WL doubled down and leaked the Environment Chapter today.

My head's going to explode one of these days. It's just too damn much too read out there.

@blankfist

i would be totally on board with a massive re-structuring of the corporate charter.

might i suggest we return the clause "for the good of the people"?
and force responsibility financial and otherwise when a corporation causes damage to either the enviroment or society at large.

adam smith said"only with absolute liberty can a free market truly exist".
we do not have absolute liberty nor a free market.
we have a protectionist government which serves the needs of the corporate elite.
and those needs simply translate to :less competition...for them.

which is the point i think you were trying to make and on that note i agree.
but i think the leviathan is a far larger beast and will not be dismissed so easily.

power begets power and seeks only to retain its power.

we have to get money out of politics.
money should never equal free speech,yet sadly that is where we find ourselves to day.

corporations spend billions towards influencing legislation favorable to their bottom line.i read somewhere that for every dollar spent they receive 22,000 from the beneficial legislation.

so not only is out government bought and paid for...they are more trashy than the 10 dollar crack whore.

the only thing that has ever worked to change things...ever.
is the people.
social movements.
we need to starve the beast.

in my opinion the very first step to even BEGIN to make that move forward is we need to fix our fourth estate,or at the very least ridicule and dismiss the fucking circus that we know as corporate media news.
its not news.
its propaganda.

i really think that most people would agree to an extent on what your saying blankie but the reality does not reflect the dream and may be why some people dismiss the notion as silly.

@JiggaJonson brought up a good point and is actually a great way to start to starve the beast.
civil disobedience in the form of refusal to participate in the system.
dont file your taxes.
dont buy car insurance or register your vehicle.
cut up your credit cards and dont pay them.
buy local,from family owned establishments (so your money stays local).

but in my experience most americans do not like being uncomfortable nor afraid and doing these things will bring both to your doorstep.

i always said the american revolution will commence the moment they take away their cable tv.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Enviroment, Council, South, Dublin, Ireland' to 'Environment, Council, South, Dublin, Ireland' - edited by ant

Clean environment isn't just a national responsibility, it's global..

Destroy the world, kill the future, i want it all now, screw the poor, screw the enviroment, Armageddon is coming so we don't need to care about anything or anyone. God will fix things for us... The god i believed in would've clean those bastards out first.

Corporations need regulations and governing, humanbeings need more freedom not the otherway around, They want to make corporation as people? Fine, the next time a corporation has a work related death, they go to jail. The whole company ceases to exist for the same amount of time a citizen would get. What they are actually saying is that corporations will get the rights of humans but responsibility is in the hands of individuals inside the company and you can bet that the scapegoats are not the CEOs but ordinary workers...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.

"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.
"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.
About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.
Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.
Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.
Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.
The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."
--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny


Even one humanbeing left without a basic health care is a travesty in a civilized country. This really baffles me, how can US even consider of not providing a basic human rights to all it's citizens. In my opinion the basic human needs are food, shelter and heatlhcare. The obejctive is that everyone can provide themselves with the first two while the healthcare is in the hands of professionals. You can claim that then goverment should provide free housing for all by employing professional constructor workers following the same logic that healthcare is done by professionals for free. Not all things are comparable, you can spend your night on a floor and be safe from the enviroment but you can't patch a guy up with staples and tape when he had a nasty fall and broke his leg.. Shelter can be variable as long as it fills the purpose but denying healthcare will kill humanbeings, you're fellow men and women.



We can take care of healthcare for all in every G20 country. And since we can do it, it's then mandatory. Like if we would get free unlimited energy logic will dictate that it will be ditributed to all, it never ends, it's free and there is no real reason to not give it out. Unless one man denys the service because of his own petty jealousy, anger, racism, or religious reasons. Those four things is what stops the regular US citizen from accepting a true humanitray cause, YOU DON*T WANT YOUR FELLOW HUMANBEING GETTING THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRVILEGES THAN YOU!!! It doesn't matter what your reasonings are, the trhuth is that you are an evil humanbeing that deliberately hurts all less fortunate than you. You get kick out of it, you enjoy looking at homeless, you spit on them and would no doubt just kill them in a whim, they are not humanbeings to you. Only your family and you are considered the right to get everything you want. No one else can, it's deminish your own ego.

This is my take on healthcare, anyone denying it is a monster. if you really want, we will leave you opt-out plan too, take care of your self if you like, hell we can even give you the money back you would normally spend for others (those cockraoches you know, people who don't deserve to live..)

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)

I guess it's more about the enviroment and the atmosphere it sets than the graphics. The textures in skyrim, or the lighting system, is far from the best on the market for sure. It's not ugly, it's quite pretty, but not nearly the best there is, but the mood in skyrim's world is far superior to anything I've played yet.

>> ^conan:

>> ^Deano:
>> ^conan:
hate the "gaydar" joke. stuff like this is what gives homophobes credit.

I'm honestly not sure how the joke was homophobic. Obviously Fry didn't seem to think so. What's your take on it?

I just don't think it's a good idea to make jokes about minorities whose members already find themselves constantly bullied in a "normal" (i.e. no David Chapelle or similar "rude" humor enviroment) show such as QI. The more bullies see this humor on regular TV, the more they think it's OK to make such jokes in their own daily life.
Ah well, maybe i'm oversensitive but i think homophobia definitely is a serious and pressing issue.


Didn't he just say something about them inventing "gaydar instead of radar"? Seemed fine to me and I wasn't aware that was a homophobic term. I've used it myself quite often along with friends and I can honestly say no one has ever sought to correct that.
I assumed it was in common usage by the gay community as well but that's only my assumption.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^conan:
hate the "gaydar" joke. stuff like this is what gives homophobes credit.

I'm honestly not sure how the joke was homophobic. Obviously Fry didn't seem to think so. What's your take on it?


I just don't think it's a good idea to make jokes about minorities whose members already find themselves constantly bullied in a "normal" (i.e. no David Chapelle or similar "rude" humor enviroment) show such as QI. The more bullies see this humor on regular TV, the more they think it's OK to make such jokes in their own daily life.

Ah well, maybe i'm oversensitive but i think homophobia definitely is a serious and pressing issue.

It's a question of society being the "village", we all need to be parents. These kids look up to us, they trust us completely. It is us who are letting them down by not acting like when we should.

Bullying is a tradition in many of the cases, it starts from home and echoes thru the society, this time where it hurts the most, the kids society; the place that exist to learn the humanrace to get along, to teach social conduct in a safe enviroment, it's a simulation of what life is like.

All the bullies that i had to deal with (different religion was the cause for me) either changed their ways or went to jail. Most of them were 2nd gen bullies and the rest were from rich and middle class families. Just to show that the more disparity in a society, the more sick it gets.

EIT: Oh and the best Kids React to ever. Very good way to bring the feeling back to us grownups of what it was like and how we know how to stop it. We knew then, what's changed?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The enviro-Statist alarmists failed to ensnare public opinion, proving once again the people are smarter than kenyan kings.


Why do you talk like this? If you're really voicing your opinions, you're only hurting your case by filling every comment with rambling about Kenyans and Statists and Keynesians. Let me help you out.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Assuming for a moment that man-made global warming is demonstrably proven.
1) The socialist scientitians claim they know the precise temperature (range) that the earth is supposed to be over the next 100 years and
Scientists believe that they can determine roughly the temperature that the Earth would tend to be at, absent human influence, and that there is an ideal temperature range for the way human civilization is presently organized and

2) they can set this desired temperature through taxation and regulation of industry.

that regulations and taxes on emissions and other things can provide an economic incentive for industries to develop systems that have less of an environmental impact.

And I'm the one who's insane? Insanely entertaining, yes. Willing to wreck the global economy further than these Keynesian retards already have? Nope.

I believe that regulations intended to prevent global warming will hurt economies and industries worse than doing nothing. An impartial group should study the potential effects of both before we make sweeping decisions.

every scientist that views climate change as FACT is an "enviro-Statist alarmist"? that's the MAJORITY of the scientific community btw.

i so wish people understood the concept of the scientific method and peer review
if they did, you'd see as a whole, the scientific community and alarmist don't really sit together that well

even more depressing, is most climate change deniers i know, believe this to be some sort economic conspiracy by liberals... y'know those pesky conspirators who are only separated by nation, geography, language, politics, and economics to name a few

while a few "scientists" who deny climate change, a MUCH smaller total number, with a LARGER representation in corporate interests are the bearers of truth... because they, spread out over fewer demagraphics, are obviously much less prone to influence of money/greed

it's the conspiracy of the unaffiliated majority vs the affiliated minority... and some people can't see the irony in their argument

sort of like FOX news talking about how video games are promoting a liberal, anti-corporate agenda through the despicable use of fear

quite literally, there are people out there who would believe the sky isn't blue, if it comes from the RIGHT people

toss them the Kool-Aid flavored religious zealotry... you know they want it

The enviro-Statist alarmists failed to ensnare public opinion, proving once again the people are smarter than kenyan kings.

>> ^quantumushroom:

A gaggle of marxist enviro-statists decide the way to undermine capitalism is to claim:
a) they know the precise temperature that the earth should be for the next 100 years
and
b) that they can actually achieve this precise temperature via taxes and regulation.

As hubristic and delusional as a guy at the beach yelling, "STAND BACK everyone! I'm PISSING in the OCEAN!"


The reason taxation and regulation is occuring is because almost everyone in government is a twat. It's the same reason why they raise the price of alcohol and tobacco to try and cut down on alcohol and tobacco use. Same reason why they say using cannabis funds criminals, make it illegal and push it squarely into the realm of the criminal. And finally the same reason why they tell us taxes will solve climate change.... MAXIMUM PROFIT.

Mark my words; the real actual science on climate change is undeniable, the policies stemming from climate change are according to the arsehole politicians' whims.

You are an absolute fool for one reason and one reason only; you attack climate change science and not the politicians using it to their own gain. You're blind man, totally blind. I hope one day you realise that it's the lies that are wrong, not the fucking science. Wake up.

It's a shame cos in a way you're dead right, the politicians are coming up with pointless regulation and pointless taxes to get more money from everyone, but it's THEY who are wrong and not the fucking science. Stop attacking science, it's like attacking rationality - science is something everyone can and should agree with. Science is perhaps the ONLY THING that we can and should all agree with because science is blind to religion, status, political view, skin colour; everything. It just tells you the honest facts. This is undeniable - anything else IS NOT science.

You're listening to the wrong fucking people QM, you're not listening to scientists you're listening to government. Your bullshit radar needs fixing, that's all; you can't distinguish between people who know and people who merely tell you convincingly that they know.

BTW:
@EDD was quoting Idiocracy. A film never more appropriately invoked.

A gaggle of marxist enviro-statists decide the way to undermine capitalism is to claim:

a) they know the precise temperature that the earth should be for the next 100 years

and

b) that they can actually achieve this precise temperature via taxes and regulation.


As hubristic and delusional as a guy at the beach yelling, "STAND BACK everyone! I'm PISSING in the OCEAN!"