| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2011 04:17:58 PM · #1 |
I know this got side-tracked but adding a new pic on this thread rather then starting a new one..... Maybe when I am done scanning, I will drag out a set of these.
 
* So obviously a train derailed here - I know it's a steam train but they were still regularly running in places even into the late 60's (maybe later not sure). It was a freight train as I have other images with box car type of stuff all attached - more modern the the engine.
* Obviously this would have been some time after the event because that train would be steaming hot otherwise and it does not look like it here. I have no clue where this one is because it's far too green to be locally to my parents - obvious a holiday somewhere.
* Notice the foot wear of choice for adults and kids alike - like none :-).
* The area is not roped off with a 1/4 mile exclusion zone and armed guards.
* The lady far left partly cut has an umbrella so this was something for her to come out and see... an event in a way. This was somewhere HOT, so brollies in summer were common for women.
* I cannot tell if the guy in centre foreground is working on the rail lines... That is actually a shovel in his hand and he is wearing sandles, so it might be someone fixing something as seems like a strange thing to carry around otherwise :-) In which case that makes it better in this conversations context.....
Edit: Added 2nd Image cause it shows a kid near the train but notice the steam in the background..... So the train was not completely cooled down, although I am sure it was safe - just not in the modern sense of that word :-(.
I am loving going thru a lot of this stuff..... Now the hard work of scanning is getting close to an end, I have been keywording and trying to get the story, locations, timeframes from older relatives before that is lost to history. Most of the images are family pics but there is the odd gem like these that are included.
Message edited by author 2011-10-02 16:37:10. |
|
|
|
09/08/2011 11:03:08 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Why don't you trust a trained judge? They are lawyers ... |
I think you answered your own question. |
The problem is the lawyers make their money with lawsuits, judges do not.
Society is partially based on impartial review from a knowledgeable person to settle disagreements. Capitalism run amok has lead that noble idea into a cancer of frivolous wasteful and damaging lawsuits to feed the endless greed that grows in the hearts of some people. Letting a jury decide makes much less sense than a trained professional who does not stand to profit from the outcome. I was on a jury, and was not impressed at the group of rocket scientists asked to decide a mans fate, lets face it, the smart ones all came up with a valid excuse to get out of jury duty! (yes, I wasn't smart enough, I had gotten out of three jury summons in a row, but they kept sending more, they really wanted me to sit on a jury) |
And many judges have political aspirations or their positions are elected ones themselves...would you really trust a politician to judge you? |
I will say again, see Hot Coffee. Even without political aspirations, they are elected, and money helps win elections. There is an interesting bit in that movie about a Supreme Court judge in I believe it was Louisiana that was royally screwed over by corporate interests.
I can't say as I understand the practice of electing judges either, but then I am Canadian.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2011 04:24:44 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As long as "we" (the three branches of government) continue to prioritize the needs of corporations over those of individual citizens, I say we have corrupted the Constitution and the goal of the "American experiment" in government "of, by and for the people" as described by Lincoln ... |
Haven't you heard? Corporations ARE people too. |
Not "as described by Lincoln", they're not...
R. |
As defined by the SCOTUS, they are. |
Yeah, but that's what Paul's saying: as long as SCOTUS, or either of the other branches, prioritizes corporations over individuals, we have corrupted our constitution.
R. |
|
But that corruption became prevalent when we allowed / encouraged / rewarded corporations to fund election campaigns - long before the SCOTUS decision. The decision I guess just made it more official.
Anyway, I ran across this related site the other day: //facesoflawsuitabuse.org/
Agreed. |
|
|
|
09/08/2011 09:00:23 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As long as "we" (the three branches of government) continue to prioritize the needs of corporations over those of individual citizens, I say we have corrupted the Constitution and the goal of the "American experiment" in government "of, by and for the people" as described by Lincoln ... |
Haven't you heard? Corporations ARE people too. |
Not "as described by Lincoln", they're not...
R. |
As defined by the SCOTUS, they are. |
Yeah, but that's what Paul's saying: as long as SCOTUS, or either of the other branches, prioritizes corporations over individuals, we have corrupted our constitution.
R. |
Agreed. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 11:30:07 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As long as "we" (the three branches of government) continue to prioritize the needs of corporations over those of individual citizens, I say we have corrupted the Constitution and the goal of the "American experiment" in government "of, by and for the people" as described by Lincoln ... |
Haven't you heard? Corporations ARE people too. |
Not "as described by Lincoln", they're not...
R. |
As defined by the SCOTUS, they are. |
Yeah, but that's what Paul's saying: as long as SCOTUS, or either of the other branches, prioritizes corporations over individuals, we have corrupted our constitution.
R. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 11:28:10 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As long as "we" (the three branches of government) continue to prioritize the needs of corporations over those of individual citizens, I say we have corrupted the Constitution and the goal of the "American experiment" in government "of, by and for the people" as described by Lincoln ... |
Haven't you heard? Corporations ARE people too. |
Not "as described by Lincoln", they're not...
R. |
As defined by the SCOTUS, they are. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 11:27:33 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Why don't you trust a trained judge? They are lawyers ... |
I think you answered your own question. |
The problem is the lawyers make their money with lawsuits, judges do not.
Society is partially based on impartial review from a knowledgeable person to settle disagreements. Capitalism run amok has lead that noble idea into a cancer of frivolous wasteful and damaging lawsuits to feed the endless greed that grows in the hearts of some people. Letting a jury decide makes much less sense than a trained professional who does not stand to profit from the outcome. I was on a jury, and was not impressed at the group of rocket scientists asked to decide a mans fate, lets face it, the smart ones all came up with a valid excuse to get out of jury duty! (yes, I wasn't smart enough, I had gotten out of three jury summons in a row, but they kept sending more, they really wanted me to sit on a jury) |
And many judges have political aspirations or their positions are elected ones themselves...would you really trust a politician to judge you?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2011 11:26:52 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As long as "we" (the three branches of government) continue to prioritize the needs of corporations over those of individual citizens, I say we have corrupted the Constitution and the goal of the "American experiment" in government "of, by and for the people" as described by Lincoln ... |
Haven't you heard? Corporations ARE people too. |
Not "as described by Lincoln", they're not...
R. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 11:25:19 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
In your example, the inspection interval is defined by the cyclic fatigue test results, model predictions, FAA regs and statistical analysis. |
And in my earlier example ozone limits were set by a scientific analysis of morbidity and mortality rates in relation to pollution levels.
The "delay" in the regulations sets aside scientific analysis in favor of short-term gain for a segement of commercial entities, at the future expense (physical and financial) of sick individual citizens.
As long as "we" (the three branches of government) continue to prioritize the needs of corporations over those of individual citizens, I say we have corrupted the Constitution and the goal of the "American experiment" in government "of, by and for the people" as described by Lincoln ... |
Haven't you heard? Corporations ARE people too. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 08:32:39 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
In all some seriousness, I am not a fan of the jury system either, but a single judge is definitely not the answer either. We have PLENTY of judges ("trained professionals") that make crazy stupid decisions on all kinds of issues. I've suggested in a past thread that we develop software to calculate the probability of guilt or innocence based on weighted evidence and use a jury or a judge to decide sentencing. The idea didn't seem too popular, but I still put it in the charter for my new world order - an "Artopian Society", if you will. ;-) |
Bad judges should be routed out of any judicial system, but how many of those judges are voted into their jobs? I never understood that. I voted in almost every election, and certainly paid attention, but I never once saw a news piece, or ad, or anything written in the news paper (yea I used to get them too) from a anyone running for a judge chair. I don't think that is anyway to pick such important positions. Since I never knew any of the candidates, I always voted against the incumbent judges FWIW. Seems a strange system based on popularity, luck or randomness to choose judges. The law should be generally transparent, one judge should rule in a similar manner to any other, if not, the law would seem arbitrary wouldn't you agree? Or am I so naive to not see the whole system is arbitrary and corrupt to the core? Damn my idealism! But then again, I still believe in the EU :) and, I'm also a Greek (tips accepted)
My favorite part of the Artocracy... two words: skull cam's |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 08:21:56 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by robs:
In my case it was a small town and life was more outside then it is today (with tin roofs inside in the summer was HOT!)... always lots of people on streets and they would just tell ya to go home if it was too late or you were been an ass (too much and your mother always knew before you got home). |
Hahaha, yeah!!Plus, my Mum used to ring one of those old school bells to call us home for lunch or whatever as we'd be too far away for her to call us. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 07:47:50 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Why don't you trust a trained judge? They are lawyers ... |
I think you answered your own question. |
The problem is the lawyers make their money with lawsuits, judges do not.
Society is partially based on impartial review from a knowledgeable person to settle disagreements. Capitalism run amok has lead that noble idea into a cancer of frivolous wasteful and damaging lawsuits to feed the endless greed that grows in the hearts of some people. Letting a jury decide makes much less sense than a trained professional who does not stand to profit from the outcome. I was on a jury, and was not impressed at the group of rocket scientists asked to decide a mans fate, lets face it, the smart ones all came up with a valid excuse to get out of jury duty! (yes, I wasn't smart enough, I had gotten out of three jury summons in a row, but they kept sending more, they really wanted me to sit on a jury) |
In all some seriousness, I am not a fan of the jury system either, but a single judge is definitely not the answer either. We have PLENTY of judges ("trained professionals") that make crazy stupid decisions on all kinds of issues. I've suggested in a past thread that we develop software to calculate the probability of guilt or innocence based on weighted evidence and use a jury or a judge to decide sentencing. The idea didn't seem too popular, but I still put it in the charter for my new world order - an "Artopian Society", if you will. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 07:45:49 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Ahh that wonderful jury system: force people to skip work and family for almost no pay to sit in boredom for days or weeks or potentially more in debate about someone they do not know or really care about. They get to stop the boredom and go home to their families and earn a living again when they reach an agreed on verdict. You must really believe blindly in justice to think that most jury members wont just vote with the majority so they can go home Nighttrain.
Why don't you trust a trained judge? They are lawyers who have been through a even more strict process and are reviewed with track records. Jury's are random people chosen by the better lawyer to sway the verdict. Nothing fair about that. Those times the law has meddled in my family, it has usually been either/or destructive and expensive. I do not see any savior in the law, just a very effective tool of abuse and control for those with money or power. Limit all trials to two years max and lawyer fees to a total of 10% max of the award, and maybe, maybe you have a working system. You need a jury so bad, use a panel of judges. To say the system, as it is, is great, is as blind as you can get. |
you are out of your mind. But thanks for calling me Nighttrain! |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 07:35:39 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
In your example, the inspection interval is defined by the cyclic fatigue test results, model predictions, FAA regs and statistical analysis. |
And in my earlier example ozone limits were set by a scientific analysis of morbidity and mortality rates in relation to pollution levels.
The "delay" in the regulations sets aside scientific analysis in favor of short-term gain for a segement of commercial entities, at the future expense (physical and financial) of sick individual citizens.
As long as "we" (the three branches of government) continue to prioritize the needs of corporations over those of individual citizens, I say we have corrupted the Constitution and the goal of the "American experiment" in government "of, by and for the people" as described by Lincoln ... |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 06:19:53 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Why don't you trust a trained judge? They are lawyers ... |
I think you answered your own question. |
The problem is the lawyers make their money with lawsuits, judges do not.
Society is partially based on impartial review from a knowledgeable person to settle disagreements. Capitalism run amok has lead that noble idea into a cancer of frivolous wasteful and damaging lawsuits to feed the endless greed that grows in the hearts of some people. Letting a jury decide makes much less sense than a trained professional who does not stand to profit from the outcome. I was on a jury, and was not impressed at the group of rocket scientists asked to decide a mans fate, lets face it, the smart ones all came up with a valid excuse to get out of jury duty! (yes, I wasn't smart enough, I had gotten out of three jury summons in a row, but they kept sending more, they really wanted me to sit on a jury) |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 06:18:42 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by dtallakson:
I imagine you won't see this today. What were my parents thinking?
 |
That is great.... It also looks like fun. Clearly you survived :-) |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 06:04:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Why don't you trust a trained judge? They are lawyers ... |
I think you answered your own question. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 06:01:03 PM · #18 |
Ahh that wonderful jury system: force people to skip work and family for almost no pay to sit in boredom for days or weeks or potentially more in debate about someone they do not know or really care about. They get to stop the boredom and go home to their families and earn a living again when they reach an agreed on verdict. You must really believe blindly in justice to think that most jury members wont just vote with the majority so they can go home Nighttrain.
Why don't you trust a trained judge? They are lawyers who have been through a even more strict process and are reviewed with track records. Jury's are random people chosen by the better lawyer to sway the verdict. Nothing fair about that. Those times the law has meddled in my family, it has usually been either/or destructive and expensive. I do not see any savior in the law, just a very effective tool of abuse and control for those with money or power. Limit all trials to two years max and lawyer fees to a total of 10% max of the award, and maybe, maybe you have a working system. You need a jury so bad, use a panel of judges. To say the system, as it is, is great, is as blind as you can get. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 05:51:11 PM · #19 |
I imagine you won't see this today. What were my parents thinking?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2011 05:34:26 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
we have a whole bunch of moronic wingnuts running around, telling us what the founders wanted or didn't want, and tons of pro second amendment people out there- even though it only ever meant to apply to militias in the context of the pre-revolutionary english occupation- |
Are you saying that you're a moronic wingnut? |
It goes without saying that I am a moronic wingnut. |
I thought you were a lawyer. ...eh, semantics. :P |
+1 |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 05:23:00 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
we have a whole bunch of moronic wingnuts running around, telling us what the founders wanted or didn't want, and tons of pro second amendment people out there- even though it only ever meant to apply to militias in the context of the pre-revolutionary english occupation- |
Are you saying that you're a moronic wingnut? |
It goes without saying that I am a moronic wingnut. |
I thought you were a lawyer. ...eh, semantics. :P |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 04:31:15 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every regulation balances safety against cost/time ... it's where you place the balance point which matters.
For example, the administration has recently chosen to trade a certain number of deaths and illnesses from respiratory and cardiac disease for "not impeding economic growth" -- right now primarily represented by jobs in building prisons and the energy industry -- by "delaying" implimentation of the new EPA regulations governing ozone levels, the ones based on the "best scientific research and opinion" available. |
And, your point is what exactly? |
My point is that there is a continuum along which society must place the balancing point between safety and cost; there can be (ind certainly is) reasonable disagreement about where to place that point. For example, should airlines be required to inspect and perform maintenance on their planes every:
[ ] 10 legs (takeoff/landing)
[ ] 20 legs
[ ] 50 legs
[ ] 100 legs
[ ] 1000 legs
[ ] whenever they damn feel like it
Some want to carry deregulation to ridiculous extremes, while simultaneously impeding people's ability to seek recourse through litigation. You can't have it both ways, either there are governmental regulations to protect the public from hazardous and fraudulent products, or you have to "let the market take care of it" by making litigation too expensive to continue engaging in the undesirable practices. |
In your example, the inspection interval is defined by the cyclic fatigue test results, model predictions, FAA regs and statistical analysis.
We do have it both ways...there are government regulations that protect the public and litigation over an accident due to a defect, even if is through no fault of the company being sued is extremely expensive. Often, it's the company with the most money that's sued, even if the negligence is on the part of a third party.
Take for example a commercial aircraft crash. Is it the airline's fault? How about the aircraft manufacturer's fault? Or the maintenance contract company? The supplier of the pump that may have caused the crash? Or the manufacturer of the defective part that supposedly caused the pump to fail? How about the material supplier that supplied the material that the defective part was built from? The supplier of the raw material that the material supplier refines?
It's simplistic and unrealistic to say something like, "Whatever company made the mistake should pay." because crash analysis is far from perfect and a mechanical problem might only get narrowed down to a particular system. Or there might be a any combination of human error (in the tower, in the cockpit, in the hangar...or even security), mechanical failure, software glitches, computer hardware failure etc. The current approach is to go after the company with the deepest pockets.
Another interesting discussion is one about how excess regulation and threat of litigation stifle innovation.
Message edited by author 2011-09-07 17:06:11. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 04:21:56 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
we have a whole bunch of moronic wingnuts running around, telling us what the founders wanted or didn't want, and tons of pro second amendment people out there- even though it only ever meant to apply to militias in the context of the pre-revolutionary english occupation- |
Are you saying that you're a moronic wingnut? |
It goes without saying that I am a moronic wingnut. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:25:28 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Is that a Pinto you're driving? |
My dad had a Pinto wagon for years -- it was great; with the manual steering and 5-speed stick-shift it drove like a sports car ... |
I had one too. 74 model. 5 speed. I used to pray the darned thing would catch fire. No such luck... |
Hell, I drove not one, but TWO Corvairs during my high school years and immediately after. My dad liked Corvairs; he was an engineer and they were creative engineering. When discussing damage done to auto manufacturers, let's not ignore Ralph Nader's smear job on the Corvair...
R. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:23:36 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every regulation balances safety against cost/time ... it's where you place the balance point which matters.
For example, the administration has recently chosen to trade a certain number of deaths and illnesses from respiratory and cardiac disease for "not impeding economic growth" -- right now primarily represented by jobs in building prisons and the energy industry -- by "delaying" implimentation of the new EPA regulations governing ozone levels, the ones based on the "best scientific research and opinion" available. |
And, your point is what exactly? |
My point is that there is a continuum along which society must place the balancing point between safety and cost; there can be (ind certainly is) reasonable disagreement about where to place that point. For example, should airlines be required to inspect and perform maintenance on their planes every:
[ ] 10 legs (takeoff/landing)
[ ] 20 legs
[ ] 50 legs
[ ] 100 legs
[ ] 1000 legs
[ ] whenever they damn feel like it
Some want to carry deregulation to ridiculous extremes, while simultaneously impeding people's ability to seek recourse through litigation. You can't have it both ways, either there are governmental regulations to protect the public from hazardous and fraudulent products, or you have to "let the market take care of it" by making litigation too expensive to continue engaging in the undesirable practices.
Message edited by author 2011-09-07 15:25:08. |
|
