Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
An incursion is when something gets on the runway that shouldn't be there, while excursion is when a plane leaves the runway improperly. These words aren't that big I don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem? How about leaving off those utterly useless bureaucratic concealment words and saying " a COW got on the RUNWAY, for God's sake, can't you guys deal with livestock better than that????"
And excursion definitely does not mean leaves the runway improperly. The word for that is, "We fell down the HILL almost into the SEA and CNN and the whole damn world is looking at us on CABLE."
People, could we not let bureaucrats use obfuscation words to conceal their complete inability to cope with the modern world and instead use plain English to describe what HAPPENED?
Aviation does not use plain English on purpose, they use terminology that is meant to convey precise meaning in the fewest possible words. Aviation also uses countless abreviations. VOR, CFIT, GPS, NOTAMS, FL180, DME.
You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.
Saboteurs:
There is no indication that any unauthorized persons had access to the alert system. If there's going to be a saboteur, it's going to be someone who is authorized to send an alert and who does so maliciously.
I'm trying to believe all the "Mistake! Mistake!!" yelling today, but I've gotten very cynical about government cover-ups. And as Lily Tomlin said, however cynical I become, it's never enough to keep up.
"As easy as pushing a button":
Well, given the explanation given by the folks in Hawaii who manage that system, it was that easy. There were several protocols/controls that should have been in place and that were not.
- Only one person was needed to issue an alert of the nature that was issued. Just as launching nuclear weapons requires two people to do so, so too should have the procedure warning residents of an inbound missile strike (nuclear or otherwise). After all telling folks a warhead is inbound is no less important than is sending a warhead to explode on an enemy. The affected parties/locales in either situation are destined to suffer mayhem, and obviously nobody wants to needlessly cause mayhem among one's own populace on account of a procedural error.
Well, I sure agree enthusiastically with that!
Two movie stars had real meltdowns on Twitter from the panic, and lots of stories are now coming about how it felt to believe you are moments away from a flaming death by nuclear bomb.
There is no point to this emergency alert system except to promote the power of government. Either you are going to die of getting nuked or not: no use waiting in terror for it.
We have an emergency warning system in my county whereby county people call up phones with a robocall. They got to abusing that: it might rain. It might be a terrible snowstorm, call off school, stay home from work! (Two inches fell that time.) The new county exec cut back on the calling a lot --- people had started to sneer, naturally.
However cynical I feel about any given issue, I'm unwilling to air my cynicism when I lack strong facts II can use to support my cynical assertions about the nature and extent of the matter in question. The mere fact that I suspect something be "rotten in Denmark" is not enough for me to contrive and assemble a hodgepodge of circumstantially and/or obliquely pertinent data points that result in my publishing a procrustean claim that there is something "rotten in Denmark," even that I think there be.
Call that patience; call it prudence; call it pride. I call it merely a practice that's served me well 30+ years of personal and professional relationship and reputation building whereby among the people who rely upon and know me well, perfidious is not what they call me.
"Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?
Well, me and Willy Shakespeare --- we default to rotten in Denmark. I spent far too many years being far too trusting and the world sure loved making a fool of me for that. So now I'm veering over the other way, like Martin Luther's drunk on a horse: the one thing he can't do is sit up straight in the middle. But maybe you can: ride on.Um, yes, perfidious is what I meant. (Click here too.) I suppose I could have written "untrustworthy," but I was clearly feeling p-alliterative, so I went with the adjectival form of "perfidy.""Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?
However cynical I feel about any given issue, I'm unwilling to air my cynicism when I lack strong facts II can use to support my cynical assertions about the nature and extent of the matter in question. The mere fact that I suspect something be "rotten in Denmark" is not enough for me to contrive and assemble a hodgepodge of circumstantially and/or obliquely pertinent data points that result in my publishing a procrustean claim that there is something "rotten in Denmark," even that I think there be.
Call that patience; call it prudence; call it pride. I call it merely a practice that's served me well 30+ years of personal and professional relationship and reputation building whereby among the people who rely upon and know me well, perfidious is not what they call me.
"Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?
Well, me and Willy Shakespeare --- we default to rotten in Denmark. I spent far too many years being far too trusting and the world sure loved making a fool of me for that. So now I'm veering over the other way, like Martin Luther's drunk on a horse: the one thing he can't do is sit up straight in the middle. But maybe you can: ride on.Um, yes, perfidious is what I meant. (Click here too.) I suppose I could have written "untrustworthy," but I was clearly feeling p-alliterative, so I went with the adjectival form of "perfidy.""Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?
Avoid alliteration always!
However cynical I feel about any given issue, I'm unwilling to air my cynicism when I lack strong facts II can use to support my cynical assertions about the nature and extent of the matter in question. The mere fact that I suspect something be "rotten in Denmark" is not enough for me to contrive and assemble a hodgepodge of circumstantially and/or obliquely pertinent data points that result in my publishing a procrustean claim that there is something "rotten in Denmark," even that I think there be.
Call that patience; call it prudence; call it pride. I call it merely a practice that's served me well 30+ years of personal and professional relationship and reputation building whereby among the people who rely upon and know me well, perfidious is not what they call me.
"Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?
Well, me and Willy Shakespeare --- we default to rotten in Denmark. I spent far too many years being far too trusting and the world sure loved making a fool of me for that. So now I'm veering over the other way, like Martin Luther's drunk on a horse: the one thing he can't do is sit up straight in the middle. But maybe you can: ride on.Um, yes, perfidious is what I meant. (Click here too.) I suppose I could have written "untrustworthy," but I was clearly feeling p-alliterative, so I went with the adjectival form of "perfidy.""Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?
Avoid alliteration always!
Patience, prudence, pride, perfidious? You may have a point there.
A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL
Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?
However cynical I feel about any given issue, I'm unwilling to air my cynicism when I lack strong facts II can use to support my cynical assertions about the nature and extent of the matter in question. The mere fact that I suspect something be "rotten in Denmark" is not enough for me to contrive and assemble a hodgepodge of circumstantially and/or obliquely pertinent data points that result in my publishing a procrustean claim that there is something "rotten in Denmark," even that I think there be.
Call that patience; call it prudence; call it pride. I call it merely a practice that's served me well 30+ years of personal and professional relationship and reputation building whereby among the people who rely upon and know me well, perfidious is not what they call me.
"Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?
Well, me and Willy Shakespeare --- we default to rotten in Denmark. I spent far too many years being far too trusting and the world sure loved making a fool of me for that. So now I'm veering over the other way, like Martin Luther's drunk on a horse: the one thing he can't do is sit up straight in the middle. But maybe you can: ride on.Um, yes, perfidious is what I meant. (Click here too.) I suppose I could have written "untrustworthy," but I was clearly feeling p-alliterative, so I went with the adjectival form of "perfidy.""Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?
Avoid alliteration always!
Patience, prudence, pride, perfidious? You may have a point there.
Of all the venues wherein I have expressed my ideas -- from sidewalks to sitting rooms, from stables to stores or behind closed doors -- USMB is the only place where people have anything to say about word choice. Most often what I see folks write is that they think my diction is esoteric.
Were one not to have graduated from high school, one might be inclined to believe their assertions. To a fifth grader, for example, yes, my diction is almost certainly "challenging," but then not since my youngest child was in the fifth grade have I had any need to use diction suited to fifth graders. To individuals who didn't "waste their time" in high school, my diction consists merely of words that are neither abstruse nor arcane. Why USMB has as many folks who, apparently and to some extent, "wasted their time" in high school is beyond me. (In the context of this conversation, I have no specific individuals in mind.)
A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL
Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?
That just rolls off the tongue ( or the runway) doesn't it?
Of all the venues wherein I have expressed my ideas -- from sidewalks to sitting rooms, from stables to stores or behind closed doors -- USMB is the only place where people have anything to say about word choice. Most often what I see folks write is that they think my diction is esoteric.
Were one not to have graduated from high school, one might be inclined to believe their assertions. To a fifth grader, for example, yes, my diction is almost certainly "challenging," but then not since my youngest child was in the fifth grade have I had any need to use diction suited to fifth graders. To individuals who didn't "waste their time" in high school, my diction consists merely of words that are neither abstruse nor arcane. Why USMB has as many folks who, apparently and to some extent, "wasted their time" in high school is beyond me. (In the context of this conversation, I have no specific individuals in mind.)
[/QUOTE]Of all the venues wherein I have expressed my ideas -- from sidewalks to sitting rooms, from stables to stores or behind closed doors -- USMB is the only place where people have anything to say about word choice. Most often what I see folks write is that they think my diction is esoteric.
Were one not to have graduated from high school, one might be inclined to believe their assertions. To a fifth grader, for example, yes, my diction is almost certainly "challenging," but then not since my youngest child was in the fifth grade have I had any need to use diction suited to fifth graders. To individuals who didn't "waste their time" in high school, my diction consists merely of words that are neither abstruse nor arcane. Why USMB has as many folks who, apparently and to some extent, "wasted their time" in high school is beyond me. (In the context of this conversation, I have no specific individuals in mind.)
Now, Xelor, you know you use gargantuan words.
But I love it. And I love talking about your words. So carry on, as you were.
You say "from stable to stores" (and yes, I see the metered rhyme there) and then say you don't have specific indivs. in mind? Doubt, doubt, doubt is occurring --- but Leo and I have stopped talking about horses, really we have. I think.
Really? Define "gargantuan word." Actually, I think it more the case that you and others think I use brobdingnagian words far more often than I in fact do. (You know I couldn't resist that. After all, who didn't read Swift?)Now, Xelor, you know you use gargantuan words.
You say "from stable to stores" (and yes, I see the metered rhyme there) and then say you don't have specific indivs. in mind? Doubt, doubt, doubt is occurring
Really? Define "gargantuan word."Now, Xelor, you know you use gargantuan words.
Actually, I think it more the case that you and others think I use brobdingnagian words far more often than I in fact do. (You know I couldn't resist that. After all, who didn't read Swift?)
All I can say is that the overwhelming majority of all the words I use are words that any American high school graduate can be reasonably expected to have learned at some time between grades K and 12.
Really? Define "gargantuan word."Now, Xelor, you know you use gargantuan words.
Big. Real big. From Rabelais' decidedly blue but big comic heroes.
Actually, I think it more the case that you and others think I use brobdingnagian words far more often than I in fact do. (You know I couldn't resist that. After all, who didn't read Swift?)
Strange coincidence, the B word has popped up twice today for me. Your use, and earlier I was reading an ethics paper on affirmative action, in which normals came to the land of the Brobdingnagians and couldn't manage equal accomplishments because all the tools and everything else was way too big for them to use. So should they be given little tools so they could work effectively? It went on from there and ended up a VERY bad example, IMO, but it was odd to run into Swift twice in one day.
All I can say is that the overwhelming majority of all the words I use are words that any American high school graduate can be reasonably expected to have learned at some time between grades K and 12.
I'm sure you are quite right. It's not the majority of words, but the minority of sesquipedalian words that hook our eyes and hang us up like a log collecting debris in the flow of a river. But it's sort of fun. And legal.
Might five syllable words, in your mind, qualify?It's not the majority of words, but the minority of sesquipedalian words that hook our eyes and hang us up like a log collecting debris in the flow of a river.
Excursion 005[/
