alabuck wrote:
-----------------
Here's what I know from my own CW readings, plus an article I located. Napped it helps. AB
Each gun (11" Dahlgrens) was manned by a crew of 8. Then, add an officer, for a total of 17 crewmen in the turrent. During the engagement, Monitor‍ '​s turret began to malfunction, making it extremely difficult to turn and stop at a given position, so the crew simply let the turret continuously turn and fired their guns "on the fly" as they bore on Virginia. Several times, Monitor received direct hits on the turret, causing some bolts to violently shear off and ricochet around inside. The deafening sound of the impact stunned some of the crew, causing nose and ear bleeding.
Monitor‍ '​s turret measured 20 ft (6.1 m) in diameter and 9 ft (2.7 m) high, constructed with 8 inches (20 cm) of armor (11 inches in front at the gun ports) rendering the overall vessel somewhat top heavy. Its rounded shape helped to deflect cannon shot. A pair of donkey engines rotated the turret through a set of gears; a full rotation was made in 22.5 seconds during testing on 9 February 1862. Fine control of the turret proved to be difficult as the engine would have to be placed in reverse if the turret overshot its mark or another full rotation could be made. The only way to see out of the turret was through the gun ports; when the guns were not in use, or withdrawn for reloading during battle, heavy iron port stoppers would swing down into place to close the gunports.
Monitor‍ '​s guns used the standard standard propellant charge of 15 pounds (6.8 kg) specified by the 1860 ordnance for targets "distant", "near", and "ordinary", established by the gun's designer Dahlgren himself. They could fire a 136-pound (61.7 kg) round shot or shell up to a range of 3,650 yards (3,340 m) at an elevation of +15°.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monitor
----------------- br Here's what I know from my ow... (
show quote)
I believe I have read that during the battle with the Virginia/Merrimac the guns were loaded with half-charges because the guns were not fully trusted. Had they used full charges the Virginia would likely have been destroyed.
The ovum which is fertilized contains 50% of the DNA of the potential child, and is a living cell. In all of nature man is the only animal which tries to prevent this fertilization, including by the most unnatural method, abstinence, totally unknown in the animal kingdom. If we followed natural law we would require women to attempt conception every month. That this is natural is shown by the facts that women are most likely to cheat on a partner while ovulating. Clearly encouraging cheating and promiscuity to force more conception would be socially unacceptable. We accept that blocking development into a child before conception (Abstinence is universally accepted) but think that at that moment we lose the right to do what is right for society? I can understand that a person might have religious beliefs, but I cannot be convinced that there is a moral issue here. The main article here was a beautiful well-argued statement. The criticism seems to be that since abortion is evil, anything said in its support is evil.
The fetuses have all been lawfully obtained. There were no additional abortions because of this practice. I think it would be immoral to not use them for research which might save lives or alleviate suffering. This is just an attempt to stir up emotions.
We do not respect the choice of a child in some areas. She is not allowed to choose to have sex with a man. She is not allowed to drink, or vote. When younger, not allowed to drive. Here the state has made a determination that her treatment was improper, and imposed the treatment recommended by responsible medical personnel. We also reject a religious right to refuse medical treatment for a child.
Chemotherapy is awful, cancer is worse. A few people will have spontaneous remissions; if one of them is taking a quack treatment it will be hailed as a new breakthrough. The race is not always to the swift, or the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet, especially if a life depends on it. While you can experiment on yourself, you cannot do it on your child. These treatments have been shown to be the best, even if not perfect.
Chemotherapy is awful, cancer is worse. A few people will have spontaneous remissions; if one of them is taking a quack treatment it will be hailed as a new breakthrough. The race is not always to the swift, or the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet, especially if a life depends on it. While you can experiment on yourself, you cannot do it on your child. These treatments have been shown to be the best, even if not perfect.
She seems to not know the first amendment.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are two separate rights enumerated in the same amendment, and not otherwise linked.
If we allowed religion to be grounds for a business to discriminate, a person could claim that their religion prohibited contact with anyone of darker skin color. This is obviously unacceptable; and we can't put one religion ahead of another, so a religious exemption is not reasonable.
We assume we have a right to bring our children up in the religion of our choice, which includes atheism. If a child goes to school and is assailed with religion, it is a burden on the parent to explain his position. Most atheists have better than average morality, because they think about things. The morality of religion is mostly rules needed for a stable society. The conflict nowadays arises on rules that made sense before contraception (The need to provide a family for children) and rules that expressed personal distaste such as those on homosexuality. The ancients were clearly ambivalent about this, because several kings of Israel are praised for removing the male temple prostitutes. The fact that they kept on returning indicates this was an unsettled issue.
I am convinced the low limits are to enable the police to stop anyone they choose as everyone exceeds the legal limit. I was driving 65 on the 55 limit Garden State Pkwy when I was pulled over. I was told to keep to the right, because cars were passing me on the right, and let go. Essentially I was pulled over for going too slow while 10 mph over the limit.
As a teacher, I can see value for all in banning zeros. If a child gets a zero, it will be nearly impossible to pass regardless of how he does the rest of the year. This will result in the child giving up, and not doing any work for the rest of the term. The child is also more likely to be disruptive, making it more difficult to teach the other students. A grade of 50, or 60 as in one district in which I taught will still be a failure, but leave some hope if the child cleans up his act.
Even the best students will give up if they feel a situation is hopeless. I went to MIT, and second term organic chemistry had a poor book, mediocre teaching and overly difficult tests. (Class averages of 33, 33, 35, 30 out of 100.) As the term progressed, I notices many students stopped working, feeling it made no difference. (I was good at guessing mechanisms, had a 57 average and got an A because he had to grade on a curve.)
From what I have read, the number of qualified black applicants is low; to get more they would have to lower standards.
I consider the possibility of bias in policing an open question. What I do find inexcusable is using the police as a profit center. We even see this in New York City, where many view the introduction of cameras at red lights to be more of a revenue raiser than a safety feature. In Ferguson an obscene percent of the budget is reaped from fines. My own solution would be for the state to collect all fines, and then return them in proportion to the law enforcement budget, not revenue raised. I think there would be less "chickenshit" enforcement of the law if there was no immediate profit, and race relations would improve.
BTW, I find Obama's latest statement that protests were justified by the shooting outrageous; Wilson was protecting all law-abiding citizens by his actions, and the shooting totally justified.
Most reasonable theory I have heard:
The Liberty was an electronic surveillance vessel(fact), which had reportedly picked up on Israel's scrambling of Jordanian - Egyptian communications to induce Jordan to join the war. (They made Jordan think Egypt was winning.) (Theory) This allowed Israel to take over Jerusalem and the west bank, then controlled by Jordan.Not clear how high up in the Israeli command the decision to attack was made.
In the United States, I agree. In China and India girls are selectively aborted. (As a man I personally I prefer boys being aborted as it increases the supply of women.) Right now Chinese men are paying the price for the preference for boys policy as they find it hard to get wives.
I am sure you would be horrified if a company required you to contribute to the Republican party as a condition of employment. Without right to work, you are compelled to contribute to an organization, the union, that spends a large fraction of its income supporting the Democrats. Compulsory unionism is a serious infringement on individual liberty. It always amazes me that so-called liberals can ignore this because it provides money for their cause.
If they had earned income, but not over the threshold for paying taxes, they would be eligible. IRS probably has no choice based on precedents. Action by congress needed. "Earned income" credit is based on earned income; if you had no earned income you are not eligible. (Unearned income would be interest, dividends, capital gains, which they are very unlikely to have.)