search results matching tag: accident

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.004 seconds

    Videos (1000)     Sift Talk (36)     Blogs (75)     Comments (1000)   

"Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" - Opening Scene

moonsammy says...

Huh. And here I thought they were supposed to be part of the Marvel universe (created in the same accident that blinded Daredevil).

Why Ford And Other American Cars Don’t Sell In Japan

psycop says...

I think we're agreeing here that the reason these don't sell is because of the size and inefficiency. My point was that this isn't an accident.

The suggestion is American cars were designed to be large (and thereby inefficient) because it created a trade barrier to cars produced elsewhere.

The reason they see a trade barrier due to size, is because they created it when it suited.

eric3579 said:

I think poorly made cars that get horrible gas mileage and are not the right size is more than enough reasons why they don't buy American cars. Also Japanese cars ARE fuel efficient, the most reliable cars made, and the right size. I think pay back for American protectionism seems far fetched when all the above reasons are so overwhelming, but just my opinion of course

David Attenborough on how to save the planet

Spacedog79 says...

Nuclear energy is the only way we can do it, we can run the planet forever and do things cleanly and more densely to leave more of our planet for wildlife.

The trouble is almost everything we hold as common wisdom about it is completely wrong, using breeder reactors have enough uranium to run the planet forever leaving almost no waste and removing the possibility of big accidents which actually aren't as harmful as commonly believed anyway.

We have thorium too, and many designs of each that can do the job. In fact we have a wealth of of options, but also a decades old and highly effective PR campaign from the fossil fuel industry to convince us otherwise.

Sheriff Caught On Bodycam Telling Deputies To Lie

newtboy says...

Granted, intent is debatable, but it sure seemed like he was going along to me...until the other officer hinted his camera had recorded the instruction to lie.
Also he knew the crashed cop car's dash cam was on. I'm pretty sure that's why they weren't going to call it an accident, just an incident, that wouldn't require the dash cam video be viewed.

Not one contradicted the order to falsify the report on scene, and more than one said "yep" or "yes sir" when told the lie, then checked to be sure it wasn't on their camera. After that officer checked his camera and said "mine's off" it sounded like the other officer was telling him his was still recording, looking at it, covering it with his hand and saying..."when I started I hit mine for the majority of it, I hit it" instead of "mine's off too, we're good".

It sounded here like only one of the deputies filled out their report accurately....after going along with the lie on scene.

No question, not one reported the instruction to falsify charges, and none of them were charged or even officially reprimanded. The Sheriff just retired, probably with full benefits and pension.

I think the next batch of cop body cams should have fake off switches that only turn the red led off, not the recording. We could clean house with a quickness.

kEnder said:

Watched 3:59 and interpreted that differently. Debatable whether the officer intended to lie or knew the camera was on. I'm happy that officer refused to compromise the truth.

I'm with you there on the worthless off switches, let's hope information changes our world for the good.

Sheriff Caught On Bodycam Telling Deputies To Lie

Sniper007 says...

I believe the only real solution is to recognize that the role of a police officer is one that is inherently unstable. As history shows, it is impossible to expect one small group of people to deal with all the violence, anger, punitive actions, and force for all of society.

But without this group of mentally and morally unstable people, then each person in the populace at large would need to individually learn how to deal with violent offenders, restrain someone, know when to use lethal force, adjudicate their punishment, carry out their punishment, handle traffic accidents, dead bodies, emergencies, and so much more. The culture at large already expects every person to delegate these tasks, and if an individual does not immediately call the cops there may actually be punitive action taken against that individual.

I have no solution to this societal problem. But then again, I don't feel obligated to solve the problem for society. In fact, the eventual destruction of the society (that so delegates) may be the eventual "solution" that inevitably comes without collective individual change. I'm content having a solution fit for myself, my family, and for those who other souls who come to me personally for a solution (to varying degrees).

That is going to hurt

Payback says...

This is why we prepare our exit paths before falling the tree. Having to hop over something like that is death or a crippling accident waiting to happen. That log should have been in pieces and moved before he ever started on the vertical.

newtboy (Member Profile)

Utility Pole Change Out.

RFlagg says...

Yeah, I'm a little confused on why the pole is being replaced, as it appeared to be in perfectly fine shape. The new pole seems to be the same height, and design. They got rid of the transformer, and may have fully replaced the power lines, but even so, why replace the pole? About the only time I've seen new poles put up locally, save where one was damaged by an accident, weather or something, is when they are widening a road, in which case the new pole goes up in the new location, then the lines are moved, the old pole is taken out, then the road widened. I've never seen a perfectly okay pole taken out, then replaced... even in accident or weather damage cases, they usually just put the new one right next to the old one (perhaps in the same hole), and move the lines over.

It also looks like they live uncomfortably close to the high power lines.

Counting Trump's False Claims Using Gumballs

bobknight33 says...

Newt,

CNN mainly pushes 1/2 truths and anti Trump leaning reporting day in day out.

Biggest liar and fraud of our time was Obama not Trump. and MSM is riding along on their side.

Tim Cook Apple Big dial who cares its like call you newtbabe by accident. Who cares but liberals suck it up and think the worst. Your no better that all the rest.

Muller report will clearly take that smug ass smile of Adam Schiff and the rest of the left. Sad thing is that Adam Schiff knows and have always known there is ZERO collusion but still pushes BS lies.

I believe there will be a big turn of events and Trump will win 2020 by a historic landslide.

newtboy said:

Bob.
Lie about Trump all you want, don't lie about me....you know full well that is a lie.
I've never once tuned my tv to CNN, as I've told you a dozen times.
I use multiple sources cross referenced to determine what I think is fact, CNN often provides decent short clips on youtube that illustrate the point succinctly and or clearly but are not my "trusted news source" as you well know....
....but you implicitly trust the biggest liar and fraud of our time without a critical thought. I bet you heard Trump say "Tim Cook Apple", or whatever he's claiming he said today, didn't you?
Don't dare try to impeach my information gathering and filtering skills when you are....well...you.

And the numbers aren't from CNN, only the visual depiction of the independently verified fact check numbers. *facepalm

A Better Way to Tax the Rich

newtboy says...

*sigh....passive aggressiveness from someone who keeps changing the argument is tiresome, ask your friends.

Your original statement ....""American wealth inequality is staggering. "
???? Stated as if that is a bad thing......."

Clearly indicating staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing.

Now..."I totally agree that EXCESSIVE wealth inequality is a bad thing",
so unless you misspoke, you must be parsing the difference between staggering (acceptable) and excessive (unacceptable)....but staggering >= excessive.

Wealth/income inequality are tied....and now who's being pedantic?

Well, I'm glad you aren't running the economy then, sadly the one most in control thinks the same, that one person making (not earning) >10000 times what another makes for < 1/10000 the work isn't inequitable, and neither is one person owning more than 10,000,000 average fully employed countrymen thanks to an accident of birth and/or criminal/dishonest business practices.

dogboy49 said:

"The veracity of the statement has no bearing on the fact that you dismissed/questioned it first"

<Sigh> Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.

My original statement had to do with my belief that wealth inequality is not a bad thing. It had little to do with OP's assertion that he foolishly sees current wealth inequality as "staggering".

"Forgive us if we take the words of economists, historians, reality, and our own senses over a random person's opinion. "

You are free to heed whoever pleases you. If you crave my
forgiveness, consider yourself forgiven.

"If that's not excessive, I have to wonder what could be in your opinion. "

I too have to wonder what "excessive" wealth inequality actually looks like. I don't think I have ever seen a large scale example. So, I'll just pull a number out of the air: under most distribution models, I would say that I consider a Gini coefficient of, say, .9 to be "excessive".

"My wife, head of her department for 10 years, working 45-50 hour weeks, makes $30k a year working like a dog....Warren Buffet makes >10000 times that much doing absolutely nothing...not excessive?!"

I thought we were talking about wealth distribution, not income distribution. Anyhow, to answer your question, the answer is "No", I do not consider that to be "excessive".

So this is a thing in Russia

Plane Ran Out of Fuel at 41,000 Feet. Here's What Happened.

CrushBug says...

OK, hold the fucking phone here. This video is just a disaster. It is flippant and glossing over the facts of what actually happened. This story is a favorite of mine, so I have done a lot a reading on it.

This happened in 1983 (36 years ago).

>> Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge?

There is specifically a digital fuel gauge processor on that plane, and it was malfunctioning. There was an inductor coil that wasn't properly soldered onto the circuit board. At that time, planes were allowed to fly without a functioning digital fuel gauge as long as there was a manual check of the fuel in tanks and the computer was told the starting fuel.

The problem is that fuel trucks pump by volume and planes measure fuel by weight. The fueling truck converted the volume to kilograms and then converted to pounds. He should not have used both. In 1983 ground crews were used to converting volume to pounds. The 767 was the first plane in Air Canada's fleet to have metric fuel gauges.

The line in the video "the flight crew approved of the fuel without noticing the error" glosses over how it is actually done. The pilot was passed a form that contained the numbers and calculations from the ground crew that stated that 22,300 kg of fuel was loaded on the plane. The math was wrong, but unless the pilots re-did the numbers by hand, there wouldn't be anything to jump out at them. He accepted the form and punched those numbers in to the computer.

The 767 was one of the first planes to eliminate the Flight Engineer position and replace it with a computer. There was no clear owner as to who does the fuel calc in this situation. In this case, it fell to the ground crew.

>> I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

If there was a functional digital fuel gauge, it would have showed them missing half their fuel from the start, and the error would have been caught. Because there wasn't, the computer was calculating and displaying the amount of fuel based on an incorrect start value.

That is another problem with this video. It states that "they didn't even think about it until ... and an alarm went off signalling that their left engine had quit working."

Fuck you, narrator asshole.

In this case, low fuel pump pressure warnings were firing off before the engines shut down. They were investigating why they would be getting these low pressure warnings when their calculated fuel values (based on the original error) showed that they had enough fuel.

>> I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident.

The pilots did not cause it. They followed all the proper procedures applicable at that time, 1983. It was only due to their skill and quick thinking that the pilots landed the plane without any serious injuries to passengers.

They ran simulations in Vancouver of this exact fuel and flight situation and all the crews that ran this simulation crashed their planes.

"Bad math can kill you." Flippant, correct, but still not quite applicable to this situation. Air Canada did not provide any conversion training for dealing with kilograms and the 767. Not the ground crew, nor the pilots, were trained how to handle it. They were expected to "figure it out". That, and the elimination of the Flight Engineer position, set these situations up for disaster.

Plane Ran Out of Fuel at 41,000 Feet. Here's What Happened.

jimnms says...

How were they even allowed to fly? I'm not familiar with aviation laws in Canada, but in the US, a working fuel gauge is required (14 CFR 23.1337b). I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident. It doesn't matter that the ground crew improperly fueled the plane, it is always the pilot's responsibility to verify that the plane is airworthy before takeoff.

ulysses1904 said:

According to the wikipedia article the fuel gauges weren't working, wow.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists