Pangloss

It's an interesting question, given the affect 9/11 had on the economy. It's not so much the repair bill as it is the dampening affect on industry moving forward past this point. Picture all those buildings in downtown New Orleans standing empty. I believe I read somewhere that about 400,000 jobs were instantly eliminated. So I think it's clear there will be some kind of effect. But it's very hard to say at this point what that affect will be. The economy is extremely strong in all the key indicators right now. The main "down sides" of it are personal in nature, such as the question over how many people are making a "living wage" and that sort of thing, which doesn't really impact the economic figures in an immediate sense. The only real red light at the moment is inflation, but it's important to keep in mind that out of all the factors that affect inflation, only one of them has been on the upswing. That is, of course, the price of energy (oil). One thing that's interesting about that is that consumer goods have not increased in price as much as one might think. But there's a built-in lag there that may simply not be fully accounted for yet. Still, my hunch is that inflation is still under control. The real killer will be when the wage-price spiral kicks in. Before Katrina we were approaching Clinton-era "full employment" again, the housing market is skyrocketing, and the price of energy is going up. On top of that, 1/3 of the working population entered the workforce within the last five years, and is looking to move up in the world (put another way, the current wave of house-buying is actually likely to *increase*). And with full employment, that means the employees have more say in how much they get paid (because employers can't just hire someone else). Those factors could induce a massive wave of wage increases like we saw in the 1980s. And the factors that prevented its return during the Clinton era (namely the "bubble") no longer exists. So we could see a return of a downturn like the one we saw during Bush 41, which is to say a reduction to around 2% growth and a brief recession. Such is the cyclical nature of the economy.

Yeah I caught that on CNN earlier. Sounds like a solid move. It's pretty clear that there were quite a few deficiencies in the federal response to Katrina, and also the role we want FEMA to play is changing. We should still want FEMA involved, because the displaced population is still transient (it can't go home), but FEMA wasn't designed for that mission (even before it was rolled into DHS). A military general is probably a very good choice (most modern generals spend most of their time overseeing C&C and logistical issues). I think the picture of a failure at Federal, State and Local levels is becoming more clear with each passing day. I think it's unfortunate that it's become politicized, and the conspiracy theories are already getting ridiculous, but there does seem to be plenty of blame to pass around. I may have said this already, but I'd like to see a 9/11 Commission style investigation. Their report was fantastic and very objective. We need that same kind of analysis here. We CERTAINLY don't want Bush to lead it himself. But I do hope they are careful to focus attention at the state and local levels, not just pointing the finger at the administration. I know a lot of our international visitors here aren't clear on why that's important, but this is a big country and it's not like Britain where your PM practically gets personally involved in every homicide investigation. Emergency management is done at the local level. FEMA is icing on the cake. That's how it's *always* been. But that doesn't mean they get off the hook, either. They had a responsibility that they were charged with, and it's becoming more and more clear that they did not uphold that responsibility. Ultimately there is only one desk where that buck stops.

And in defense of that you said earlier that offenders can be charged with other crimes (assault, attempted murder, etc). But in fact most children below a certain age (which varies) tend to do exactly what adults tell them to do. So there's no violent event for authorities to charge the offender with. It's a sexual offense or nothing. How would address this problem? Do you want to live in a world where any adult can find the nearest four-year-old, shove a lollipop in her mouth, and bend her over a rail? So long as she's happy, no laws are broken in Thomas's world. You say that you find such people dispicable, and then you turn around and propose that we legalize what they do. Doesn't sound to me like you find them dispicable at all. But hey, you keep spinning. You can fool some of the people some of the time....

You didn't actually answer the question, though. Would you, or would you not, allow for ANY sexual predator laws to be in place for children ages 12 and under?

Good luck!

So are you still refusing to break that down into age specifics, Thomas? I hope you all are getting that message behind his spin. Not all children are sexually-curious fourteen year olds.

Well there is a Thread class, and it has various control methods. I don't know if it will fully answer your question, but I would definitely read up on that one. Java is not my strong suit so I'll stop there.

"I am but mad north-northeast!" ("Frailty, thy name is woman?") (runs for cover)

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (1872-1970)

Hehe! It's always so easy to tell when you've angered an ideologue. That post just made my whole day.

Yeah, I suspect there are a number of indicators, not the least of which is the pilot's physical experience, both present and past. When you go from sea level to high altitude in a short time you should notice a vast change in the environment, even if the heaters are maintaining a constant temperature. Ears popping, for example. More to the point, passenger jet pilots are trained on the importance of cabin pressurization from Day One. They understand the importance of it, it's very high on the list of "things that can go wrong", and should therefore be a high enough item on their mental checklists to consider that possibility long before they reach an altitude where they can no longer do anything about it.

It's also generally pretty easy to label "alternative news sources" accurately. They typically contain quite a bit of information which quickly informs the reader about exactly what their agenda is' date=' if they have one. That was certainly the case here. The reason why I labelled it as a "conspiracy" site was because the site calls for a specific [i']interpretation[/i] of the information they were posting from mainstream sources, along ideological, biased lines. In other words, "considering the source" is always a good idea, and it's even more of a good idea with "alternative news sources". But I applaud your intention to derive your own opinions and conclusions. Unlike the site you listed, this site (and this poster) would never have you do otherwise.

(sigh) The above link is the start of the "Hurricane Katrina Conspiracy", which will no doubt kick into full swing over the next few weeks. One of the nuttier ones that I've read (which is included in the link from "soaplady" above) is that New Orleans city management or the federal government deliberately blew the levees up in order to save the French Quarter for tourism, or to kill poor/black people (depending on whom you happen to be blaming). Oddly enough, nobody seems to be claiming that the dead people are really alive. I guess that one only worked for 9/11.

Unknown. One guess would be that the attendant was injured while trying to force entry into the locked cockpit. Regarding the pilot and copilot, the copilot was in his seat, and the pilot was not.

This was the crash that happened in Greece, where the plane depressurized at altitude and everyone was knocked out or died, and the plane flew around on autopilot and eventually crashed. It looks like they've put together a timeline of what happened. It's not pretty. As with many accidents, there were a number of factors working in conjunction. Veteran pilots sometimes refer to this as the "three strikes" rule -- the idea that it's almost never a single factor that causes an accident, but rather a tragic combination of mistakes. The surprise here is the human factor that turned what should have been a minor maintenance mistake into a complete disaster. To summarize, apparently what happened is that the plane had maintenance work the night before, and the ground crew left open a valve, basically making it impossible for the plane to pressurize. This should have been detected by the flight crew prior to departure, as soon as the door was closed, but it was not. The valve could have been closed at any time during the flight. As the plane climbed out of takeoff, the autopilot was set. At 10,000 feet, a horn sounded to indicate that the plane had not pressurized. Unfortunately, the crew misinterpreted the horn as the one that indicates that their takeoff controls are not set properly. The autopilot was not disengaged, and the plane continued its programmed climb. Around this time, the pilot and copilot realized that they did not speak the same language. No, really. Apparently they'd never flown together before, and neither spoke very good English, their only common tongue and the official language of aviation around the world. They spent the next few minutes trying to communicate with each other. When the plane hit 14,000 feet, the next programmed event in the event of no pressurization occurred -- the oxygen masks dropped from the ceiling. This apparently lead to a great deal of confusion, probably spurred by the fact that the flight crew would have been rapidly becoming very disoriented at this point. The pilot apparently got up to fix a minor problem that was not critical to the aircraft. And they continued on like this, not solving the problem, until they all passed out. At some point the flight attendents realized something was wrong, and apparently broke into the cockpit. Blood was found in the cockpit belonging to one of them. Obviously their efforts, whatever they were, were not successful. Because the autopilot was working just fine (in fact the entire airplane was working just fine), the plane continued in its programmed assent to 34,000 feet, killing most of the passengers along the way. Eventually it reached its programmed destination, and entered a programmed circling pattern (not being programmed to land, which it is capable but not normally designated to do, because the pilots have to get instructions and wait in line behind other planes). It circled until one of the engines ran out of fuel, disengaging the autopilot automatically, and the plane gradually lost altitude, eventually crashing into a hillside. The blame game has already started, with Cypriot authorities blaming Boeing. The horn that sounds to indicate lack of pressurization is the same as the one used to indicate that flight controls are not set properly. But a properly trained crew should have known that that warning only sounds while the plane is on the ground -- in the air it means lack of pressurization. Google News has several stories on this, so try this link for a list: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=cockpit+confusion&btnG=Search+News

Well that might have happened, or it might not. It's a function of timing, roads used, and so forth. This is one of the reasons I support an independent investigation. ONLY such will determine whether, for example, all of the citizens could have been evacuated. Nobody knows the answer to that question, but I think it's one we should try to answer. Not to apportion blame, I agree, but to figure out what is possible for next time.

Boy, if there's any government in the entire world that's more afraid of their people (and therefore more interested in keeping them happy), I cannot even imagine what it would be.

An interesting, if a little bizarre, scenario. You're gonna be the next Tom Clancy, Phi. (grin)

Accidental double-post there, btw. Unfortunately the American military approach is based on massive spending. So dealing with a reduction in force doesn't really address the issue. How will we be able to afford the latest smart weapons when we can no longer afford to spend half a trillion dollars per year on the military? That number is, coincidentally, in the ballpark of what we spent last year on debt upkeep (interest payments to China and all the other debt holders). I'm not trying to predict gloom and doom here. Just pointing out that it's not as simple as you might think. We're in bed with China now. It's going to be very difficult to, say, stop it from invading Taiwan (if they ever develop that capability). Put another way, we say "we will stop you from invading Taiwan", and suddenly ever Wal-Mart in the country declares bankruptcy (because they have no goods to sell), putting 680,000 people out of work and slapping the economy with a $300 billion/year hit. THEN they start waving trillions in federal bond notes in our faces. It's a new world out there. The old rules don't always apply. We have GOT to curb spending, become competitive, stop whining along ideological lines, and smell the globally produced coffee. Otherwise the new, rebuilt gulf coast is going to be the most emergency-prepared, technologically-advanced, poverty-free, and safest province in all of China.

Ok, I'll bite. How are we going to retain our ability to balance china diplomatically if they're holding our national debt, comprising the lion's share of our imports, consuming the lion's share of our resource exports, and snapping up our struggling publically-traded companies? How do you feel will that work out to anything other than China handing us orders, and us asking "how high"? Just curious.

I didn't say it was unavoidable. I agree there was a lack of preparedness, and my position is that it's based on institutional blindness. That's NOT an excuse, Thomas, that's an assessment based on facts. I'm not removing blame or suggesting that NASA is in any way less culpable or responsible for the loss of those lives. See, that's the difference between you and me, Thomas. I look for answers. You look for people to BLAME. One of us improves society. The other one does not. All you can do with that little rant of yours is make people feel bad. By shedding the light of TRUTH on the subject, on the other hand, we can move forward and build a future where such things do not happen. If it were up to you, we would never have gone to the moon, much less built a space shuttle, because you'd be too busy crucifying people for the deaths of Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee. (Look it up.) Science is about getting at the truth. Not about blaming people based on faith. That's why you can't sell your hateful, scorn-filled message here, Thomas. This isn't a church, and your faith-based message counts for very little here.

One thing I would like to know is why the city did not evacuate the poor using city transportation before the storm. The mayor was on the radio pleading with people to get out of the city, but apparently completely forgot that much of the city was incapable of doing so. City buses and school buses sat motionless, and there are pictures of them lined up in flooded-out parking lots, some of them just a couple of blocks from the Superdome. That's one of the reasons I want the anti-Bush rhetoric to calm down, so we can get an ACCURATE picture of exactly what happened, instead of everyone focusing on the federal government's response (which was obviously flawed in some way as well).

I still have nightmares about trying to squeeze inits into the 640k barrier and still leave enough room for apps to run. I remember so many times when it simply was not possible to satisfy the requirements of both the application and the needs of the various bits of installed hardware. That was back when IT people had to WORK for a living. And we WALKED to work, 50 miles, UPHILL BOTH WAYS! The sad thing is, there are people who work in IT today who have no idea what that even means, much less what it was like dealing with that nonsense.

Prior to Windows '95 the major opeating systems were Windows 3, DOS 6, Apple's Macintosh and IBM's OS/2. Also a lot of us used the Commodore Amiga during that time frame, which had its own OS loosely based on UNIX/DOS. (That should be roughly the correct order of their popularity, too.)