There was a law passed stating that you could not be on the tarmac over 3 hours. There was a loophole that it did not apply to international flights. Domestic was jealous and began leaving people at the gate for 2 and a half hours then on the runway even longer. After they started doing that I have no idea what happened. I don't know if they just threw the law in the trash or Jet Blue actually managed to break it here. Maybe they just went back and forth from the gate to the runway every 3 hours. It appears to be that simple to get around it. This is a very good case of people hearing something in the news, believing it is solved because the news said so, and then the complete opposite actually taking place.
There was a law passed stating that you could not be on the tarmac over 3 hours. There was a loophole that it did not apply to international flights. Domestic was jealous and began leaving people at the gate for 2 and a half hours then on the runway even longer. After they started doing that I have no idea what happened. I don't know if they just threw the law in the trash or Jet Blue actually managed to break it. Maybe they just went back and forth from the gate to the runway every 3 hours. It appears to be that simple to get around it. This is a very good case of people hearing something in the news, believing it is solved because the news said so, and then the complete opposite actually taking place.
What if lets say my plane crashed on landing on the tarmac....or a wheel fell off....its stuck on tarmac. How'd that go.
You never want to let a crisis go to waste. I think in that type of situation where it would make a really great news story you'd fine the hell out of them!
Yet another interesting twist on the Scott Olsen saga. It's the news story that you never hear about and refuses to die. Anonymous (whoever that is) says it is Scott Bergstresser that shot him. There appears to be no proof whatsoever but it's f'ing boring and so 80's anyways. Plus we get really cool piggy noises and special effects at the end.
I'm confused, why exactly couldn't she leave? It seems rather strange, if they held her because of the fee's (as in she couldn't leave until she paid) then this article makes absolutely no sense. If they held her for 8 days wouldn't they be required to provide some form of accommodation? And what about food? How did she eat during those 8 days? Then there's friends and/or family, everyone regardless of situation, everyone always has at least 1 person they can call, so why not call them? She did have a life before going to the airport afterall. And if they weren't formally holding her why not jut walk out and use her last $30 to get a cab/shuttle/bus back to the city and go from there?
"wouldn't they be required to provide some form of accommodation?" if she was sleeping in the stairwells, I guess not? Good question about food though, $30 doesn't go far in an airport.
There's my point, if she's sleeping on stairwells then was she really being kept there? If she was told she couldn't leave wouldn't it be in the airlines interest to ensure that she actually couldn't? It's not like the movie The Terminal, this was an airline dispute not an airport one so she could have left if she had really wanted to. Like i said, she did have a life before going there and she wasn't in a foreign country so she obviously must have had available contacts. The other big question is how did she manage to fly out after spending all her money and using the donated money to pay the old fees, given that she would have been required to book another ticket?
And i saw that one about the guillotine earlier, and all i really thought was odd was why he built a guillotine in the first place. The cutting off his arm i put down to a careless accident as the cause.
"she did have a life before going there" You know it says something about someone's life when they're willing to sleep in stairwells for a week rather than go back or tell anyone where they are... I'm not sure I'd want to know what she was trying to escape from that this ordeal was somehow still preferable.
Indeed Lux, but it also applies to other locations I imagine
The 53%, from what I gather, is a movement of people who essentially work massive hours or two jobs to fulfill their needs. They want the 99% protesters to follow their example: work for your money. Judging by that picture, the girl probably encountered 99% protesters who cried "DOWN WITH BIG OIL!!!" so she got upset and retaliated. Fair points, if I may say so myself.
Not at all informed on it, but I see a couple on my FB feed every morning.
Edit: Googled it a bit. The common theme seems to be: "I work three jobs, have powered thru a disability but still have bad luck all over the place. Wall Street didn't do this to me, stop protesting and get off your asses".
Yeah, I've seen those kinds of comments before. This is probably the only era in which people take pride in being slaves. And yes, if you have to work that much just to get by, you've either got too many kids to feed or you're just a slave. Job or no job, they are just proving the protesters' points even more.
A lot of them are people with disablities trying to make ends meet. No one should get a benefit from the tax dollars I pay if they aren't themselves contributing but thats just my opinion
I agree, as long as we can agree that you shouldn't have to work 3 jobs to "contribute". I'm not saying lazy people should get a free ride, and I'm pretty sure that's not most of the protesters' real message either.
Nope, but I believe they are targetting a select group of the protesters though, but maybe not.
The working 3 jobs thing seems to be a problem on its own; in my line of work you have neither the time nor the necessity to work 3 jobs, but maybe there are locations where there is more competition for the good jobs so some people will have to do 3. I won't lie, I haven't the faintest clue why that is in some areas nor do I know how to fix it.
The only people I know doing that, racked up massive student loans. Another issue all together :-p
A bullet can hit you before you even hear the gun go off, because the bullet travels faster than sound.
So if a particle travels faster than light, it will not move forward or backwards in time, it will merely reach the destination faster than light would.
Common sense. Kind of like a car will make it to the store faster than a human because it travels faster than humans. Doesn't mean the car is capable of time travel :P
Time is only a measurement. The past is only history and the future is only imagination. Only "now" exists.
Most cars need human operators. Thus they will arrive at the same time.
This is just *face/palm* funny, PETA really need to get their facts sorted... :-))
I just shake my head at PETA. I think my attitude was set on them ever since 9th grade biology. I had to do a report on them, went to their site, and first thing I saw was this sob story about, "How would you feel if a giant shiny hook came down from the ceiling of your house and STABBED your father in the mouth and carried him away while he struggled and cried? Every time you go fishing you make the fish babies lose their daddies!"
ok so i am not a theoretical physicist, but i have taken several advance physics classes and know enough to know sindustry is straight up wrong. There is a valid physics argument about moving faster than the speed of light having something to do with time travel but i am not sure that i remember it correctly so i do not want to try and quote it. If you want to hear it i would ask you to refer to zyklon our theoretical physicist. But I do want to say that talking science with people on the internet is like pissing into the wind. All you are really doing is putting in alot of effort to piss all over yourself.
Kingleon your referring to the theory or relativity which is a theory, sindustry the way you've said that is perfectly correct in terms of common sense, in physics however its theorized that as objects aproach the speed of light the whole e=mcsquared explains an objects mass converts into energy or blah blah some sht I'm drinkin so as it gets closer to lightspeed things going not lightspeed travel slower in terms of time than you going lightspeed would therefor timetravel, sindustry it all common sense tho and logic you are right, just laws change when u go from regular physics to quantum physics type shit
Sigh i hate it when people do that, of course the theory of relativity is a theory. Fortunately all scientific knowledge (of the higher sciences that is) that is not done in a controlled environment is just that theoretical. People do not seem to realize this simple fact. And yes i am referring to how objects as they approach the speed of light also approach infinite mass, but as i said this is not exactly my area of expertise so i did not want to muddle the explanation by getting into blah blahs and some shit. Also it is quite redonkulous to say time cannot be measured. Seconds, minutes, hours..... are all measurements of time. Just because we do not know how to travel through time does not rule it out completely. You really cannot use philosophical arguments and logic to argue about scientific theory as most of this shit is quite beyond common sense. But hey as this is the internet I am quite sure there will be people who disagree, but if so please at least come up with a reasonable argument.
Comments
(touch wood)
http://dailybail.com/home/scott-bergstresser-anonymous-identifies-cop-who-shot-marine.html
This i found funny. Although after reading the comments, slightly less so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/terri-weissinger-trapped-in-airport-for-week_n_1072608.html
I'm confused, why exactly couldn't she leave? It seems rather strange, if they held her because of the fee's (as in she couldn't leave until she paid) then this article makes absolutely no sense. If they held her for 8 days wouldn't they be required to provide some form of accommodation? And what about food? How did she eat during those 8 days? Then there's friends and/or family, everyone regardless of situation, everyone always has at least 1 person they can call, so why not call them? She did have a life before going to the airport afterall. And if they weren't formally holding her why not jut walk out and use her last $30 to get a cab/shuttle/bus back to the city and go from there?
if she was sleeping in the stairwells, I guess not? Good question about food though, $30 doesn't go far in an airport.
http://www.king5.com/news/cities/bellingham/Bellingham-man-cuts-off-own-arm-with-guillotine-132740773.html
And i saw that one about the guillotine earlier, and all i really thought was odd was why he built a guillotine in the first place. The cutting off his arm i put down to a careless accident as the cause.
You know it says something about someone's life when they're willing to sleep in stairwells for a week rather than go back or tell anyone where they are... I'm not sure I'd want to know what she was trying to escape from that this ordeal was somehow still preferable.
The 53%, from what I gather, is a movement of people who essentially work massive hours or two jobs to fulfill their needs. They want the 99% protesters to follow their example: work for your money. Judging by that picture, the girl probably encountered 99% protesters who cried "DOWN WITH BIG OIL!!!" so she got upset and retaliated. Fair points, if I may say so myself.
Not at all informed on it, but I see a couple on my FB feed every morning.
Edit: Googled it a bit. The common theme seems to be: "I work three jobs, have powered thru a disability but still have bad luck all over the place. Wall Street didn't do this to me, stop protesting and get off your asses".
The working 3 jobs thing seems to be a problem on its own; in my line of work you have neither the time nor the necessity to work 3 jobs, but maybe there are locations where there is more competition for the good jobs so some people will have to do 3. I won't lie, I haven't the faintest clue why that is in some areas nor do I know how to fix it.
The only people I know doing that, racked up massive student loans. Another issue all together :-p
This is just *face/palm* funny, PETA really need to get their facts sorted... :-))
What now sci?
Also it is quite redonkulous to say time cannot be measured. Seconds, minutes, hours..... are all measurements of time. Just because we do not know how to travel through time does not rule it out completely. You really cannot use philosophical arguments and logic to argue about scientific theory as most of this shit is quite beyond common sense. But hey as this is the internet I am quite sure there will be people who disagree, but if so please at least come up with a reasonable argument.
Scientific theory doesn't use logic?