I had found myself being very irritable of late, and I had nothing in particular to attribute it to.
Things that were as normal as ATVers roaring through the 100 acre woods, and as predictable as my dogs vying for my attention 15 minutes before 3:00pm, suddenly were increasingly annoying, and made me extremely irritable. So much so, that it became very noticable.
I started looking for practical reasons for my irritability. My first thought was I was reacting to the atmosphere of change and uncertainty, but it was so out of character for me, that I thought it was something I would bring up with my doctor during my yearly physical, which was due.
I didn't get a chance to bring it up to my doctor, because my eye exam was scheduled first, and I found out that my irritability was due to my left eye and my right eye divorcing each other.
Now one would think that such a thing was possible, or that it would be overlooked. Well it is possible, and it is obvious that it was not overlooked, it just didn't present itself in the manner one would expect.
I am waiting for my glasses that are taking forever to come, because they can't be made at a regular commercial eyeglass store, because according to my eye specialist, the prescription is too complex for them to want to deal with. They like the simple prescriptions that they can turn out quickly so they can keep their prices low and competitive.
So if you find yourself overly, and uncharacteristically irritable, moody, and with frequent headaches, before the seeing the doctor and being placed on medications, have your eyes checked.
Just a tip for an old broad, being punked by life.
A New York attorney representing a wealthy art collector called and asked to speak to his client. "Saul, I have some good news and I have some bad news." The art collector replied, "You know, I've had an awful day, Jack, so let's hear the good news first." The lawyer said, "Well, I met with your wife today, and she informed me that she has invested only$5,000 in two very nice pictures that she thinks will bring somewhere between $15 and $20 million... and I think she could be right." Saul replied enthusiastically, "Holy cow! Well done! My wife is a brilliant businesswoman, isn't she?You've just made my day. Now, I know I can handle the bad news. What is it?" The lawyer replied, "The pictures are of you and your secretary."
Quote:Why Pilots Still MatterBy PATRICK SMITHAPRIL 10, 2015 SOMERVILLE, Mass. — IN the two weeks since the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, there has been no lack of commentary
about the failures and future of piloted aviation — much of it frustratingly ill informed. Planes are already so automated, consensus has it, that it’s only a matter of time before pilots are engineered out of the picture completely. And isn’t the best way to prevent another Andreas Lubitz to replace him with a computer, or a remote pilot, somewhere on the ground? Cue the aeronautics professor or university scientist who will blithely assert that yes, we are well on our way to a pilotless future.
The problem with this line of thought is that it begins with a false premise: the idea that jetliners today are super-automated machines whose pilots serve merely as backup in case of an emergency. Indeed, the notion of the automatic airplane that “flies itself” is perhaps the most stubborn myth in all of aviation. According to one recent story, pilots on a typical flight spend as little as seven minutes manually piloting their planes. Another story had it at three minutes! Statements like this are highly misleading.
True, these days pilots spend only a short amount of time with their hands on the control column or stick. But that does not mean we aren’t controlling the airplane throughout the entire flight. Our hands might not be steering the airplane directly, as would have been the case in decades past, but almost everything the airplane does is commanded, one way or the other, by the crew. The automation only does what we tell it to do. On the 767 that I fly, there are multiple ways to set up and command any routine climb, descent or change of course. Meanwhile, more than 99 percent of landings, and a full 100 percent of takeoffs, are performed manually.
People might be surprised at how busy a cockpit can become on the most routine flight, even with all of the automation running. There are stretches of low workload during which, to the nonpilot observer, it would seem that very little requires the crew’s attention. But there are also periods of very high workload.
The other day I piloted a flight from the Caribbean to New York. We had bad weather the whole way, followed by a low-visibility approach into Kennedy Airport. The autopilot was on pretty much the entire time, but there were numerous altitude, course and speed changes to coordinate; holding, arrival and approach patterns to set up and fly; and all of the requisite communicating with air-traffic control, company staff and cabin crew. By the end of the flight, my voice was hoarse.
The best analogy, I think, is modern medicine. Cockpit automation assists pilots in the same way that robots and other advanced medical equipment assist surgeons. It has improved their capabilities, but a plane no more flies itself than an operating room performs a hip replacement by itself. Such wishful thinking is perhaps symptomatic of our infatuation with technology and gadgetry, and the belief that we can compute our way out of every problem. The proliferation of drone aircraft also makes it easy to imagine a world of remotely controlled passenger planes. In fact, Boeing has acquired a patent on a sophisticated, remotely operated autopilot system.
But for now these things exist only in the experimental stages. A handful of successful test flights does not prove the viability of a system that would carry up to four million passengers every day around the world. And remember that drones have wholly different missions from those of commercial aircraft, with a lot less at stake if one crashes.
More than 415 large drones flown by the American military have crashed in accidents since 2001, a record that is acceptable, if expensive, for remotely controlled aircraft, but that would be disastrous for civil aviation. A flight is subject to so many potential problems and contingencies. Even minor malfunctions can be complicated; the idea of trying to handle a serious emergency from a room thousands of miles away is about the scariest thing I can imagine. And aside from the tremendous safety and technological challenges, we’d also need a more or less full redesign of our aviation infrastructure, from developing a fleet of highly expensive, currently nonexistent aircraft to a new air-traffic-control system. Each of these would cost tens of billions of dollars and take many years to develop. And in the end, you’d still need pilots to operate these aircraft, albeit from a remote location.
Many of you are thinking: Here’s this Luddite pilot who can’t bear the prospect of seeing his profession go the way of the Teletype operator. Sure, I’m biased. It’s also true that, unlike many of those who might counter my assertions, I have a solid understanding of the complexities of commercial flying, and of the complications that these futuristic endeavors would entail.
I’m less concerned about the future than I am about the present: Should pilotless air travel become a reality, so be it. Until then, however, we’re living in a world in which almost everybody travels by air, and the public deserves to have an accurate sense of how planes actually fly, and what we pilots actually do for a living. Patrick Smith, is an airline pilot and the author of the book “Cockpit Confidential: Everything You Need to Know About Air Travel.”
Go on down to the Lounge a have a drink on @"gordi" tab, he's a Great Scottish guy!
Also you could ask @"BIAD" through a PM or here to make you a Custom AVATAR and while you wait, if you need help with our site @"senona" aka(Snarky412 from ATS) made a Great tutorial Here if you'd like to check it out or just go to the Shoutout Box and ask someone.
When you demand a Government to censure those you oppose, prepare yourself for such laws
to be used on everyone. Even though those who wanted such rules.
Quote:Paris riots erupt causing police to fire water cannon at furious Macron protesters
France has erupted in fury over the Government's latest bill that threatens freedom of the press,
sparking hundreds to descend on Paris in demonstrations that were met with riot police.
In one video, a water cannon on top of a truck could be seen spraying protesters to disperse them.
In another, a group of gendarmerie, a military force with law enforcement duties, are forced to take
refuge in a building hall.
One protester throws a projectile at them, while an officer sprays him with an unidentified can.
In other footage, a large fire can be seen in the middle of St. Germain blvd and flares are thrown
throughout the street. The protesters met just a few hours before the bill was to be debated in the
National Assembly.
The bill seeks to make it unlawful to disseminate photos of French police officers or gendarmes
in which they can be identified. Any picture or video with an "identifying element of an officer when
engage in a police operation" and "with the aim or harming their physical or psychological integrity"
could be subject to a a year in prison and a maximum €45,000 (£41,000) fine.
Activists and journalists are worried that the legislation could compromise press freedom.
One group of French lawyers, the Black Robe Brigade, denounced the bill as an "attack on democracy
and freedom of expression". At the protest, Human Rights League LDH warned: "You, journalists,
you could be arrested, handcuffed, placed in police custody and brought before a court."
Demonstrators outside the Assembly could be heard chanting: "Paris, stand up, lift up."
The interior ministry, Gérald Darmanin, has defended the law, claiming that it aims to protect police
and gendarmes who have been increasingly targeted and threatened. About 40 journalist organisations
have signed a statement asking him to remove the clauses that are likely to “undermine the freedom to
inform”.
Reporters Without Borders, a press freedom watchdog, said in a statement that the article was based
on a “slippery concept”. This is due to the fact that intent is “open to interpretation and hard to determine".
They said: ”Any photos or video showing identifiable police officers that are published or broadcast
by critical media outlets or are accompanied by critical comments could find themselves being accused
of seeking to harm these police officers."...'
Quote:Germany protests: Chaos on Berlin streets as police fire water cannons - hundreds arrested
'Police in Berlin have turned water cannons on protesters outside the country's parliament, where thousands
have gathered in opposition to Angela Merkel's coronavirus plans.
Groups of officers were reportedly charging into the crowds and picking out individual demonstrators and
arresting them, according to local media. The occasional firework could be heard in the background.
One protestor wore a face mask scrawled with the words "Merkel-Muzzle".
Others held banners with slogans such as "For Enlightenment. Peace and Freedom".
Bottles and firecrackers were seen being hurled among the crowds as multiple brawls broke out.
Clouds of red smoke hung over the protesters, some of whom used umbrellas to shield themselves
from the water cannons. Protesters were neither wearing masks nor adhering to social distancing guidelines.
Riot police formed a wall to stop demonstrators getting too close to the parliament building.
Germany's lower and upper houses of parliament are due to pass laws on Wednesday afternoon which
could allow the government to impose restrictions on social contact, rules on mask-wearing, drinking
alcohol in public, shutting shops and stopping sports events.
Critics have said the law will give the government too much power and endanger citizen’s civil rights without
the approval of parliament. Germany is in the grips of a second wave of coronavirus and is in the middle of
a month-long “lockdown light”.
The shutdown, which is not as restrictive as the rules implemented in March, is supported by most Germans.
But fears have been raised by many citizens over the possible tightening of rules...'
Wondering if anyone has an idea of what may be causing something on my computer.
What seems like randomly, the computer accesses the DVD drive as if it is checking to see if a disc is there, or it wants to load something from a disk. Seems to happen while I browse the internet, not when I run an application.
Computer is running 64 bit Win 10.
I've thought maybe malware, but not sure what accessing the DVD drive would do for a digital bad boy.
relax awhile.
on @"gordi" tab, he's a Great Scottish guy! 
