Phi for All

With all the redundancy in modern aircraft controls, I find it hard to believe that a horn was the only thing warning the crew that the plane was not pressurized. Aside from the oxygen masks dropping down, wouldn't there be at least a light flashing to let them know they shouldn't climb any higher? I can see where a system that wouldn't allow the plane to reach higher altitudes if the plane wasn't pressurized could be dangerous, but a single horn system of warning for something that life-threatening seems ludicrous. There's not much time once they take off before they reach a lethal altitude. I've also heard of flights where the oxygen masks were deployed due to a malfunction that wasn't serious, so they may not have taken that warning seriously enough. Overlooking the fact that the horn sounds for improper flight controls only while on the ground was the big mistake here, imo. What a tragedy.

Dave will take care of it. You should have said something earlier, we thought you liked all the attention.

I am poised and ready if this is some sort of porno send up.

The warning is given by staff; the email regarding the warning is automated, as is keeping track of when the points mature and expire. We're working on a system which renders electrical shocks to those who abuse the system. There are some hardware problems involved. In the near future, make sure to check the YES box when asked if you'd like to order our new SFN headbands with USB cable attachments.

I think the automated system considers all flamers to be somewhat stupid and in need of several billion reminders. Perhaps if you reply back that you have a dispute it will start ignoring you.

Many conservative people, especially in the US, would view a more "heavy handed" approach as being long overdue. More discipline always seems to be the older generation's solution to the problems of the younger generation (throughout history, not just now). Diplomacy takes a back seat if people are prosperous and processes are well-ordered and firmly run. If effective global leadership comes through a more regimented approach, I think many people in the world would view it beneficially. Concessions would need to be made to unite the world in peace under one government. As long as it keeps the trains running on time, even a dictatorship can be efficient and win the public approval. Oppressiveness is in the eye of the beholder.

Could be that, too. They are all on death watch now, so report them if they open any more cans of spam.

Define "totally different" and "bad" with regards to this phenomenon. There's a reason why you sound different to yourself than you do on a aural recording, but I've never heard of the same from a visual recording. It could just be the flash you are using, or taking a picture under bad lighting. Or you could be ugly. j/k

I used to envision a day when 50 PRC soldiers would suddenly hop out of each COSCO container in every railyard in the US. Suddenly we have a million Chinese warriors on our home turf, mixed in with the public so most of our smart weaponry and hi-tech gear was useless. Bingo, instant takeover. But China wouldn't need to use force now. Economics will decide any future major world government. And like Pangloss, I don't see gloom and doom here. Most people picture a world government that dresses everyone the same and turns us into mindless worker drones. Any world government that's smart enough to rule the planet (China or whoever) would understand that keeping people happy and prosperous is going to be a big part of the juggling act. Destroying individual cultures is the surest way to stir up rebellion. Efficiency is the key, and I see major centers of commerce specialization popping up, maximizing productivity by mass production and service centers. People will be happy because they will be prosperous and won't be worried about terrorism and nuclear war. The biggest hurdle is going to be the multinational corporations who sell military materiel and have the political machinery in place to influence their governments. They need to see more profit in global peace than in war. Personally, I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

I can't see the words "China" and "dangers of communism" in the same sentence without laughing. They can throw off the cloak of communism in a heartbeat and be the biggest capitalist nation in the world, comprising more wealth and manpower than the former Soviet Union with none of its transitional problems.

Here is a Quick LaTeX Tutorial to help you.

As we move towards more economic specialization, I can see the necessities of international trade forming more cohesive governance. I see it coming in stages, naturally, given the current state of society and no major shifts. If China becomes the economic giant they have the potential to be it could shift power drastically, and I can see them being a one world power. If they lead by economic example instead of by economic might, it could be a bloodless takeover. Imo, without one faction making war on everyone else, or a global natural disaster, a one world government can only happen because it's required economically. When war between opposed governments is less profitable than combining resources to maximize earnings potential, we could spend the war budgets on research into energy, health sciences, underwater/offworld exploration, and any of a thousand more useful things.

I think The Universe is saudireports, same dial-up company, different IP, probably part of a university or county library setup. The others are probably friends who joined up to show their support. They're sooooo convincing in their arguments, no?

It's not just stupidity. Most of it is just gambling. If I never bought any medical insurance, car insurance, home owner's insurance and never got sick, in an accident or had anything bad happen to my home I could brag about how many tens of thousands of dollars I saved over the years. But one catastrophic illness or accident wipes all that savings out. These people had no way of knowing a week ago that the storm would be as powerful and directly centered on their communities. New Orleans never thought their levees would collapse, flooding the entire city. They gambled that this one would veer off or lose potency the way other hurricanes have. They lost this time. Now is not the time to criticize, now is the time to learn and mourn.

Pêön de ■, your use of the above photo is a Misleading Vividness fallacy. Assuming that a god would have no reason to allow diseases and deformities shows a lack of understanding of religion. It's not a good argument. From the Why Atheism website: Flawed. It is a bad assumption that a personal god would manifest itself observably. Evidence notwithstanding, it is part of the nature of the personal god that faith is made superfluous by physical evidence. Flawed. This is a Burden of Proof fallacy and is never acceptable. The Christian/Jew/Muslim using this logic could just as easily say that God exists because you can't prove He doesn't. I still maintain that agnosticism is the only stance that agrees with the scientific method. ID is entirely possible but is a religious view and has no bearing on science. ID should not be taught in the schools as an alternative to evolution.

My uncle told me he once went for an emissions test on his car to a station at a busy intersection. As the attendant put the emissions probe in the tailpipe of the car, my uncle asked him how bad emissions were getting overall. The guy pointed to the scope reading from the car, then pulled the probe out of the tailpipe and stuck it into the air above his head. My uncle said the reading was higher for toxic emissions at that busy intersection than it was coming out of his car's exhaust pipe. Anecdotal but illuminating.

Don't even go there. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who makes an informed choice and doesn't simply "vote the family party" (or against it, just for cussedness sake), or let the bulk of their political decisions be made for them by TV ads at election time, has voted well. I hate that the two party system in the USA has become a dividing line for voters. Most partisan voters are clinging to ideals that the Reps and Dems abondoned long ago. Raise your hand if you voted for the "moderate Republican" in 2000. Raise your hand if you voted for Clinton the Democrat and got Clinton the Republican.

Until the voting public stops listening to the spin at election time and votes with its head, special interests will continue to influence the politicians more than the voters. Right now business is happy with the way things are. Money is being made from the war, the oil crunch and heightened terrorist security. The Republicans don't have to worry about Bush getting re-elected, and it will be fairly easy for them to spin off why the Bush presidency might have ended unpopularly. The Democrats have not been an opposition party for a long time and I still say it's because American voters are easily swayed by spin-doctoring from PACs and special interests. They vote emotionally and don't take the time to get informed, so they listen to the TV ads come election time.

I remembered hearing that switching from a compact vehicle to an SUV for one year wasted as much energy as leaving your refrigerator door open for six years. When I Googled for it I also found this site on SUV Myths & Realities.

Not at all. I think the IRS requires that you show a profit one year in three, but it only has to be a dollar to be profit. And you do have to try, and since it's in your best interest to actually get business you should put more effort into it than just the write-offs. The mileage rate went up this year to $0.405 per mile driven for business, $0.15 per mile for deductible medical expense mileage and $0.14 per mile for deductible charitable contribution mileage. It's only illegal if you just pretend to be in business. The IRS is not big on imaginary deductions.

Are you carpooling with any other students in your area? Alternatively you could start a sole proprietor small business (practically no startup costs), post up notices on bulletin boards that you will take riders for a share in the gas, or deliver small goods to destinations close to your school. Also advertise for riders at the hospital where you go three days a week. Other businesses may need goods delivered to the hospital and might pay you to take them. Even if you don't find anyone to do business with or share the expenses, you can write off the mileage on your taxes because you're trying to do business. This is America, think entrepreneurally. And if you plead that this is all so inconvenient then you lose your right to complain about the high cost of gas.

I agree that it depends on what you do and what you need it for. Could be really slick for web browsing, could be the nightmare from hell for database input. For text, anything that takes your hands away from the keyboard slows you down, even a mouse. [MOD]I moved this to General Sciences. The Suggestions/Comments forum is for input on this site, not for input into your problems and decisions. No offense, of course. [/MOD]

As YT mentioned, sebum from hair follicles on the face is made up of cholesterol, waxes, parrafin and triglycerides that provide a surface tension to the skin, making it waterproof and also adding to the "sticking" effect. Even after washing, the sebaceous glands keep this coating on your skin to maintain surface tension, keeping the skin impervious to bacteria, most gasses and chemicals, and flat metal objects placed against it.

That depends on the level of expertise you want. I'm not the dance expert, but you would probably see the difference in just a few lessons, once a week with a little practice time as well. If you want to go on tour you better commit to a few years of daily lessons. And for anything you REALLY want, you make the time. Isn't that the way it always is? We complain we have no time but when something comes along that we absolutely need to do, you find the time. You just have to decide how much TV or video games or clubbing or couch sitting or reading or hanging you're willing to give up.