Doors are such an important invention that multiple unrelated animals have evolved modified body parts to serve as doors to burrows¹. Being able to store food is critically important for surviving low-food periods like winter without migrating. "Indoors" lets you store food without insects or other animals getting to it & stealing it. Fire allows for hardening clay, which lets you make a special tiny "indoors" called a "pot" for storing food. Also bricks so "indoors" can be made anywhere. With a roof the rain stays out & you can stay dry & warm, and not freeze at night. A significant portion of why fire is so important is it enables creating various sorts of "indoors".
> "Indoors" lets you store food without insects or other animals getting to it & stealing it.
This isn't true of human doors; insects are very small.
We've had the technology to keep things in wax-sealed clay jars for quite a while, but I'm not aware that this was done with grain, where preventing spoilage would have been most valuable. Granaries are open to the air. (And devote quite a lot of effort to slowing the spoilage of the grain.)
If you wanted food that wouldn't rot, instead of keeping it in an airtight environment, you dried it.
Every different food idem needs to be stored differently. There sometimes more than one option that will work, but you cannot treat everything the same.
If I have to survive the night, overhead protection and thermal insulation is more important than a fire. Source: I've tried using both without the other.
It could be used to scan people's heart rates when they're in a high security line (military check points, airports, embassies) to detect people who are nervous.
I assume some places already use thermal cameras to detect people who are sweating profusely.
Using both together might be a decent way of flagging people who might otherwise slip through security.
Of course there would be many false positives, so it wouldn't be good enough on its own.
That is the same excuse cops regularly use to violate peoples rights and justify illegal searches and stops or claim they are impaired when they aren't. The very fact that people are being closely watched or monitored is in itself a reason for people to be nervous.
What's the objection? I don't see how having my heart rate scanned at an airport or military checkpoint in any way impinges on my freedom or happiness.
Doesn't seem like a reasonable objection to me. It takes a lot of time and man power to search people's body cavities. The incentive is to avoid searching as many people as possible.
> The incentive is to avoid searching as many people as possible
Oh good lord. Now it's no longer even "have you read a history book on the 20th century?" anymore, it's "have you been paying attention to the world for the past 15 years?".
> Oh good lord. Now it's no longer even "have you read a history book on the 20th century?" anymore, it's "have you been paying attention to the world for the past 15 years?".
Spare me the hysterics and the insults. What exactly is your claim?
That body cavity searches have increased rapidly over the last 15 years? That it's a common occurrence? That security personnel actually has an incentive to do them more rather than less?
Give me the books you read and sources you read that support your claim. I doubt they exist. I suspect you're going off "vibes" here, but I'll gladly read them if you can cite them.
I think it's plain enough. That giving the state security apparatus more tools to arbitrarily harass people at their discretion is a Bad Idea™.
> That security personnel actually has an incentive to do them more rather than less?
I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this or what makes you believe this is how the world works. Are you from the US? Certain "security personnel" have been working overtime since the start of the current presidency as I'm sure you're aware... And again: picking up a history book will lead you to realise how mistaken your quaint belief is ("incentive to work less"?).
> That giving the state security apparatus more tools to arbitrarily harass people at their discretion is a Bad Idea™.
Measuring heart rate, using a computer which can log its data, is the exact opposite of arbitrary. It's an objective measurement. You don't seem to understand the words that you're using.
Are you somehow unaware of the fact that security personnel, for example TSA at airports, are already empowered to use their own discretion in deciding that particular people seem to merit extra scrutiny?
Any TSA officer can flag any person as suspicious for almost any reason. They don't abuse this power generally because they have very little incentive to and there are checks on it.
> I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this or what makes you believe this is how the world works.
Do you think TSA officers are incentivized to do more or fewer body cavity searches? Do you think they get bonuses for doing them? It's beyond ridiculous that you can't keep your argument straight and have to reference Trump in the context of a discussion about secure environment screening technology.
> And again: picking up a history book will lead you to realise how mistaken your quaint belief is ("incentive to work less"?).
I've almost certainly read far more than you on history and law. I'm likely more experienced, well traveled, and much more concerned about actual infringement on liberties.
Which, I'd argue, is why I'm less concerned about this technology than you. I know what kinds of things actually infringe on people's liberties.
Your weak attempts to talk down to me, while at alluding to non-specific events in history, would embarrass you if you knew enough to be embarrassed.
Jesus christ give the body cavity thing a rest. It was an expression somebody said 1 time and you latched on like a pitbull to an infant. Obviously you're not in good faith arguing like this.
> Measuring heart rate, using a computer which can log its data, is the exact opposite of arbitrary. It's an objective measurement. You don't seem to understand the words that you're using.
There is NO correlation between that measurement and criminal activity, that's the point. It's NOT OBJECTIVE like a polygraph test is not objective even though it's recording objective measurements. This would be just a tool for the state apparatus to harass arbitrary citizens with a veil of plausible deniability ("ah but my sensor says you're nervous, what are you hiding citizen??"). I would also do well without the condescending attitude tyvm.
> Do you think they get bonuses for doing them? It's beyond ridiculous that you can't keep your argument straight
Did ICE need bonuses to ramp up their actions over the past 9 months? Did the SS need bonuses, did the Stasi, the NKVD, any of the repressive apparatus of any totalitarian regime of the 20th century? Jesus h christ.
> I've almost certainly read far more than you on history and law. I'm likely more experienced, well traveled, and much more concerned about actual infringement on liberties.
> Your weak attempts to talk down to me, while at alluding to non-specific events in history, would embarrass you if you knew enough to be embarrassed.
Ahaha okay this is one step below a navy seals copypasta, so let's leave it at this. Enjoy your weekend!
You're missing the point: if the computer picks you out for some reason (perhaps you are ill, perhaps you are worried about losing your job or a family member's health, whatever), they won't care about the economic inefficiency or the infringement on your rights. Just because you don't intend to commit crimes doesn't mean you're immunized from bad decision-making by security systems.
Some of the responses to me were rude and I calibrated my responses to them appropriately. You stated I was "missing the point" which is more rude than me sincerely asking you to explain your rationale.
Your claims made very little sense. In my view, this potential new technology in no way increases the power of security personnel beyond what they already posses.
Unless something about you is targeted to increase searches to intentionally inconvenience people like you. Then it just becomes parallel construction.
I think the argument is that this is precisely the tail end of exceptional conditions overfueling is designed for. If it's typical to fill fuel for 4 hours on a 2 hour flight, and the flight took 4 hours. It seems like this is exactly why they overfuel to 4 hours. If this happens once every 100k flights, then it doesn't even beg the question of "why aren't we overfuelling to 4.5 hours".
This is just clarifying the question from the perspective of an outsider.
That said, an investigation would be pretty reasonable, even if only to confirm that the abornamlity were forces majeures
Why not? It's a factual report stating that the AAIB has opened an investigation into a potentially dangerous incident. There's not any editorial bias evident. See other extensive comments as to why this is not just a case of "it landed, so what's the problem?".
Or did it work as intended? The plane had multiple failed landing attempts, was re-routed, and had enough fuel to land safely. While no one wants to cut it this close, this was not a normal flight.
I’m not an expert in this field, but it would seem that the weight of extra fuel would increase operating costs, so it’s is effectively insurance. How much extra fuel should be carried to account for unplanned events like this, while not carrying so much that it becomes cost prohibitive.
That example is so well known due to how exceptional it was, especially how the pilots handled it. Robert Pearson, the captain, was a very experienced glider pilot. That's something that not many commercial pilots have.
There were also two factors in the landing, that allowed for this to happen. You're going to be coming in really fast for a landing, when gliding in a commercial jet, and you don't have access to your thrust reversers to slow it down. There was a repurposed runway, that they used to land, that just happened to have been used as a drag racing track and had a guard rail. They were able to slow down by scraping across that. It also just so happened the nose gear didn't deploy fully so scraping the nose of the plane against the ground also helped slow it down.
Needless to say it was a bunch of very fortunate events that allowed it to not end in disaster. In any case I would consider it very risky.
The "scraping helped slow it down" theory makes no sense to me. What do you think has a higher coefficient of friction - tire rubber on asphalt, metal on asphalt, or metal on metal?
I would hesitate to chalk it up to just theory, given it was in the NTSB report and they don't really mess around with throwing baseless stuff around. I'd be interested to take another look at it. They likely go into the material science and physics behind this very thing. They're usually filled with gems.
You also have to keep in mind, it wasn't just rubber against asphalt, it was rubber on a wheel that spins. I'm not sure if the front nose gear on a 767 has any brakes but even if it did, I can't imagine it would be sufficient at the speeds they were going.
I mistyped, as this was Canada it wouldn't be the NTSB but the Canadian equivalent at the time: Canadian Aviation Safety Board. The report is a good read.
Rubber likely grips much better than metal, however three wheels have massively lower surface area than the body of the plane, or even a small section of it like the head.
Of course we don't land tireless for other reasons (metal transfers heat exceptionally well unlike rubber, paint doesn't survive high speed impact, and it tends to deform upon impact with anything, making any future flights unsafe), but the fastest way to slow down if you don't care about safety or comfort would probably be to land tireless, if you could introduce some rotational spin, that might be faster (more force directed in multiple directions).
Also, on the note of "coefficient of friction", remember that this number is not just some innate property of a molecule - as the metal scratches the pavement and deforms, its coefficient of friction goes up as micro-deformities accrue.
Fuel depletion is stupendously risky, it is one of the most risky things that can happen to a jet. The only things more dangerous are fire and control systems failure.
The Gimli Glider was a case of many items of luck lining up.
You could've read at least the Wikipedia page on how miraculous Gimli Glider was.
From "all engine failure is never expected and not covered in training" to "Pearson was an experienced glider pilot familiar with techniques rarely needed in commercial flights" to the amount of maneuvers they had to execute on a barely responding aircraft
I know you're trolling, but for anyone that hasn't heard of Gimli Glider, look it up or watch a documentary on youtube. The stars definitely aligned to make that happen.
Fuel depletion is _not that risky_ is an interesting take. But hey, it won Chapecoense its first and only Copa Sudamericana, so maybe it isn't that bad after all?
"If a company can't find someone for a specific job or role then I don't care if they go abroad to find that person."
You're believing and repeating the propaganda. The H1B was sold to Americans as for this purpose and then very deliberately turned into a loophole for importing massive amounts of foreign labor.
How silly is it to accept the idea that Big Tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Tesla are not be able to hire Americans for any role they want. They're the richest companies on the planet!
These companies use the H1B to increase their labor supply, suppress wages, and gain indentured workers.
If they couldn't cheat by importing cheaper foreign labor they would have to compete against each other much more than they do for American workers.
This is all about big companies rigging the system. They do not care if it's good or bad for America, the foreign workers, or anyone else. It's simple greed.
this is also believing and repeating the propaganda, just a different propaganda.
and entirely different propaganda is that without being able to hire so many people constantly, the work just doesnt happen, and companies downsize to save money rather than grow to make more money.
a greedier facebook doesnt dump a ton of money into VR or ai glasses.
US has the highest salaries for software engineers in the world. If this is what suppressed salaries look like, then what do you think they should be paying? I think if the labour pool is further restricted by measures like this one, it can only lead to companies doubling down on opening R&D offices abroad.
They've almost all already doubled down and opened R&D offices abroad. They will do absolutely whatever helps them maximize profits. There are no ethics to it.
American companies shouldn't be able to bribe American politicians into letting them cheat the market at the expense of Americans.
If companies couldn't cheat by importing foreign workers they would have to hire and pay Americans more. They would also lobby for good things, like educating even more Americans to work for them.
Man want both good of indoors and good of out outdoors.