thats about 1100 of useful weight (2400-1300), with full fuel that lowers it to 800 (6lbs per gallon*50 gallons=300lbs), I saw 3 men in there the 4th passenger I'm gonna assume male, so lets say 180lbs for each (200 for the pilot) that comes to 740lbs for passenger weight. That leaves 60lbs for cargo. Although I couldn't see the cargo, they were still close to the weight limit but still could have been within normal limits.

The airport Bruce Meadows (U63) has a field elevation of 6370 feet. I couldnt find the airport temperature for that day but I did find nearby Stanley Airport 23 Miles southeast of Bruce Meadows. Their METAR history shows a high of 27 Celsius/81 Fahrenheit for June 30, 2012. Definitely a hot day but was it too hot? The closest I could find on performance data shows a 675 Feet per Minute climb at 75 Fahrenheit at sea level. Thats pretty close to what many small planes of that nature can do, so I took those numbers and transposed them over what a Cessna 172N could do. The 172N has a slighty higher climb performance about 750 for sea level and 75 Fahrenheit, a difference of 75 feet ill subtract out. At 6000 feet at 27C/81F the 172N climbs at 420FPM. Taking out the 75 feet brings it to 345 FPM, now I know this isn't perfect but I'm going with what I have. The plane began its climb out at 1:13 and crashed at 2:55, that leaves 1 minute and 42 seconds in between or 1.7 minutes. 1.7*345 means about 590 feet possible gain. But the plane isn't climbing at its best the entire video, at 2:35 it is apparent something is giving it trouble, that brings it down to about 1.58 minutes climb time which is 545 feet. Theres still another factor to consider and thats how consistent the altitude at the ground was.

The runway at Bruce meadows faces at 05/23 (Northeast/Southwest) but most likely he took runway 23 (Southwest) as immediately to the north east theres a wildlife preserve (Gotta fly at least 2000 feet over it) and he flew straight for quite some time. Although the ground increases in the direction he flew, by how much is difficult using the sectional charts. That means that although he may have been able to climb to about 545 feet higher than his original ground altitude, the ground rose with him and his absolute altitude over the ground would be less than that maximum possible 545. The passenger in the rear reported the plane could only climb to about 60-70 feet above the trees. The trees looked to be around 75-100 but thats still difficult to tell. That would mean according to the passenger they might have only been about 170 feet off the ground. It could still be wildly off as we cant exactly see the altimeter.

Finally theres that disturbance at 2:35 described as a downdraft. It could have been windshear, or a wind effect from the mountains. I don't have too much hands on knowledge of mountain flying so I cant say. If it was windshear he might have suddenly lost a headwind and got a tailwind, screwing up his performance. It could have been a downdraft effect. The actual effect on the aircraft may not have been much (lets say 50 feet) but near obstacles it was definitely enough to have a negative impact.



Summary:

Yes he was flying pretty heavy but he may not have been over the weight limit

The temperature in the area was definitely hotter than standard and the altitude was high, but he still had climbing capabilities within service limits. However he didn't give himself much of a safety threshold.

He might have been able to climb about 545 feet higher than the runway elevation, but the terrain altitude rose in the direction he flew, so his actual altitude over the ground was probably smaller than that.

The disturbance at 2:35 might have been some form of windshear which has the capacity to reduce airplane performance, and with his margins of safety so low already, that could have been the final factor.

Basically he may very well have been flying within the service limits of the aircraft, but the margins of safety he left himself were very low and the decision to fly over obstacles like those trees in that mountain enviroment could be the reason this would be declared pilot error.

Other notes:

The takeoff looks pretty rough but he trying to get off the ground as quickly as he can and ride ground effect until he gets up to speed.

I cant find anything resembling a proper PoH for this aircraft but I did find some data that looks pretty close to it. However this aircraft was a model from the late 40s, so the standards of performance may not be the same as now, and the transcribing I did to the 172N could be thrown off more.

On that note, I do realize that a 172 would have different aerobatic effects with altutude and temperature than a Stinson 108, but its the closest data I could use.

I also couldnt not find balance information to get a rough idea of how the plane was balanced. The type of balance on a plane does have effects on performance.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N773C.html (The aircraft)

http://www.aopa.org/airports/U63 (The airport)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120701X65804&key=1 (The NTSB link posted earlier)

http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/avtext/stn-108.txt (Closest thing I could find to performance data, the actual numbers are at the bottom)

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/cgi-bin/gen_statlog-u.cgi?ident=KSNT&pl=none2&yy=12&mm=06&dd=30 (Weather data at nearby Stanley)

http://skyvector.com (sectional chart data, type U63 into the search at the upper left, then make sure that "Salt Lake City" is selected in the upper right for the sectional chart)

@renatojj I argue that most markets do not have the right environment to allow free market policies. I do not argue that free markets policies do not work as I believe in some cases they can work. If you allow free market policies in a market that doesnt have the right basis, you will get exploitation.

Yes, I did consider if workplace mobility is inherently sluggish. And it is. There are numerous reasons. Consider that finding a new job is always more effort then staying where you are. There is always a threshold to changing jobs. Regulations can make that threshold higher (bureaucracy), just as deregulation can make that threshold higher. You see, if there are clear rules about minimum wages, pensions, health insurance etc, you dont need to negotiate those, which saves time and effort and lowers the threshold to change jobs, ie makes mobility higher. In any case there is never no threshold which means that you always need at least some basic rules.

Unions are not involved with government any more than businesses are. They are a party representing a group of people on the negotiation table just like businesses. And just like businesses it is government who has setup the basic legal rules they have to play in. If you look at history you will see that both corporations and unions started without any government involvement. They are both groups of workers cooperating, be it for different reasons. Later government regulated both.

Free markets are about one option on how to manage markets. Free markets are not about economic freedom and certainly not about freedom of expression. You can have free markets that oppress in the economic sense and fully regulated markets that give economic freedom. Consider that the free market concept is also not devoid of all rules. It just cherry picks the rules it likes and calls other rules "anti-freedom".

LOL... you're a good troll. Here's a game for you: please precisely define the distinction between sensory processes and cognitive processes, and how exactly DS sufferers lack the latter. Or were you just some armchair bullshitter?

Fair warning, if you really want to have this debate, I'm probably out of your league.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
I believe sentience is a gray scale that extends well into the animal kingdom.
You can judge the character of a person by how they treat those that are weaker and less capable.

I think there's an argument to be made for one or more 'sentience thresholds' where the sum of an advanced intellect's understanding of the world, sense of itself, and capacity for abstract thought places it in a very different sphere of mentality to even slightly less able minds.
It's obvious that there's a distinction between non-thinking objects and any thinking creature at all, which would be the first threshold; I claim that humanity, or perhaps only the best of humanity, has cracked another.
It's a fact that compared to humans, animal brains are disproportionately devoted to sensory processing, etc. rather than cognition; which places us orders of magnitude ahead of them in our particular province, even with brains of apparently similar complexity. So there's a real gap there, rather than a smooth progression.
We have animal brains with a little extra cognitive grey matter stapled on top. That little bit seems to make all the difference. It's exciting to think where we'll be when we're able to create a lot more cognition, either biologically or electronically.
Now all of this may not have direct implications for damaged human brains, but it informs our understanding of intelligence generally.
I feel that the error being made by say, vegetarians who claim that 'an animal has just as much right to exist as a person', and similarly sincere but misguided retard-guardians is that they fail to account for these extremely important distinctions.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Do you claim that there is a quantitative value of sentience? Are 100 chickens worth the life of a single human? Your rational argument breaks down into absurdity when followed to its ends. Better to err on the side of compassion and kindness towards living creatures where possible.
>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
I believe sentience is a gray scale that extends well into the animal kingdom.
You can judge the character of a person by how they treat those that are weaker and less capable.

I think there's an argument to be made for one or more 'sentience thresholds' where the sum of an advanced intellect's understanding of the world, sense of itself, and capacity for abstract thought places it in a very different sphere of mentality to even slightly less able minds.
It's obvious that there's a distinction between non-thinking objects and any thinking creature at all, which would be the first threshold; I claim that humanity, or perhaps only the best of humanity, has cracked another.
It's a fact that compared to humans, animal brains are disproportionately devoted to sensory processing, etc. rather than cognition; which places us orders of magnitude ahead of them in our particular province, even with brains of apparently similar complexity. So there's a real gap there, rather than a smooth progression.
We have animal brains with a little extra cognitive grey matter stapled on top. That little bit seems to make all the difference. It's exciting to think where we'll be when we're able to create a lot more cognition, either biologically or electronically.
Now all of this may not have direct implications for damaged human brains, but it informs our understanding of intelligence generally.
I feel that the error being made by say, vegetarians who claim that 'an animal has just as much right to exist as a person', and similarly sincere but misguided retard-guardians is that they fail to account for these extremely important distinctions.

>> ^dag:

I believe sentience is a gray scale that extends well into the animal kingdom.
You can judge the character of a person by how they treat those that are weaker and less capable.


I think there's an argument to be made for one or more 'sentience thresholds' where the sum of an advanced intellect's understanding of the world, sense of itself, and capacity for abstract thought places it in a very different sphere of mentality to even slightly less able minds.

It's obvious that there's a distinction between non-thinking objects and any thinking creature at all, which would be the first threshold; I claim that humanity, or perhaps only the best of humanity, has cracked another.

It's a fact that compared to humans, animal brains are disproportionately devoted to sensory processing, etc. rather than cognition; which places us orders of magnitude ahead of them in our particular province, even with brains of apparently similar complexity. So there's a real gap there, rather than a smooth progression.

We have animal brains with a little extra cognitive grey matter stapled on top. That little bit seems to make all the difference. It's exciting to think where we'll be when we're able to create a lot more cognition, either biologically or electronically.

Now all of this may not have direct implications for damaged human brains, but it informs our understanding of intelligence generally.

I feel that the error being made by say, vegetarians who claim that 'an animal has just as much right to exist as a person', and similarly sincere but misguided retard-guardians is that they fail to account for these extremely important distinctions.