Al Denelsbeck's Comments
Had you actually read the linked article, you would have found that Y2K had nothing to do with Iridium's failure, just like it had nothing to do with virtually any other failure that occurred. There were very few pieces of software that were date-dependent to the point of shutting down with an unrecognized variable, and even fewer that did not have mechanical redundancies. Most of the 'crucial' systems had no need for dates regardless. Y2K was a tech scam born from media attention.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Oh, so now there are "good shelters?" Well, at least we're starting to make distinctions - that's slightly better than your opening blanket statement. But of course, the question remains: how do you define a "good" shelter?
Let me put it this way: I worked for years for the only shelter in a moderate-sized, "average" county (who can really define this?) We handled 7,000 animals a year. Yes, animals did not stay long-term, because they couldn't. No matter how many extra spaces you add to any facility, the only thing that happens is you temporarily stave off the amount of time before the cages are full. Period. This says nothing whatsoever of the budget necessary for such places, more often than not apportioned through the county coffers that also must maintain schools, roads, and all the other fun stuff. There is a limit.
Now imagine how that works if you decide to hold an animal "until just the right home comes along" - the example you just provided was five years. What percentage of those 7,000 animals do you hold that long, I wonder? How do you imagine that's supposed to work?
Animals need not just life, but exercise, a proper diet, health care, socialization, and most of all, stability - just like kids do. Those deprived of these, to varying degrees, respond in varying ways, some of them pretty horrifying. Only a tiny percentage can "cope" with long-term kenneling, while the majority have detrimental affects that can last their lifetime - which too often means that it's back to a shelter they go, only now, as a problem animal, the vaunted "no-kill" shelter may not even take them. Or as you said, if they do, they euthanize them anyway because now they don't count as adoptable. Is that better? That depends on your views on torture, I guess, especially when the problem was created by "no-kill" attitudes.
And of course, any mass holding facility is hugely susceptible to contagion, which can hit the entire population and cost a bundle in medical treatment. And that's with good standards of disinfection and isolation - take a guess on how many independent facilities keep up to speed with these. So you tell me: what happens when an airborne infection gets into a shelter, creating a cycle of contagion even as you're treating those infected? How do you propose to keep it from infecting the entire population, and remaining? What do you tell the people now bringing in their own unwanted animals?
The more that these problems are ignored, or made to seem like they could be solved if only the "right thinking" people were in charge, the farther we remain from fixing it all. Not one person I ever worked with wanted to euthanize animals, and we never would have hired anyone that did. We were very particular about how we made such decisions, every damn day. Priority was given, constantly, to retaining the adoptable, well-behaved, best-chances-for-long-term-happiness animals. Nor have I encountered any shelter, anywhere, where the staff was any different.
None of that matters when the number of unwanted animals remains where it is. It becomes much worse when people don't recognize that there's a problem, when the myth of a "no-kill" shelter hides it from them, not to mention garnering donations on, let's be blunt, false premises and very careful wording. The demarcation has been created, and of course no one is going to side with the "kill" shelter, are they?
Let me put it this way: I worked for years for the only shelter in a moderate-sized, "average" county (who can really define this?) We handled 7,000 animals a year. Yes, animals did not stay long-term, because they couldn't. No matter how many extra spaces you add to any facility, the only thing that happens is you temporarily stave off the amount of time before the cages are full. Period. This says nothing whatsoever of the budget necessary for such places, more often than not apportioned through the county coffers that also must maintain schools, roads, and all the other fun stuff. There is a limit.
Now imagine how that works if you decide to hold an animal "until just the right home comes along" - the example you just provided was five years. What percentage of those 7,000 animals do you hold that long, I wonder? How do you imagine that's supposed to work?
Animals need not just life, but exercise, a proper diet, health care, socialization, and most of all, stability - just like kids do. Those deprived of these, to varying degrees, respond in varying ways, some of them pretty horrifying. Only a tiny percentage can "cope" with long-term kenneling, while the majority have detrimental affects that can last their lifetime - which too often means that it's back to a shelter they go, only now, as a problem animal, the vaunted "no-kill" shelter may not even take them. Or as you said, if they do, they euthanize them anyway because now they don't count as adoptable. Is that better? That depends on your views on torture, I guess, especially when the problem was created by "no-kill" attitudes.
And of course, any mass holding facility is hugely susceptible to contagion, which can hit the entire population and cost a bundle in medical treatment. And that's with good standards of disinfection and isolation - take a guess on how many independent facilities keep up to speed with these. So you tell me: what happens when an airborne infection gets into a shelter, creating a cycle of contagion even as you're treating those infected? How do you propose to keep it from infecting the entire population, and remaining? What do you tell the people now bringing in their own unwanted animals?
The more that these problems are ignored, or made to seem like they could be solved if only the "right thinking" people were in charge, the farther we remain from fixing it all. Not one person I ever worked with wanted to euthanize animals, and we never would have hired anyone that did. We were very particular about how we made such decisions, every damn day. Priority was given, constantly, to retaining the adoptable, well-behaved, best-chances-for-long-term-happiness animals. Nor have I encountered any shelter, anywhere, where the staff was any different.
None of that matters when the number of unwanted animals remains where it is. It becomes much worse when people don't recognize that there's a problem, when the myth of a "no-kill" shelter hides it from them, not to mention garnering donations on, let's be blunt, false premises and very careful wording. The demarcation has been created, and of course no one is going to side with the "kill" shelter, are they?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
"No kill animal shelters are wonderful,"
No, they're not. There are a huge number of problems with the concept, up to and including the serious behavioral and health problems that can occur with holding an animal for extended periods of time in a poor environment, not to mention the openly-promoted idea that "kill" shelters are doing it wrong. The gut distaste over killing an animal can, unfortunately, lead to numerous responses that are far more damaging because people think that the 'ultimate' response is to be avoided at all costs.
Five years! In what - kennels, with a fluctuating level of bonding and care? With how much activity? With what kind of food? Is such an animal even going to be able to be housebroken? Take a look at the studies of long-term kenneling on animals and tell me this is a good idea.
Here's the grim reality: there aren't enough homes for them all - even if everyone adopted a dozen animals, over and above what they have right now. This will not change until responsible pet ownership is a hell of a lot more prevalent throughout the population - that means no unwanted litters, that means no breeding programs for designer or fad animals, that means no concept of disposable animals because they didn't work out (or the owner hadn't the faintest idea how to care for them.) That's a big cultural change, and it's not going to happen overnight. And it's not going to happen as long as a large percentage of people can alleviate their guilt and their impatience with an animal by taking it to the "no-kill" shelter and everything's hunky-dory - nothing can possibly go wrong, sunshine and lollipops.
I did a study, about a decade ago, on no-kill shelters. Bottom line: they don't exist - not as any municipality whatsoever that could take in all of the stray and unwanted animals in their jurisdiction. Such so-called shelters can only survive by being very specific about which animals they accept, and a surprising number of them take their sick, problem, and chronically unadoptable animals to the nearest "kill" shelter, making them technically capable of saying, "We didn't do it!" One actually shipped its overflow numbers of animals over three-hundred miles to another shelter on Long Island, to take advantage of the greater population in that area (and the fact that that area also had its share of "kill" shelters.) As I said, this was a decade ago - maybe, some municipality, some county, has made this business plan work in the interim - but I can tell you directly, it's not a viable option for the majority of the country, if not most countries around the world.
[I was also responsible for animal cruelty investigations in this facet of my life, and investigated countless "foster" homes and a couple of hoarding situations, courtesy of "no-kill" thinking that led to animals living in utter filth, rampant disease, and developing irreconcilable behavioral problems because nobody was on their game enough to ensure that any standards were maintained. Was that better, somehow? I'm perfectly willing to tell you it was far worse.]
If you don't like euthanasia, fine, good, you're human - I'm not suggesting you change this. But there's the effort of finding solutions, and then there's the concept of thinking the problem will go away if ignored. Sometimes you have to let the thinking brain override the emotions.
No, they're not. There are a huge number of problems with the concept, up to and including the serious behavioral and health problems that can occur with holding an animal for extended periods of time in a poor environment, not to mention the openly-promoted idea that "kill" shelters are doing it wrong. The gut distaste over killing an animal can, unfortunately, lead to numerous responses that are far more damaging because people think that the 'ultimate' response is to be avoided at all costs.
Five years! In what - kennels, with a fluctuating level of bonding and care? With how much activity? With what kind of food? Is such an animal even going to be able to be housebroken? Take a look at the studies of long-term kenneling on animals and tell me this is a good idea.
Here's the grim reality: there aren't enough homes for them all - even if everyone adopted a dozen animals, over and above what they have right now. This will not change until responsible pet ownership is a hell of a lot more prevalent throughout the population - that means no unwanted litters, that means no breeding programs for designer or fad animals, that means no concept of disposable animals because they didn't work out (or the owner hadn't the faintest idea how to care for them.) That's a big cultural change, and it's not going to happen overnight. And it's not going to happen as long as a large percentage of people can alleviate their guilt and their impatience with an animal by taking it to the "no-kill" shelter and everything's hunky-dory - nothing can possibly go wrong, sunshine and lollipops.
I did a study, about a decade ago, on no-kill shelters. Bottom line: they don't exist - not as any municipality whatsoever that could take in all of the stray and unwanted animals in their jurisdiction. Such so-called shelters can only survive by being very specific about which animals they accept, and a surprising number of them take their sick, problem, and chronically unadoptable animals to the nearest "kill" shelter, making them technically capable of saying, "We didn't do it!" One actually shipped its overflow numbers of animals over three-hundred miles to another shelter on Long Island, to take advantage of the greater population in that area (and the fact that that area also had its share of "kill" shelters.) As I said, this was a decade ago - maybe, some municipality, some county, has made this business plan work in the interim - but I can tell you directly, it's not a viable option for the majority of the country, if not most countries around the world.
[I was also responsible for animal cruelty investigations in this facet of my life, and investigated countless "foster" homes and a couple of hoarding situations, courtesy of "no-kill" thinking that led to animals living in utter filth, rampant disease, and developing irreconcilable behavioral problems because nobody was on their game enough to ensure that any standards were maintained. Was that better, somehow? I'm perfectly willing to tell you it was far worse.]
If you don't like euthanasia, fine, good, you're human - I'm not suggesting you change this. But there's the effort of finding solutions, and then there's the concept of thinking the problem will go away if ignored. Sometimes you have to let the thinking brain override the emotions.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Some caveats to this particular article:
1. While the evolutionary origins of countless forms of behavior are a fascinating subject, the debate over the fear of spiders or snakes has been going on for decades, and will still go on for a while longer. At a very young age, children learn to take their cue from their parents, and by adulthood it's difficult to establish whether a reaction is 'inherent' or 'cultured.' In some remote South American tribes, children hunt and eat spiders. Thus, are they conditioned to ignore the inherent threat reaction, or did they not have it in the first place? Are there genetic 'strains' that reflect whether someone is afraid of spiders or snakes? There's a lot of work yet to be done.
2. The definition of a phobia is an irrational fear - as in, it doesn't make sense and the reaction is out of proportion to the danger. The important part is recognizing this. Through arachnophobia, anyone might jump when suddenly confronted with a spider, especially when it's walking on them. But to purposefully seek out and kill all spider species (or snakes, or rats, or whatever) - that's a considered action without a rational basis, leaving behind phobia and bordering on kneejerk justification - most species are harmless, and even the potentially dangerous ones require some specific circumstances to expose oneself to danger. Driving down the highway is hundreds of times more dangerous in most of the world, but few people freak out over that. And even phobias can be conditioned away. It helps a lot to recognize what a pointless reaction to an exceedingly minimal threat is, rather than enabling it.
1. While the evolutionary origins of countless forms of behavior are a fascinating subject, the debate over the fear of spiders or snakes has been going on for decades, and will still go on for a while longer. At a very young age, children learn to take their cue from their parents, and by adulthood it's difficult to establish whether a reaction is 'inherent' or 'cultured.' In some remote South American tribes, children hunt and eat spiders. Thus, are they conditioned to ignore the inherent threat reaction, or did they not have it in the first place? Are there genetic 'strains' that reflect whether someone is afraid of spiders or snakes? There's a lot of work yet to be done.
2. The definition of a phobia is an irrational fear - as in, it doesn't make sense and the reaction is out of proportion to the danger. The important part is recognizing this. Through arachnophobia, anyone might jump when suddenly confronted with a spider, especially when it's walking on them. But to purposefully seek out and kill all spider species (or snakes, or rats, or whatever) - that's a considered action without a rational basis, leaving behind phobia and bordering on kneejerk justification - most species are harmless, and even the potentially dangerous ones require some specific circumstances to expose oneself to danger. Driving down the highway is hundreds of times more dangerous in most of the world, but few people freak out over that. And even phobias can be conditioned away. It helps a lot to recognize what a pointless reaction to an exceedingly minimal threat is, rather than enabling it.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Many years ago, I took the opportunity to go for an aerobatics flight in an open cockpit Stearman biplane at North Carolina's Outer Banks. Gorgeous day, flying out over Roanoke Sound to a position directly over Jockey's Ridge State Park, a few kilometers south of Kitty Hawk. Absolutely amazing experience - loops, hammerhead stalls, wingovers, the works, all looking down on the giant dune and the people learning how to hangglide far below. Pulled positive three gees and negative one (that's where the straps flew up in the video.) Coolest experience of my life, and I'd do it again in a second.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Macs are far more expensive than comparably equipped PCs, less expandable, less adaptable, with fewer software options. They are made for people with no computer knowledge who believe the marketing hype. They are also excellent at incurring ridiculous costs for peripherals and replacement parts (look at the price of replacing the power supply/chargers and batteries, as a guideline.)
For school use, weight is the very first issue - lugging around even two extra pounds is noticeable. Next comes battery life, then internal storage. Then comes Microsoft Office, since everything is done in Office formats. An external backup drive (and the habit to use it at least every month, but every week is optimal) is important. Anything else might be nice, but not necessary for school. Also note that a cheap computer is cheaper to replace when, for instance, it is knocked off the desk or serves as a crashpad when skateboarding, and less likely to be stolen.
For school use, weight is the very first issue - lugging around even two extra pounds is noticeable. Next comes battery life, then internal storage. Then comes Microsoft Office, since everything is done in Office formats. An external backup drive (and the habit to use it at least every month, but every week is optimal) is important. Anything else might be nice, but not necessary for school. Also note that a cheap computer is cheaper to replace when, for instance, it is knocked off the desk or serves as a crashpad when skateboarding, and less likely to be stolen.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Well, yes and no. For proof-of-concept aircraft, often only one is built. The M2-F2 had undergone several test flights before Peterson's crash. The precursor model, the M2-F1, was made of wood and first flew by being towed from a car...
While this is supposedly unrelated to the crash (I'm skeptical myself,) Peterson underwent a wicked period of roll oscillation almost immediately before the accident, which is seen in the rocking motion in the video. The crash (Peterson claims it was due to avoiding the rescue helicopter,) resulted in the M2-F2 being rebuilt from the same airframe into the M2-F3, the most noticeable difference being the addition of a vertical stabilizer to prevent that oscillation. So yes, they did take his flight seriously, but not so seriously that they retired the aircraft ;-)
While this is supposedly unrelated to the crash (I'm skeptical myself,) Peterson underwent a wicked period of roll oscillation almost immediately before the accident, which is seen in the rocking motion in the video. The crash (Peterson claims it was due to avoiding the rescue helicopter,) resulted in the M2-F2 being rebuilt from the same airframe into the M2-F3, the most noticeable difference being the addition of a vertical stabilizer to prevent that oscillation. So yes, they did take his flight seriously, but not so seriously that they retired the aircraft ;-)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Peterson survived the crash not of a M2-F2, but the M2-F2 - only one was built, and it is the very craft seen behind the pair. The headrest is visible above Doohan's head (the bubble canopy is removed) - quite a small aircraft.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
[Sigh] I'll let the picture do the talking: http://wading-in.net/Add/BoyBoySpreadsheet.jpg
Random integers between 1 and 2 for both columns, run for forty rows/sets four times - the first two columns are the 'generators,' the other columns are the generated numbers copied over (note that columns M & N match columns A & B.) Colored cells are sets containing at least one male, blue cells are sets containing both males. As you'll see, the numbers aren't even hitting the predicted 50%, but I'll put that down to short runs.
Random integers between 1 and 2 for both columns, run for forty rows/sets four times - the first two columns are the 'generators,' the other columns are the generated numbers copied over (note that columns M & N match columns A & B.) Colored cells are sets containing at least one male, blue cells are sets containing both males. As you'll see, the numbers aren't even hitting the predicted 50%, but I'll put that down to short runs.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Nope, the paradox does not exist, nor does it exist for most of the others. The error is in multiplying probabilities inconsistently.
Notice how, in the boy/girl version, the latter two choices suddenly introduces the older/younger sister issue. This is a red herring. You can have an older or younger sibling, and you can have a male or female sibling. These remain separate and have no bearing on one another, nor is age mentioned as a factor in the question - it only asks about boy or girl. However, if you insist on this age thing, then there is an additional possibility not mentioned: not just two boys as they say, but an older brother or a younger brother, adding another option and once again balancing back to 50%.
It's also extremely simple: a 50/50 chance is not modified by any other factors, as most people rightfully believe. Nor does it change with repetition, as many people get wrong - while repeated coin tosses will increase the probability of getting a certain result among the total, no one toss changes from 50/50.
The coin example from PlasmaGryphon (and many others) includes a similar mistake. The choices are listed as TT, TH, HT, and HH - but this only holds true if you have assigned a particular coin to each position. Otherwise, TH and HT are the same thing. Now, if you've accepted this concept, you cannot arbitrarily choose which coin counts as the 'official' heads. If it is the first coin, then the first two choices are obviously ruled out, since the first coin in both of those is tails - what remains is still heads or tails for the second coin.
Notice how, in the boy/girl version, the latter two choices suddenly introduces the older/younger sister issue. This is a red herring. You can have an older or younger sibling, and you can have a male or female sibling. These remain separate and have no bearing on one another, nor is age mentioned as a factor in the question - it only asks about boy or girl. However, if you insist on this age thing, then there is an additional possibility not mentioned: not just two boys as they say, but an older brother or a younger brother, adding another option and once again balancing back to 50%.
It's also extremely simple: a 50/50 chance is not modified by any other factors, as most people rightfully believe. Nor does it change with repetition, as many people get wrong - while repeated coin tosses will increase the probability of getting a certain result among the total, no one toss changes from 50/50.
The coin example from PlasmaGryphon (and many others) includes a similar mistake. The choices are listed as TT, TH, HT, and HH - but this only holds true if you have assigned a particular coin to each position. Otherwise, TH and HT are the same thing. Now, if you've accepted this concept, you cannot arbitrarily choose which coin counts as the 'official' heads. If it is the first coin, then the first two choices are obviously ruled out, since the first coin in both of those is tails - what remains is still heads or tails for the second coin.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I fail to follow your (Word Masters') logic in this case. Are you saying that a belief is free from mockery based on how many people follow it? Or that any cultural trait should prevent or even inhibit anyone else from possessing an opinion, especially one they might have reached through rational consideration?
And before someone blurts out the word, "respect," try to figure out what it actually means and why it has value in the first place. If I am supposed to respect anyone for venerating something that's completely pointless, doesn't that subvert the actual definition?
And before someone blurts out the word, "respect," try to figure out what it actually means and why it has value in the first place. If I am supposed to respect anyone for venerating something that's completely pointless, doesn't that subvert the actual definition?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
It's hard to tell if the dogs that are spooked are reacting to the levitation, or to the guy looming overhead with his hands outstretched, making odd finger motions - if you think about it, this is an atypical, ominous way of standing. It's visible with the Shetland sheep dog (the little collie-like dog,) which are notorious for being spooky anyway - notice how it looks at the man's head and hands as it dodges away.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
It's probably not half as close as it appears here. The perspective and telephoto compression can be wildly misleading, but the UTair lane was still roughly 8 seconds or so from touchdown, probably not even over the overrun threshold yet, and another several seconds after touchdown before it crossed the taxiway the Aerolineas plane was on - that translates to a fairly signifcant separation.
While it's not clear why the Aerolineas pilot did not stop at the hold-short before the runway, this is a simple go-around, and happens on occasion. It is entirely possible the Aerolineas plane would have cleared the active before the UTair plane passed through, but pilots know to abort the landing in such circumstances - had the Aerolineas plane halted mid-runway there would be no way to avoid it once a certain amount of airspeed had been shed.
While it's not clear why the Aerolineas pilot did not stop at the hold-short before the runway, this is a simple go-around, and happens on occasion. It is entirely possible the Aerolineas plane would have cleared the active before the UTair plane passed through, but pilots know to abort the landing in such circumstances - had the Aerolineas plane halted mid-runway there would be no way to avoid it once a certain amount of airspeed had been shed.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Page 1 of 2
next
Not only that, but the premise is that McCoy, an experienced parachutist, jumped at night, location and landing conditions unknown, altitude unknown, dressed exceptionally poorly for the conditions, without any further gear, using a borrowed basic parachute and a reserve chute clearly marked as inoperable. There's a reason that countless experienced jumpers have said that Cooper had no idea what he was doing. No one else agrees that the main chute provided to Cooper was a specially-modified sport chute so easy to identify - the reports say exactly the opposite.
Just one more in the pantheon of amateur "sleuths" trying to capitalize on their BS.