likearock

That would seem to confirm that there is a difference in how the aircraft handles with the door opened. Now how it would handle with an engine out and the door open is something that I'd like to hear from an actual Otter pilot. It's an important question. If JP is right and the only reason for the door close on T/O is because of an errant pilot chute, a lot of DZs might decide to bend the rules on light loads when no one is sitting near the door. On the other hand, if it turns out to be an added danger when you have an engine out, it would make sense to enforce that rule for every load.

What makes you assume that? You don't believe the asymmetric airflow caused by the open door would affect the stability of an Otter operating on a single engine?

What's negligent about that? It's generaly accepted as a good idea to shut it for TO, but the aircraft is certified to fly with the door removed by the FAA. Why is it considered "a good idea" if it's not for a safety reason? The aircraft may be certified to fly with the door open but that doesn't mean it won't make it a lot harder for a pilot to manage engine out on takeoff. Bottom line, it's safer to have the door closed on takeoff and there's no legitimate reason not to do so.

You don't know that. If, as was reported on the Incidents thread, the Otter door was repeatedly left open during takeoff rather than keeping it closed until at least 1000 feet, I'd consider that substantially negligent. However, I'd also reserve judgement until it's absolutely confirmed that that was the case.

Ask them how much it would be if you lived in Manhattan.

Nothing to do with opinion. The importance of the face is anatomically based. It is the receiving point for 4 of the 5 senses. That fact is independent of any particular culture.

No vote. I don't think they should be banned from school. However, I do think they should be turned off during class. Perhaps that is the line of demarcation. How would you enforce that? Seems like a rule a lot of kids would try to get around.

It also was an Afghan thing (strictly enforced) while the Taliban were in charge.

Nuns have never had to cover their face. The fact that religious Islam requires that is what is most offensive to Westerners. America is conservative when it comes to exposed flesh, remember all the fuss when jacksons tit popped out for a fraction of a second, in europe exposed tits are commonplace on TV. It is just a questions of the culture, there is nothing wrong with the islamic dress code it is just different than ours. We enforce our dress code by law (you'd get arrested for walking butt naked on a public street) and they enforce theirs, get over it. That's a ridiculous comparison. If you can't show your face, it's as if you're not fully a human being. Not being able to show your tits or ass in public is hardly comparable.

Nuns have never had to cover their face. The fact that religious Islam requires that is what is most offensive to Westerners.

The fact he can and has sung it in Spanish doesn't mean he thinks it should officially be sung in Spanish. If he said English should be the official language of the US, would you have a problem with someone who spoke German when they gave a speech to Germans? So which version is more "official", a bunch of musicians singing it on the radio or the President of the country singing it?

Of course! It's only "fair" we allow other countries to have them. I mean, what right do we have to look after our own self-interests right to plan and wage aggressive war over the interests of other countries? What kind of country does that? A country which doesn't follow the "Nazi German Method" of preserving it's economy? Bzzzt! Godwin's law. You lose.

Moussaoui's a joke. It's better we don't elevate his status by executing him. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the one who had real responsibility for 9/11. When do we get to finish him off?

My main point is that iraq DID in fact have and deploy "Weapons of Mass Destruction" against the US! Iran is now threatening to deploy the very same weapons! But these "weapons" aren't Nuclear, Biological or Chemical. These dangers to the peace & stability of Teh USA are in fact little pieces of green printed paper! Insightful analysis. Tell you what. Make sure you explain to the families of the first people killed by a terrorist dirty bomb that we didn't try to stop Iran because our motives weren't pure enough.

And anyone who actually believes that this is automatically a danger to other countries... Where do you get "automatically"? At the very least, it seems reasonable it would be a danger to a country that Iran has publically said it would like to see extinguished, like Israel. And if the terrorists that Iran supports get their hands on nuclear material, all bets are off. If you feel comfortable letting a country go nuclear when it supports and finances suicide bombers, more power to you. My main point is that those people (like Paul) who pretend that Iran and Iraq are alike in terms of WMD are deliberately distorting the issue.

Well that's just blatantly false. Saddam Hussein never claimed to be pursuing even the peaceful development of nuclear energy at the time we invaded, let alone insisting on the national right to be able to enrich uranium. We don't have to guess about Iran like we did Iraq. They're telling us they want to enrich uranium. It's fairly simple to compare the WMD threats between Iran and Iraq by comparing an IAEA report on Iran with the ones issued about Iraq before the war started. Anyone who thinks Iran isn't dead set on acquiring a nuclear device has his head deeply in the sand.

And that's exactly what I'm saying, criticize the idea, don't presume that you understand the motivations behind the it. There is a distinction.

That's not really a fair presentation of the article. What he's criticizing is people who question the motives of the dissenting generals. That's a completely different thing from objecting to someone's view on the war. Kerry knows from first hand experience how those in the military can have their reputations attacked, often at the hands of those with no military experience themselves, and that's all he's saying here.

Just a little bit confused.... Who is stopping 'us' from letting our troops out? I always though Iraq did not want 'us' in there to begin with That's one way to look at it. Another is that, whether you agree with the initial decision to go to war or not, having done so we have a responsibility to ensure there is a stable government when we leave.

Sometimes typos are more true than they were meant to be. That's not a typo, it's just olde English. Haven't read much Chaucer, have you?

Let's hope this leads to a real government that'll let us get our troops out. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/22/iraq.main/index.html Iraq parliament elects new leaders Historic meeting chooses president, speaker, PM-designate Saturday, April 22, 2006; Posted: 5:44 p.m. EDT (21:44 GMT) BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq finally has names for its top jobs -- more than four months after its historic general election. A political deadlock appears to have been broken Saturday, with Jawad al-Maliki asked to be prime minister-designate and form a new government. Al-Maliki, a Shiite, was nominated a day earlier to replace interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who had been at the center of an impasse between Iraq's political parties. (Watch politicians break the stalemate -- 1:12) Al-Maliki was asked to form an administration by Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, who was re-elected president by the parliament. The prime minister-designate has a month to choose his ministers and present the list to parliament, acting parliament Speaker Adnan Pachachi told CNN. If parliament votes in favor, the government will begin work. But if al-Maliki's Cabinet fails to gain support, someone else will be appointed to form a government, Pachachi said. On Friday, the Shiite-led political bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, put forward al-Maliki of the Dawa Party as its candidate to replace al-Jaafari. Chosen as the new speaker of the Council of Representatives on Saturday was Sunni Arab politician Mahmoud al-Mashhadani. A Shiite, Khalid al-Attiya, and a Kurd, Aref Tayfour, were elected as his deputies. A total of 266 members from the 275-seat body gathered for the key meeting, which had been delayed repeatedly and was finally held more than four months after the general election. Before parliament convened, several members joined al-Maliki and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to iron out details on what would unfold. Calls for unity On Saturday before the parliamentary gathering, al-Maliki called for a government of national unity "to eradicate injustice that the Iraqis have suffered." He also urged Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Yezidis to unite. "We will work as one family to lead the political process, not based on our differences, sects or parties," al-Maliki said at a news conference before the parliament meeting. A top Sunni Arab leader endorsed al-Maliki's selection. "We will deal with Mr. [al-]Maliki, and we will work together in order to form a unity government," said Tariq al-Hashimi -- secretary-general of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest party in the most powerful Sunni Arab political bloc, the Iraqi Accord Front. The main Kurdish grouping has not commented so far, but independent Kurdish politician Mahmoud Othman welcomed al-Maliki's nomination, Reuters reported. Speaking from California, where he is attending an alternative energy event, President Bush said, "This historic achievement by determined Iraqis will make America more secure." The formation of a new government has dealt a blow, Bush said, to "the enemies of freedom. ... The Iraqis are showing the world that democracy is worth the wait." U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the selection of al-Maliki an "important milestone" for the Iraqis and said he was a man with whom the United States could do business. "This is a good day for Iraq," Rice said in a conference call with reporters. "This is an important day for Iraq." She said she had not met al-Maliki, but that Khalilzad knew him well. "He is thought to be a strong figure, someone who is capable of getting things done," Rice said. Sunnis, Kurds and secularists had opposed al-Jaafari as prime minister, saying weak leadership and sectarian strife had persisted under his watch. In addition, the Interior Ministry, led by a Shiite, was particularly criticized for allowing Shiite militias to infiltrate its ranks and patrol the streets. On Saturday, al-Maliki addressed militias, saying "Arms should be in the hands of the government. There is a law that calls for the merging of militias with the armed forces." Soldiers killed Five U.S. soldiers were killed south of Baghdad on Saturday, the U.S. military said. Four were killed by a roadside bomb that exploded near their vehicle while they were on patrol, the military said. Later, the military announced the death of another soldier from wounds suffered in a roadside bombing. It is not clear whether all of the deaths resulted from the same bombing. The number of U.S. service personnel killed in the Iraq war now stands at 2,387. In addition, five bodies were found in Baghdad on Saturday, their hands tied behind their backs, shot in their heads. The bodies of a woman and two men were found in southern Baghdad, and the others were found in a western Baghdad neighborhood. Two roadside bombings targeting police patrols in eastern and central Baghdad wounded five officers. Other developments # Sen. John Kerry said Saturday that the United States should impose a May 15 deadline on the Iraqi parliament to form "an effective unity government ... or we will immediately withdraw our military." The Democrat also called for "a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end," saying that doing so will "empower the new Iraqi leadership." Kerry's comments came on the 35th anniversary of his appearance as a Vietnam veteran on Capitol Hill urging an end to that war. # The Australian military suffered its first death Friday, a soldier who shot himself in the head in what's being described as a "tragic accident," according to the military. Defense Minister Brendan Nelson said the soldier's death was not a suicide. (Full story) # British engineer Kenneth Bigley was buried near Falluja after a mock trial, sentencing and beheading in 2004 following his abduction, according to a militant who claims to have been involved. Lawyers for Syrian-born Louai al Sakka said Saturday the militant made the claim and revealed other details "after growing demands of the British media and family."

That's not a proof. It's just an unsubstantiated assertion.

Better to invest in a fund or index like XLE, the Energy spider. That way you don't risk everything on a single company.

Your assumption here is that civil judgements can be fully enforced. Last I looked, O.J. Simpson wasn't living in a van down by the river.

How can you possibly prove that someone was NEVER born