“No, I never said that was my theory. I don't have a theory, because any of the ones that I come up with all have gaping holes in them (so I guess I have many flawed theories actually). But considering how many countries have ships and planes out searching, and this is now the third or fourth day? Yeah, I'd say the plane probably got off-course, so it's probably in a different area than where they're searching. Do I think it was intentionally off-course? No, that'd be silly, and I don't wear tinfoil hats. But planes get off-course -- just look at the Korean plane that the Soviets shot down back in the 80s because it flew through Soviet airspace due to unintentionally being off-course. Shit happens all the time.
I have no idea what happened to this plane. It was obviously catastrophic, whatever it was. But I do feel pretty confident in my assertion that it did not make a nice, smooth landing on the surface of the ocean and sink to the bottom in one piece or in a big enough of a piece so that there would be no debris. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat my words. But planes just don't fall from 35,000 ft and not leave debris. I mean, the Air France flight sank in very deep waters, but it still left debris that was discovered within a day, if I recall correctly. The water in this area is relatively shallow, I hear.”
“I said there is no way there WOULDN'T be debris. Then, I offered two *exceedingly unlikely* scenarios in which there might *conceivably* NOT be a debris field; they don't really merit anything beyond mentioning because they're just so unlikely that they might as well be impossible. If there were a bomb or an explosive decompression or anything else that would've torn the plane apart in the air (or had it coming apart upon water entry), there would definitely be fragments of the fuselage and items from inside the plane that would be floating on the surface. I imagine there IS a debris field somewhere, but the plane must've gotten far off course after disappearing from radar (instrument failure?), meaning everyone's looking in the wrong place.
The Hudson River crash was less of a crash and more of a relatively controlled landing (given the circumstances) -- there was no debris because the plane didn't break apart. There is zero evidence that this 777 that disappeared from radar at 35,000 feet managed a controlled landing in the freaking ocean, all without sending a distress call. If the pilots had the time/wherewithal to manage a controlled water landing in the ocean, they would've had the time/wherewithal to send a distress call; it's that simple. And I don't think the plane could've hit the water fast enough and at a steep enough angle to NOT break apart upon entry and just sink to the bottom; the physics of that just don't compute.”
Vincent Mancini on Mar 10, 2014 at 15:51:36
“so now your theory is that a bomb was on board and the first thing the pilot did when a "bomb" went off when they were in the middle of the ocean would be to turn the plane in a direction where no one would find them. hum... FYI US Airways Flight 1549 did crash into the water so bad it ripped the whole bottom off of it so there would have been tons of debris. It ripped so much of the bottom off the plane that it sunk. Look at the museum that it is now and see how much ripped off the plane. In fact the whole back section is gone”
“There would absolutely be a debris field. In fact, there should be a debris field for any scenario that has the plane breaking up in the air or upon entry. The only situations in which there conceivably wouldn't be a debris field is, 1) if somehow there was a controlled water landing, followed by the plane sinking in one piece -- which is exceedingly unlikely, especially since there was no distress call, so I doubt the pilot had time for a controlled landing if he didn't even have the time or wherewithal to send a distress call; or 2) the plane were still in the air -- which is obviously impossible, as it was only carrying enough fuel for seven hours.”
Vincent Mancini on Mar 10, 2014 at 05:55:52
“@Natalie I dont get your post. You said there is no way there would be debris and then give 2 examples of reasons there would not be any. For one there are always 2 pilots so they could send a distress call (which did not happen). Its like driving a car, only one can handle the controls and the other can call like they did for the plane that landed in the Hudson. For there to be debris on water something has to be able to float. when you crash a large plane into water everything that floats is in the inside. Look at the Hudson crash and look around the plane and look for any debris because there was none.”
“I'm posting the following link from my phone, so if it doesn't work for whatever reason, sorry. It gives a bit more background -- it apparently happened on an iPad (that I presume was being projected on a screen) and through iCloud. I don't use iCloud, but if it's anything like SkyDrive, I imagine she uses it much like I do -- for personal files AND for work/school files. Accidents happen. I don't think it's necessary to crucify her and ruin her entire career (and life?) over this. She's apologized, and she will no doubt be disciplined, if not fired altogether. This righteous indignation on everyone's part is unnecessary. I mean, yes, of course it was inappropriate and never should have happened; no one is arguing otherwise. But it did, and it's not the end of the freaking world. I've been a teacher, too, and middle schoolers aren't the shrinking flowers people think they are. Especially in the city.
“Math has always been my worst and least favorite subject, from elementary school on; however, I still took every math class my high school offered, including college algebra and AP Calculus. As a Spanish major in college, the only quantitative course I took was Psych Stats during that one semester I was a Psych major. I got my Master's in International Affairs, and I'm now in law school. In other words, I do not use math in my life at all outside of simple banking transactions. Nevertheless, I'm glad I took geometry, algebra II, trig, calculus, college algebra, and statistics for the simple fact that they have made me a more educated and well-rounded person. I'm a firm believer that the point of schooling isn't just to get a job -- it's to learn. So, yes, most people might not use upper-level math skills once they graduate high school, but they will most likely need to use upper-level thinking skills, and it just so happens that math skills *are* upper-level thinking skills and are easily transferable.
Plus, there's just something to be said about learning for learning's sake.”
“I think the inclusion of God goes against the "establishment of religion" part.
That being said, despite being a diehard liberal, I honestly don't care if our money says "In God We Trust." I have more pressing issues on my mind!”
Alain Rozan on Mar 14, 2013 at 11:25:55
“That is the heart of the debate.
The intent of the framers was unfortunately not unanimous.
There was the “separationist” position (James Madison and Jefferson notably) who supported a strict separation of Church and State and the “accommodationist” also referred as "nonpreferentialists" who sought only to prevent the establishment of one particular religion as a State religion.
The separationist position was expressed by Jefferson stated in a letter. He wrote:
" Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Jefferson's view was endorsed by Justice Hugo Black in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education, where he referred to Jefferson's letter when he states:
“In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by laws was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’””
“Ha! Very good question and there lies exactly the difference between a full separation of Church and State and the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Since Atheists are by definition not a religion, they cannot claim that the word "God" alone violates the First Amendment. Had it been "Jesus", it would have been blatantly unconstitutional.”
“I'm sure cost is also an issue. I can't imagine that ground-penetrating sonar is cheap. Plus, it sounds like a huge complex; they don't even know if she's there, much less where she would be within that complex. I think it's just practicality. Obviously I wish cost weren't an issue, but it is, especially when budgets are being cut every day. I do hope her family is able to have some closure some day, though...how horrible for them.”
“I don't have a job yet...because I'm still in school. I'm not yet ready to get a job in my chosen field.”
goboinouterspace on Jan 23, 2013 at 16:29:11
“Just be aware that being in college isn't a sign of success in this country anymore. ANYONE can go to college these days (not that it's a bad thing, but it means that your education doesn't really set you apart from every other law student in the country).
I had 80 same majors graduate with me. Only eight of us had jobs in our chosen field within two years of graduating. Only four of us had jobs within one year. Just a friendly warning. Many will graduate, few will get jobs.”
“Western or Eastern style parenting? I went to a top 10 school for undergrad and am now in law school (and going to make oodles of money some day, of course...), so score one for the Western moms, lol.”
Black Rhino on Jan 23, 2013 at 15:07:01
“The top 1-2% of pedigree holders live Great in the US. Perhaps the best nation to live in, if you're quite wealthy, talented, educated. There is no equivalent of a Stanford or Brown, in most other nations. It is quite the privileged road.”
goboinouterspace on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:23:35
“You and every other college student . . . Do you have a job yet?
Being in college isn't a sign of success in this country anymore.”
“I'm so thankful my mother was nothing like Amy Chua. She expected a lot from me -- but no more than I expected of myself. She always said she didn't have to set high expectations for me because I set them myself. At the same time, everything I did was partly to make her proud. Even now, at 28, I'm terrified of disappointing her. But she's also my best friend and the person I love most in this world. I grew up with a healthy fear of her wrath should I do something deserving of her wrath, but that was accompanied by an environment of love and encouragement. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to raise my future kids the same way.”
mktparticipant on Jan 24, 2013 at 20:55:17
“A child (even an adult one) should never be "terrified of disappointing [mom]" or her "wrath." That contradicts your point that your mother was nothing like Amy Chua.”
Black Rhino on Jan 22, 2013 at 21:55:07
“Hopefully it also comes with career/education success. That's the problem...too often, it doesn't.”
“He was law-abiding UNTIL he killed. According to conservatives, law-abiding citizens should be able to have guns. He was law-abiding until he wasn't. My neighbor is a law-abiding citizen -- until he snaps and takes his legal gun and kills his entire family.”
scorpian777 on Jan 11, 2013 at 11:30:18
“Becaused he killes does not mean all law biding citizens will do same. How many law biding kill huh?? Stop with your left wing thinking!!!”
“These kids will have a rude awakening when they're 18 and venture out into the real world -- someone might say a cuss word! Oh noes!”
dancingstu on Jan 10, 2013 at 12:29:58
“Exactly what I was thinking. "You can't give your kids an effective moral and religious upbringing if you only see them a couple of hours a day," said Brown, a Catholic whose daughters, now in the 10th and 12th grade, started virtual school in the second and fourth grade. "When you're at home with them, you can incorporate your beliefs into the day." If you need to be on top of your kids 24/7, you aren't giving them an effective upbringing of any kind. You are teaching them to be wholly dependent on you and incapable of independent thought.”
francophile84 on Jan 10, 2013 at 11:36:27
“Absolutely, these parents cannot shelter their kids forever. Eventually they will have to get out and see the world, the good and the bad.”
Jennifer Vice on Jan 10, 2013 at 11:08:56
“Yeah I have all these reasons to be for it, and this is the one objection. ;-)”
“Maybe we don't want 10-11 year olds in third grade -- but then I also don't want 17 year olds who read at a third grade level in my high school classes. I taught for two years, and that was one of the most frustrating things.”