They're looking at it wrong. The signs are operable by the flight crew.
Given:
Aircraft power is on, signs are on.
Aircraft power is off, signs are off.
Aircraft power is operable by the flight crew.
Therefore:
Signs are operable by the flight crew.
In addition to the aircraft main power system(s), there's almost certainly a circuit-breaker that would turn the signs off. It might turn other things off as well, and circuit-breakers are not generally designed to be used regularly as switches, but there's a circuit breaker in reach of the crew that would turn those signs off.
It's a non-profit. The board doesn't do work. It's there to make sure you don't go around blowing the money or doing things contrary to the objective. Here it's presumably a way to get some cred and fundraising connections. They're probably net-positive in capital.
I'm setting up a non-profit and I need to find a board of independent directors. That's fine for me, but the thing will initially look like 1 worker, 5 directors. But it's not like I'm paying the 5.
Yeah I've never setup anything, but I assume a board more or less has a minimum size of several people that probably goes up the more complicated the setup is and as they get more involvement from outside groups. Unless they are paid positions, the size of the board really doesn't mean anything.
That would be the case if the organization wasn't mostly about what the Board and Advisory Board does - basically being a think tank/advisory board kind of deal.
And the stuff are just like secretarial services and such.
Many years ago, my univerity's choice of calculus book also had the solutions to half the problems (evens or odds, doesn't really matter).
Department policy was also one of "we won't provide you the correct answers" even after an assignment had been turned in because the book was used for multiple years. The publisher had a new edition every year, but the university stuck with the same book because it was used for Calculus I, II, and III, which for most students was 3 or 4 semesters between starting I and finishing III, usually due to a scheduling conflict requiring a semester off between them, or because they had to repeat Calc II since the math department's selection of instructors was particularly bad for that course.
Those same (usually bad) instructors were all too happy to follow the department policy and not provide any feedback other than "correct" or "incorrect".
On the other hand, the university book store carried, and put on the shelf right next to the calculus book, the publisher's "teacher's solution guide", in two very reasonably priced volumes, which had the answers for the other half of the problem sets, as well as the step-by-step process for most of them, which was the valuable part, as you could see where you were erring.
Math department policy was that you weren't allowed to have those, either.
You can guess how well that policy was followed.
Those that put the effort in and learned the material did well. Those that just copied from the solutions book and turned it in did not.
At the end of the day, if a university gives out grades, there has to be some sort of objective way of handing out a grade. What I have seen for the good courses is it is a mixture of exams, projects, and homework.
Some students are very good at taking exams, others, not so much. This can be due to a learning disability, stress over test taking, etc (or it could even be that person just is having a bad day!). Having homework and projects allows for students to have a different way of showing that they understand the coursework, and are able to apply the material.
It also gives the professor and TAs insight into the student. Why is a student doing so well on homeworks, and not the exam or project?
Some courses have it where if youre final grade on the exam is an A, you get an A (since it is a comphrensive knowledge base test of what you are expected to know of the material). But, let's say you don't do as well on the exam, you can have the homeworks average out the exam grade. Or you have a project, that can help equalize out the grades, because the application of the knowledge is important as well.
Assuming that they're referring to decimal degree notation, and not Degrees-Minutes-Seconds, and that the location is correct, and ignoring the spheroid vs perfect sphere issues: about 11.1 meters (36.4 ft).
Breaking things with ResEdit was pretty much my jr. high school hobby. It took a bit before I figured out how to restore things when I was done.
Head "tech" guy in the building eventually figured out it was me, showed me a few things and ended up just giving me an un-limited login and a few rules. Also taught me how to intelligently use ResEdit instead of the brute-force method(s) I was used to.
You didn't even need a boot disk and ResEdit. Just hold down the Shift key while the Mac was booting from the hard drive, and system extensions including Foolproof would be disabled.
To which I ask: Why not place a small loop of (wire, cord, thread, whatever qualifies) on the ground in a park somewhere. Then define "outside" and "inside" the other way 'round from "normal", thus making very-nearly the entirety of the earth "inside", and the very small portion "outside".
It seems logical to me, and I've never heard a reason it can't be done other than "that's defeating the point."
Which I admit, it entirely is, but I don't see it as any more "wrong" than encircling entire cities, and it's a whole lot simpler to maintain.
> It does also defeat the point. That may not be a compelling argument if you don't know what the point is, but there is one.
In fairness, the article itself as well as the Eruv article on Wikipedia linked here both make it seem that the whole point is to enact a kind of escape hatch to a rule that was found to be too strict to be workable in practice.
For example, Wikipedia:
> What constitutes a "public area" is debated. The strict opinion holds that any road more than 16 cubits wide is a public domain, while the lenient opinion holds that a public domain must have both 16 cubits of width and 600,000 people passing through the road on a single day. In practice, communities that build eruvin accept the lenient opinion.
In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.
A typical American feeling is that rules are either important and should be upheld, or unimportant (or bad) and should be gotten rid of. The perspective behind eruvin seems (edit: based on the Wikipedia article, see replies) to hold that rules are important only in their most direct and legalistic version, and even then only to the extent that you can't weasel your way out of them. If that's the case, it's hard to say what's in principle wrong with the idea of a tiny eruv that the whole world is "inside", other than tradition.
>In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.
yes exactly. There are rabbis (in particular I think a lot of sephardic rabbis because Maimonides was strict about eruv) who wouldn't carry in anything less than a walled city.
The comment I was responding to was a fair question. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
That said, your comment contains several significant misconceptions, and you are far too confident despite not having any idea what you are talking about.
First, neither elevation.fandom.com nor Wikipedia are good sources for Jewish thought. How things seem to someone who has no background knowledge after consulting a poor source is of little interest to anyone engaging in serious consideration.
Second, as with most questions in Judaism, there are multiple opinions. Most communities eventually agreed on one position to follow (at least in practice). In this particular case most communities settled on the more lenient position, but just as often it settles on more stringent interpretations. That has no relevance to the question of whether or not Eruvin are a loophole.
Third, Eruvin are not a loophole. They are not an escape hatch or an attempt to weasel out of the rules. They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance. If you understand this it is obvious why we cannot have a single worldwide Eruv. Because it breaks both. It also just straight up doesn't make any sense.
> That said, your comment contains several significant misconceptions, and you are far too confident despite not having any idea what you are talking about.
Sorry, the intent of my comment was actually not to state any kind of conception at all - rather, I wanted to indicate exactly why it is that most people are approaching it from this angle. I understand that none of the sources here are necessarily reliable, but the fact that they're the resources available to most people in the thread are the reason there's so much misunderstanding. (I've made a small edit to my comment to try to make this a little more clear.)
So what I wanted to get at was the fact that anyone reading the Wikipedia article would likely pick up on the obvious implication it contains that eruvin are an attempt to weasel out of a set of rules with legalism.
> They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance.
I would be curious to learn more about this, if the process can be made clear to a non-Jew. For example, how does an eruv help uphold the spirit of the law? If the spirit of the law is what matters, one would intuitively think that you wouldn't need a symbolic "wall" around the community, because the distinction that counts (excluding public spaces) already exists, just not with a physical wall around it. Intuitively, one gets the impression that the wire only needs to exist in order to satisfy a specific rule that has been inherited but no longer matters very much for "spirit-interpretation" today.
The reason I say that eruv uphold the spirit of the law is because it is permissible to carry within walled cities. If it wasn't the intention of the law to make carrying outdoors completely off limits, then it is hard to see why an eruv violates the spirit of the law.
As for why it is necessary to have the physical construction: Just as the law doesn't intend to forbid carrying everywhere, it doesn't intend to permit it everywhere. The actual existence of a physical boundary prevents the perceived permissibility of carrying from expanding constantly. Without it, there would need to be some other equally arbitrary seeming rule about what constitutes a single community.
I also think it is important to mention that both the spirit and the letter of the law are quite important. Even setting aside the question of the spirit of the law, they are still necessary because they are mandated in a legalistic sense.
First, I appreciate the answer. I didn't know about the "no large bodies of water" requirement. When then leads me to ask, what's a "large" body of water?
Second, and I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand: What is the limit on size? I understand there's a point where physically building and maintaining it isn't practical, but is still theoretically possible.
As for defeating the point, I'll admit I only somewhat understand that argument.
As far as I understand -- and I'll readily admit I do not have a great understanding -- the whole concept of the eruv is specifically designed to "defeat the point" of another rule (or set of rules).
Why is "defeating the point" considered to be "ok" or not "ok" based on scale?
Likewise, if "defeating the point" is wrong, why is it not always wrong?
Again, my intention is to understand, not to be snarky or otherwise inappropriate about it, and I'll apologize in advance if my questions cross lines I was unaware of.
Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.
I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument that could be made.
"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation."
Two-party consent is a funny thing. It's empowering to individuals in their interactions with corporations, but in this case it's clearly disempowering to individuals.
Is "asymmetric" one-party consent a thing in any jurisdiction?
One-party consent seems far more empowering to me. It lets me record any conversation I'm a party to whether the other party likes it or not.
In a two-party consent state, the corporation just has a message that the call may be monitored or recorded and me staying on the line qualifies as 'consent'. I'm not provided with an option to talk without being recorded and for many functions companies won't deal with you except through these specific phone numbers.
However, if I tell the company I want to record them, they have very little reason to humor me. In practice, this means I'm almost always being recorded anyway, but I can't generally record them back. It looks to me very much like corporations get one-party consent, and I don't.
I've heard it argued that "This call may be monitored or recorded..." can be interpreted as consent, but I'm not sure how that works out in practice, especially since I'd be recording the individual employees (who may have consented to their employer, but haven't to me).
> However, if I tell the company I want to record them, they have very little reason to humor me. In practice, this means I'm almost always being recorded anyway, but I can't generally record them back.
I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to record calls if a company plays that message. It’s implicit that if they are notifying you the call is being recorded, that they are also aware and agree to being recorded.
One tactic that seems legal is to play a similar message while the company’s robot is playing their message. Since the company doesn’t disconnect it means consent.
Not aware of this being legally tested but seems like a stupid hoop to meet the two party consent jurisdictions.
The message itself ("this call may be recorded") has given you consent the record the call, without needing to play your own version. The point was that this doesn't mean the employee themselves has consented.
Then again, the caller could use similar reasoning of saying their assistant placed the call and waited on hold, and only then did they get on the line. Or really any phone conversation where a new party comes on the line after the recording has started.
I think the call center employee would have a pretty hard time arguing some expectation of privacy regarding your recording, when their employer has made it clear that the call can be recorded. I'd be interested in any precedents to the contrary though.
However, talking in terms of "consent" might just be a red herring. A company hasn't actually obtained your consent by playing a notice that they are recording the call. What they have done is destroy your expectation of privacy.
I used to support a call center. One of the things we did was monitor that the call agents gave the disclosure for each call. One sticky point was that if we had to get a 2 borrower on the line, we had to give the disclosure AGAIN.
Each person you talk to needs to hear the disclosure.
Recording provides power to the weaker entity because they can expose the more powerful entity. The ability to expose is the only equalizing power a weaker entity has.
For example, an employer with power over an employee can ask the employee to do something unscrupulous without worrying about being exposed if the law forbids the employee from being able to expose the employer.
For a large corporation versus small individual, I don’t see what the small individual would ever have to lose by being recorded (or gain by not being recorded). The small individual is never going to be in a position where they can twist the large corporation’s hand into doing something wrong, and if they were, then I would say the large corporation is the weaker party in that interaction.
Hm, I see what you mean. I worry about that - I think generally you don't record a large corporation, you record another person (or people). Those people might be in a position of authority, sure, but being able to publish highly out of context footage is potentially far more power than anyone should have used against them.
Not so. Only 12 states require two-party consent to record conversations. Federal law is one-party. There are caveats and rules around all of it, but on a board scale, most of the country only requires single party consent.
Presumably - if states are defining 1-party vs. 2-party consent laws, then doesn't the 10th amendment imply that this matter shouldn't be handled federally?
I had a similar problem, several constraints (dozen or so, iirc), data set of a few thousand items.
I thought about finding an elegant solution, but in the end decided that just doing a (psuedo-)random selection of the remaining set and then running through the resulting ordered list checking each one for all the constraints (ie, random sort). As soon as it failed a hard constraint, or failed > x soft constraints, toss the list and do another random sort.
Ugly, but it worked. Chose this solution because 1) I knew how big the data set would be, and I knew it would not change size enough to matter; 2) The other, very jr developer could understand the method; 3) The constraints, while semi-complex, were simple to check; 4) would be needed once or twice a year, could run completely off-line, and could be started well in advance of when it was needed; 5) and finally computers are fast & cheap, while my time is finite and valuable
As a result, the decision that "brute force" running on any available workstation for a weekend was an acceptable solution. In it's lifetime, I think the longest time it took to find an acceptable solution was a few hundred thousand sorts, finished in a few minutes.
It's now been retired as the program it supported went away.
I wish I'd had the time to explore better, more proper solutions, but at the time, quick and dirty and done was more important.
Given: Aircraft power is on, signs are on. Aircraft power is off, signs are off. Aircraft power is operable by the flight crew.
Therefore: Signs are operable by the flight crew.
In addition to the aircraft main power system(s), there's almost certainly a circuit-breaker that would turn the signs off. It might turn other things off as well, and circuit-breakers are not generally designed to be used regularly as switches, but there's a circuit breaker in reach of the crew that would turn those signs off.