While the statistics seem plausible for a meteor to hit a single flight over the history of air travel, the statistics are virtually nil it would happen to a single plane, while there is a much higher probability of another cause.
It's like saying if someone were found dead in the parking lot of a Wall-Mart with a bashed in face maybe they were hit by a meteor, since the chance of a fatal meteor strike on a single human over the history of humans would be surprisingly high (even though the chance of it happening to any single human on any single day is very small).
What is more dangerous to the world than putting nuclear weapons in space? How about a satellite that can shoot meteors? It is untraceable, and ultimately much less expensive than shooting missiles. Clearly the Russians or perhaps Boeing is behind this.
In questionable taste jokes aside, this is a tragedy, and I hope we can find out what truly caused it. It is hard to say whether finding out it was caused by a meteor would bring closure or not for the families and friends, but it would at least give an answer - which is something. Regardless, it is good to hear that they are considering every possibility.
@fuzz54: If it is a metallic meteorite (even a relatively small one, say between the size of a softball and a soccer ball) it would still show up as way larger than a bird, being that it is METALLIC...
Whatever the cause, I hope it can be found and determined to allow the families some measure of closure. With no wreckage or anything, the conspiracy theories will torture the loved ones for life.
@Curves: If the families have any sanity in them, they won't fall for conspiracy theories.
A large plane flies into a huge thunderstorm, loses electrical almost surely due to lightning, proceeds to crash due to a large number of reasons a lightning storm can present, and goes down in the ocean. Being large and not meant to float, it doesn't, dragging its contents down into the ocean.
It is odd to have not found anything other than an oil slick as of yet, but not so odd as to defy reason.
Let's not criticize the kid for using the GPS here... the fault lies squarely on the father for acting out and murdering the kids, and the wife for cheating. Technology had nothing to do with the evil acts performed here. It's tragic that the kids ended up with the raw end of this when they did nothing wrong.
@Doug Johnson: Again, the mother cheating should in now way be fault for the murder of the children. I wish people would stop bringing her into it. She could have been spending too long at the nail salon and he could have found reason in his sick brain to do it.
@Shamoononon thanks Rocephin: I agree. This is way too extreme to be some "OMG SHE CHEATED LIFE IS OVER" thing. I suspect that in many other situations, he'd be a similarly volatile powder keg waiting to explode.
@Shamoononon thanks Rocephin: You are 1000% correct that he killed the kids to get back at his wife. She has to live every day the rest of her life with the loss of her children, for which she will blame herself. He did the ultimate in selfish and self serving acts. May God have mercy on his soul.
The father shot each child multiple times as they lay in their beds...in their trailer...in a mobile home park. But the bodies weren't discovered until the next afternoon because nobody heard anything??? In a frakkin' mobile home park? Tin can homes crammed close together? WTF?
I was just watching something about this on the news this morning. The wife claims that she was *not* cheating on her husband, and that he was violent and abusive.
@Epoch's apple copyright violation: Accordign to the reports I read he went looking for her after killing the kids, didn't find her, and killed himself.
@Sean Thomas: "...he killed...his kids...becuase his WIFE was cheating?? thats messed up."
As you've written it, it almost sounds like you are suggesting it would have been less messed up had he just killed the wife. Please tell me your choice of wording/emphasis does not mean that.
@bosskev: "As you've written it, it almost sounds like you are suggesting it would have been less messed up had he just killed the wife"
That is because it would've.
Killing is wrong, but his logic would've been sound at least. His wife betrayed HIM and is hurting HIM, she has done him wrong. The kids have done absolutely nothing wrong to him, to kill them out of his anger was entirely blind.
If he would do that to his own kids... I fear what he woudl've done to a stranger who looked at him funny.
@Deaf Mute: "Killing is wrong, but his logic would've been sound at least."
So...you are saying it WOULD have been "less messed up" had he applied logic and merely killed the cheating wife? Because, you know, "she was asking for it, made him do it, had it coming to her?", something like that?
@everybody: All I'm saying is that, whether the guy shot:
1) 5 kids, or
2) 1 wife, or
3) 12 lords a leaping
IT'S ALL MESSED UP, with NO degrees of difference. There is no circumstance under which shooting anyone is less "messed up" than shooting someone else.
My fear here is that some people aren't aware of the misogyny, however slight, that comes slithering into the conversation as soon as we identify her as "a cheating wife". Whether or not she cheated on him, whether or not she loved the guy or treated him fairly, whether or not anything, it's so easy to think, even if subliminally, "well, she pushed him to do it" and to conclude she would have been a more logical target.
No. Cheating or not, she didn't push him to do anything, he did all that himself. And it would have been no less messed up for him to have shot her instead.
It's obvious that she IS the reason he flipped out -- and it would OBVIOUSLY make her the LOGICAL TARGET of his RAGE. The kids are a LESS LOGICAL target.
I have no idea what you're trying to say? That killing a Nazi soldier in WWII is the same as microwaving your child? Because it ISN'T.
@Invisiblemoose: "I have no idea what you're trying to say? That killing a Nazi soldier in WWII is the same as microwaving your child? Because it ISN'T."
The fact that you would compare a wartime defense situation with a heinous murder makes it pretty clear you don't know what I am saying. Actions of self-defense taken during a war have nothing to do with, and do not belong in the same conversation as, voluntary acts of domestic violence.
He cracked. He was a psycho. Self-defense was not involved in any capacity. There is/was no logic. Challenge my statements all you like but please keep the argument relevant.
"It's obvious that she IS the reason he flipped out -- and it would OBVIOUSLY make her the LOGICAL TARGET of his RAGE."
Rage, yes. But again I cry out, her acts do not, under any conditions, make it "logical" for her to be a target of MURDER. A target of a knockdown, dragout emtionally charged argument? You betcha. A target of a divorce decree? Sure. A target of an abuse-towards-husband lawsuit? Maybe. A target, logical or otherwise, of violence? Never.
"You're digging yourself into a hole."
As you see it, fine. However, I have never been more comfortable with my position.
So yesterday I had to walk away from this discussion. Sound arguments against my position were being hurled left and right. Did I get off course? Did I lose myself in trying to defend a point? I decided to sleep on it, to allow myself a fresh perspective. And now, in the light of day, I have a few new thoughts.
On the surface, to say, "Five murders is worse than one murder" actually can sound reasonable and logical. But then, if I accept that as logical, then I must also be prepared to accept the reverse statement as equally logical. That is, I must be able to embrace its flipside, "One murder is better than five murders". I cannot do that. I can never put "better" and "murder" into the same sentence. The logic, as sound as it is in the one direction, absolutely fails me in the reverse.
Consider the laws of physics. We live in a universe of constants, where matter and energy work in predictable, measurable ways. Anything can be reduced into logical equations. As such, actions can thus always be quantified--always, that is, until you introduce an element that lies beyond those laws of physics--an element such as an event horizon. As you approach an event horizon, all the known and understood universal constants change and/or are discarded. The universal laws no longer apply. Math and equations fail.
To me, murder is just such an event horizon. It crosses a line in the laws of our human condition, and it does so irretrievably and illogically. IS one better than five, two better than ten, ten better than a thousand? While the logic may sound plausible when applied to "lesser" atrocities, when applied to murder, it does not. Murder is light changing its velocity. Murder is dividing by zero. Murder cannot be quantified in the same way as "lesser" actions. And that is why, despite the apparent failure of logic, I stand by my position. Should you disagree, I respect your position; allow us to agree to disagree.
When I started this entire line of inquiry, I did not expect to get SO off track into a discusion of logic, (meta)physics and morality. Indeed, looking back at the original poster's first comment and then mine, you can see I only meant to raise an eyebrow of awareness to the possible misogyny in his writing, of how such an internalized element could skew our viewpoints. The discussion has, of course, now veered dramatically off course and in most unexpected ways. Still, I do not regret the discussion. It has made me think. It has made me try to cope with the absolute illogic of my position. It has made me reconcile my personal views on logic and morality. And that's something, for better or worse, that you might not expect to get from a gadget blog. ;^)
Thanks to all for the (mostly) civil discussion that has occurred. I'm moving on now to...well, gadgets. See you in the other stories!
Just to clarify he was not a conductor. He was the engineer and he missed the signal directing him to stop his train.
The conductor was taking care of the passengers. If it was mandatory for the conductor to be in the controlling cab then its quite possible this accident would have never happened. Two sets of eyes could have prevented this. You would think that since the cargo is human the conductor would be required on the head end of the train, but what it boils down to is that its cheaper to have the conductor do multiple tasks like taking care of the passengers. Ticket punching. Its all about money. Eliminate a viable and important job to make more money and sacrifice the safety of the passengers.
@R.C. Taylor: Yeah, that's why we have so many head on rail collisions! Wait, we don't? You mean this was a freak accident, which was the end result of a cascade failure any step of which could have stopped the whole thing? So if we had just fired the Engineer, and had computers run the train, this wouldn't have happened b/c this guy wouldn't have been on that train? You're right, fire them all for more safety AND more money savings!
So since we are in the modern age... where are the automatic safeguards that will slow and or stop two trains that are on the same track heading for each other.
If two trains head on into each other, then there was a switching fault somewhere. last time i checked... engineers don't have direct control over switching so someone else is probably at fault in that disaster.
@dOk: Considering that our rail network throughout the US is in pretty damn shitty shape? You tell me.
Part of the funding for Amtrak was to help improve the quality and safety of our rail systems. As it is many commuter routes share with freight. Which increases the chance of such collisions happening.
There are all kinds of reasons this happened, but mostly it was the conductor ignoring his job/stop signals.
To answer your question, where are the automatic safeguards that slow and/or stop cars that are going to run a red light? Or that keep a vehicle from crossing the median into oncoming traffic? Or that stop idiots from droving down the off-ramp into oncoming traffic? Or or or.
06/05/09
It's like saying if someone were found dead in the parking lot of a Wall-Mart with a bashed in face maybe they were hit by a meteor, since the chance of a fatal meteor strike on a single human over the history of humans would be surprisingly high (even though the chance of it happening to any single human on any single day is very small).
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
In questionable taste jokes aside, this is a tragedy, and I hope we can find out what truly caused it. It is hard to say whether finding out it was caused by a meteor would bring closure or not for the families and friends, but it would at least give an answer - which is something. Regardless, it is good to hear that they are considering every possibility.
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
A large plane flies into a huge thunderstorm, loses electrical almost surely due to lightning, proceeds to crash due to a large number of reasons a lightning storm can present, and goes down in the ocean. Being large and not meant to float, it doesn't, dragging its contents down into the ocean.
It is odd to have not found anything other than an oil slick as of yet, but not so odd as to defy reason.
06/05/09
04/08/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
04/08/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
04/08/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
People are fucked up, man.
04/07/09
04/07/09
@Curves: Oh tolerant one, you're always understanding ;)
04/08/09
What in the holy fucking ass-raping, Jesus-stabbing shit is going on in people's heads sometimes??
04/07/09
04/07/09
doesn't make sense. for that reason alone i'd lean toward believing her side of the story.
04/08/09
04/08/09
04/07/09
04/07/09
As you've written it, it almost sounds like you are suggesting it would have been less messed up had he just killed the wife. Please tell me your choice of wording/emphasis does not mean that.
04/07/09
That is because it would've.
Killing is wrong, but his logic would've been sound at least. His wife betrayed HIM and is hurting HIM, she has done him wrong. The kids have done absolutely nothing wrong to him, to kill them out of his anger was entirely blind.
If he would do that to his own kids... I fear what he woudl've done to a stranger who looked at him funny.
04/07/09
So...you are saying it WOULD have been "less messed up" had he applied logic and merely killed the cheating wife? Because, you know, "she was asking for it, made him do it, had it coming to her?", something like that?
04/07/09
1) 5 kids, or
2) 1 wife, or
3) 12 lords a leaping
IT'S ALL MESSED UP, with NO degrees of difference. There is no circumstance under which shooting anyone is less "messed up" than shooting someone else.
My fear here is that some people aren't aware of the misogyny, however slight, that comes slithering into the conversation as soon as we identify her as "a cheating wife". Whether or not she cheated on him, whether or not she loved the guy or treated him fairly, whether or not anything, it's so easy to think, even if subliminally, "well, she pushed him to do it" and to conclude she would have been a more logical target.
No. Cheating or not, she didn't push him to do anything, he did all that himself. And it would have been no less messed up for him to have shot her instead.
04/07/09
It's obvious that she IS the reason he flipped out -- and it would OBVIOUSLY make her the LOGICAL TARGET of his RAGE. The kids are a LESS LOGICAL target.
I have no idea what you're trying to say? That killing a Nazi soldier in WWII is the same as microwaving your child? Because it ISN'T.
04/07/09
The fact that you would compare a wartime defense situation with a heinous murder makes it pretty clear you don't know what I am saying. Actions of self-defense taken during a war have nothing to do with, and do not belong in the same conversation as, voluntary acts of domestic violence.
He cracked. He was a psycho. Self-defense was not involved in any capacity. There is/was no logic. Challenge my statements all you like but please keep the argument relevant.
"It's obvious that she IS the reason he flipped out -- and it would OBVIOUSLY make her the LOGICAL TARGET of his RAGE."
Rage, yes. But again I cry out, her acts do not, under any conditions, make it "logical" for her to be a target of MURDER. A target of a knockdown, dragout emtionally charged argument? You betcha. A target of a divorce decree? Sure. A target of an abuse-towards-husband lawsuit? Maybe. A target, logical or otherwise, of violence? Never.
"You're digging yourself into a hole."
As you see it, fine. However, I have never been more comfortable with my position.
04/08/09
So yesterday I had to walk away from this discussion. Sound arguments against my position were being hurled left and right. Did I get off course? Did I lose myself in trying to defend a point? I decided to sleep on it, to allow myself a fresh perspective. And now, in the light of day, I have a few new thoughts.
On the surface, to say, "Five murders is worse than one murder" actually can sound reasonable and logical. But then, if I accept that as logical, then I must also be prepared to accept the reverse statement as equally logical. That is, I must be able to embrace its flipside, "One murder is better than five murders". I cannot do that. I can never put "better" and "murder" into the same sentence. The logic, as sound as it is in the one direction, absolutely fails me in the reverse.
Consider the laws of physics. We live in a universe of constants, where matter and energy work in predictable, measurable ways. Anything can be reduced into logical equations. As such, actions can thus always be quantified--always, that is, until you introduce an element that lies beyond those laws of physics--an element such as an event horizon. As you approach an event horizon, all the known and understood universal constants change and/or are discarded. The universal laws no longer apply. Math and equations fail.
To me, murder is just such an event horizon. It crosses a line in the laws of our human condition, and it does so irretrievably and illogically. IS one better than five, two better than ten, ten better than a thousand? While the logic may sound plausible when applied to "lesser" atrocities, when applied to murder, it does not. Murder is light changing its velocity. Murder is dividing by zero. Murder cannot be quantified in the same way as "lesser" actions. And that is why, despite the apparent failure of logic, I stand by my position. Should you disagree, I respect your position; allow us to agree to disagree.
When I started this entire line of inquiry, I did not expect to get SO off track into a discusion of logic, (meta)physics and morality. Indeed, looking back at the original poster's first comment and then mine, you can see I only meant to raise an eyebrow of awareness to the possible misogyny in his writing, of how such an internalized element could skew our viewpoints. The discussion has, of course, now veered dramatically off course and in most unexpected ways. Still, I do not regret the discussion. It has made me think. It has made me try to cope with the absolute illogic of my position. It has made me reconcile my personal views on logic and morality. And that's something, for better or worse, that you might not expect to get from a gadget blog. ;^)
Thanks to all for the (mostly) civil discussion that has occurred. I'm moving on now to...well, gadgets. See you in the other stories!
03/03/09
The conductor was taking care of the passengers. If it was mandatory for the conductor to be in the controlling cab then its quite possible this accident would have never happened. Two sets of eyes could have prevented this. You would think that since the cargo is human the conductor would be required on the head end of the train, but what it boils down to is that its cheaper to have the conductor do multiple tasks like taking care of the passengers. Ticket punching. Its all about money. Eliminate a viable and important job to make more money and sacrifice the safety of the passengers.
03/03/09
03/03/09
If two trains head on into each other, then there was a switching fault somewhere. last time i checked... engineers don't have direct control over switching so someone else is probably at fault in that disaster.
03/03/09
Part of the funding for Amtrak was to help improve the quality and safety of our rail systems. As it is many commuter routes share with freight. Which increases the chance of such collisions happening.
There are all kinds of reasons this happened, but mostly it was the conductor ignoring his job/stop signals.
To answer your question, where are the automatic safeguards that slow and/or stop cars that are going to run a red light? Or that keep a vehicle from crossing the median into oncoming traffic? Or that stop idiots from droving down the off-ramp into oncoming traffic? Or or or.
03/03/09
03/03/09