|
Aircraft are subject to altitude, flight path, and speed limits, both regulatory, and performance limited. Great circles often define the most economical route, and they are adhered to, but subject to airspace regulations. Range is limited by fuel as well. Direction of travel also affects the chosen altitude (think in terms of lanes). Altitude also affects speed, especially with regard to what is on the ground below. And finally, there are restrictions with regard to the sound barrier.
The notion of freedom in the sky is a fantasy.
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent, do you poop with the door shut?
I think you missed the whole point. I think you did. Nope. |
|
|
|
FirstAscent, do you poop with the door shut?
I think you missed the whole point. |
|
|
|
I'm quite confident that anything I've ever said or done would likely not be of any interest to the scanning algorithms of the NSA.
That's kind of sad -- believing that nothing you have ever said or done, or will ever say or do, has any value to anyone. This is why it's so annoying arguing with you boneheads. I mean, your statement does not follow as a consequence of what I stated. Pathetic. Sorry. I didn't realize we were having an argument. Anyway, since this is an argument, I guess I should respond. While what I wrote was obviously hyperbole, it does follow from your statement, and there is some truth in it It doesn't follow in any way at all. But my entire experience of your statements does in fact have zero value. |
|
|
|
When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.
Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit. Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead? It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there. Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award. I don't expect such a stunted mind as yours to understand reality. Just go back to your Japanese Sci-Fi, and let the rest of us do the big thinking. You're rather uncultured, and dare I say, stunted, by virtue of both your black and white and callous view on life, and your misconception of movie genres. It's Japanese melodrama (or Hong Kong or Taiwanese) for the most part - movies that have been voted the greatest films ever made - as in: 1. Tokyo Story (Ozu) 15. Late Spring (Ozu) 24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai) 50. Ugetsu (Mizoguchi) 59. Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi) 84. A Brighter Summer Day (Yang) 93. Yi Yi (Yang) The funniest thing of all - your attitude has you deliberately missing some of the most powerful, poignant and most revered films ever made. And I warned you - if you mention films negatively, you're going to get lectured on your own ignorance on the subject. |
|
|
|
Only the NSA has reason to spy on everyone.
Exactly. They're trying to protect you from bad things. Ha! Such naivete. No, son, they're not trying to protect us from bad things. They're trying to protect themselves, largely from us. Themselves? Their phone calls to their friends and family are in there as well. They are us. |
|
|
|
I'm quite confident that anything I've ever said or done would likely not be of any interest to the scanning algorithms of the NSA.
That's kind of sad -- believing that nothing you have ever said or done, or will ever say or do, has any value to anyone. This is why it's so annoying arguing with you boneheads. I mean, your statement does not follow as a consequence of what I stated. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.
Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit. Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead? It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there. Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award. |
|
|
|
You can be rest assured, that your conversation with your boyfriend last night on the phone will never be listened to by an NSA agent, and even if it was, they will be bored to death by it, and furthermore, from your point of view, you'll never meet the NSA agent in real life, so you have no need to be embarrassed by it.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, eh? I'm quite confident that anything I've ever said or done would likely not be of any interest to the scanning algorithms of the NSA. And even if that were the case, if I were to choose to have someone listen to a conversation I had, I'd rather it was some anonymous person in a basement in a desert in Utah whom I will never meet, rather than any friends, family or neighbors or business associates that were not privy to the original conversation. I stand by what I said. And I'm sure that goes for most people, excluding the paranoid delusional types, which are a dime a dozen in this forum. I'd rather not have anyone listen in on any conversations. Even a computer. But technology is obviously inevitable. Given that, you're likely to suffer more embarrassment, persecution, fouled relationships, business problems and neighborhood gossip because of technology enabled spying and media leaks (already here and/or coming soon) than you ever will from an NSA operation. Technology is inevitable. It's use is not. Only the NSA has reason to spy on everyone. Exactly. They're trying to protect you from bad things. On the other hand, your neighbors, business associates and other people you know and interact with do not have good reasons to spy on you, and whatever they find out can affect your reputation or well being, unlike the NSA, which has zero effect on you. |
|
|
|
When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.
Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit. Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead? |
|
|
|
You can be rest assured, that your conversation with your boyfriend last night on the phone will never be listened to by an NSA agent, and even if it was, they will be bored to death by it, and furthermore, from your point of view, you'll never meet the NSA agent in real life, so you have no need to be embarrassed by it.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, eh? I'm quite confident that anything I've ever said or done would likely not be of any interest to the scanning algorithms of the NSA. And even if that were the case, if I were to choose to have someone listen to a conversation I had, I'd rather it was some anonymous person in a basement in a desert in Utah whom I will never meet, rather than any friends, family or neighbors or business associates that were not privy to the original conversation. I stand by what I said. And I'm sure that goes for most people, excluding the paranoid delusional types, which are a dime a dozen in this forum. I'd rather not have anyone listen in on any conversations. Even a computer. But technology is obviously inevitable. Given that, you're likely to suffer more embarrassment, persecution, fouled relationships, business problems and neighborhood gossip because of technology enabled spying and media leaks (already here and/or coming soon) than you ever will from an NSA operation. |
|
|
|
You can be rest assured, that your conversation with your boyfriend last night on the phone will never be listened to by an NSA agent, and even if it was, they will be bored to death by it, and furthermore, from your point of view, you'll never meet the NSA agent in real life, so you have no need to be embarrassed by it.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, eh? I'm quite confident that anything I've ever said or done would likely not be of any interest to the scanning algorithms of the NSA. And even if that were the case, if I were to choose to have someone listen to a conversation I had, I'd rather it was some anonymous person in a basement in a desert in Utah whom I will never meet, rather than any friends, family or neighbors or business associates that were not privy to the original conversation. I stand by what I said. And I'm sure that goes for most people, excluding the paranoid delusional types, which are a dime a dozen in this forum. |
|
|
|
I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?
Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?
If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?
The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm. Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated). This is far too rational a sysrem for use by government, especially when local ones get so much revenue from speeding tickets. It's in their interest to keep those arbitrary numbers on the signs. It might get used on a private road system, though, since it requires far less expenditure to enforce than a speed iimit. As predicted, you don't see how disgusting it is either. |
|
|
|
Never comitted a real crime (that we know of) and yet he gets sent to Prison along with the violent offenders, rapist, and pedo's. Have you heard about how in early 2000's Congress shot down a proposal by the NSA to create a super computer the size of a small town that would automatically record every phone call, txt message, and internet activitity of the ENTIRE WORLD WIDE WEB, as well as decrypting passwords and secret codes. Well guess what, " http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/16/nsas-new-data-center-and-ultra-fast-supercomputer-aim-to-crack-worlds-strongest-crypto/" They built it anyways. And it's even bigger than originally planned. Privacy is entirely gone. Wiretapping laws are gone. So is reasonable suspicion and guilty until proven innocent. There was a thread about this. That's not what is taking away your privacy. You might want to learn how it works. As it turns out, what is and will take away your privacy in the future is technology in the hands of your neighbors, and businesses engaged in media. You can be rest assured, that your conversation with your boyfriend last night on the phone will never be listened to by an NSA agent, and even if it was, they will be bored to death by it, and furthermore, from your point of view, you'll never meet the NSA agent in real life, so you have no need to be embarrassed by it. |
|
|
|
I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?
Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?
If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?
The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm. Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated). Do you not see how disgusting this is? |
|
|
|
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you. The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time. |
|
|
|
Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe. That's what that comes to mind when I read many posts.
Perhaps the gun nuts feel unsafe without a gun in America. I don't have a gun, nor do most people I know have a gun, and we feel very safe. And I mean, very very safe. |
|
|
|
Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.
Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb. Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck. A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them. Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires? It didn't backfire. Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks. It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder. I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed. It didn't backfire because myrkul was serious. And he needs to be serious to back up his claims about what he thinks guns are for. Myrkul's response is exactly what I expected and predicted. His strange views are, well strange. And that makes his arguments weak, especially about the usage of guns. |
|
|
|
|
Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light. He thinks his arguments deserve merit.
|
|
|
|
you can find real knowledge anywhere. Just because something is academically peer-reviewed doesnt make it any better than the "quacks" you are talking about. Degrees mean just about nothing and I see more and more everyday how our education system is just spewing out exactly what you would expect, cookie cutter copies of machines without an ounce of logic, creativity, or even any independent thinking.
You're missing the point. I didn't say seek out someone who has a degree. Degrees are a dime a dozen. However, highly published individuals with a history of acclaimed work, who lay out previously published studies and facts by other well cited authors, and who include citations of other published works, and are noted for doing important groundbreaking studies themselves are about 1,000 times more credible and respected than some self published quack and youtuber who, for the most part, just puts together words which argue with other words, rather than words which argue against established studies. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
