Children's Aid Societies are NGOs who "receive funding from, and are under the supervision" of the government but their nannying is quite autonomous.

Also, they can operate without order or warrant.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ht...

All they need is to believe.

One might say that CAS are private organizations who are given a lot of liberty and leeway with their work and in their judgement.
With obviously little control or oversight.
Sounds a bit libertarian to me.

Particularly the part where they take the money from the government but refuse ceding any control to the government even while acknowledging their own faults and that they would not have happened HAD there been more control.
While happily accepting even more money "for training" from the government.
And refusing government investigation into their work on account of it being "expensive".

The 51st state, eh?

One... make up your mind.
You can't argue both greater tolerance of accidents and fatalities AND have submarines built and handled in a way to make crashes more survivable.
One negates the other.
Either submarines are designed in such a way that the crashes are more survivable OR potential fatalities and accidents are ignored in the design.

Two... You're missing the point of the argument. FUCK THE PEOPLE ON THE SUBMARINE.
Take them outside on the deck, fuck each of them in the ass and kick them overboard to drown. OK?
Leave just the skeleton crew necessary to drive around a metal tube with no windows, which runs on a NUCLEAR REACTOR, while chauffeuring nuclear missiles around the globe.

Now... Does your average airplane passenger lose sleep due to THAT fact? It's probably been going on for his/her whole life.
Of course not! And why should he/she? I mean... it's just nuclear missiles.

Oh I get it! You're a bubble-boy!

You never actually saw fog in real life. You imagine it as some sort of thin layer of smoke.
You never walked along the street with people appearing and disappearing around you. At noon. In full daylight.
Or driven along the road at 10 km/h, fog lights on, and it looks like there are clouds rushing at you.
Or looked out of the 10th floor window not seeing anything below you but clouds.

Pilots never get to see the ground if there is fog. They are seated 9 meters off the ground in a, say, 747.
If the visibility is at 10 meters, they can MAYBE get a hint of it just before they touch the ground. Unless they blink.
A 747 lands at 172-207 mph. That's about 276-333 kph. Or 76-92 meters per second.

Meaning that they need AT LEAST 100 meters of visibility in order to see the ground 1 second before touchdown.
It's ALL on instruments.

Same goes for rain or snow. 100 meters of visibility - 1 second of space in front of them.

Inquire at the offices of the grandparent poster then, between hours of 9 and idontknow.

"fucking flawless" is a quote. Note the quote marks and exaggerated italics. And the repetition of the phrase.
And the entire post is not there for informational accuracy or insightfulness but as a jocular reply, ridiculing the inherent illogical qualities of GPs post.

As for "blind trust in the technology" - you already got that.
Or do you think that pulling on that yoke will magically start working should fly-by-wire cut out?

1 - random Joes don't get to fly them anyway. "Highly trained volunteers" do. And they already do it that way.
2 - there is no light in the dark, rain, snow, fog... so windows would be useless
3 - people looking around don't drive the sub. And how would Joe feel about just before landing, seeing the copilot tie a rope around himself and walk out on the wing and start waiving hand and yelling "To the right. Right! NO! MY RIGHT!"?
Maybe that would help keep him calm? How about while taxiing before takeoff?

As for "cleared for visuals"... so?
Nobody said anything about blinding the pilots and having them fly by waiving their penises inside a bowl of sensor-jello.
The whole point of the system is to give them BETTER visuals, which incidentally can't be blinded with a $5 laser pointer.
And should their electrical systems fail during the landing procedure... they are fucked anyway.
It's all done through computers anyway. No pulling on that yoke will do any good unless there's power to run the controls.

And all of that is besides the point.

The point is that everyone is perfectly fine with world's nuclear arsenal being chauffeured around in a tube with no windows, but "OMG! They want to transport people that way!?"
And those protesters...
Last I heard they switched to saving whales. Or dolphins. Or some other thing you probable never even heard about.
Anti-nuke is so passe. Grandad.

They do NOT land "because someone thought a cool new gadget would be fucking flawless".
"Because someone thought a cool new gadget would be fucking flawless" is the answer to WHY they land at all. Instead of crashing and burning up in a fiery inferno of fire.

That "someone" is usually some institute or some other place full of eggheads doing pointless research.
And boy, they are researching so much pointless stuff, pretty soon they're gonna be out of things to research.
Stupid eggheads. They're gonna be out of a job then.

Nobody complains about all those people jammed into a metal tube with no windows powered by a nuclear reactor and dumped into the ocean(s)...

And no... Periscope only works for the last (first) 20 meters or so. They are buggering about on instruments and maps alone.
And did I mention nuclear missiles? Yeah... they jam those in there with the people.

You're talking to a species that understands math, chemistry, physics...
You share the same Universe. There's your context.

And simple 1+1=2 vs 1+1=3 (i.e. something like: .^.-.. .^.-...) is enough if you'd just want to match up two vocabularies of terms.
You got your TRUE and FALSE right there.
And then there are entire languages already constructed for just such a purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

It's OK.
I had to return to the summary to check that I haven't misread it.
And then I had to check the article again to make sure timothy read it right.

After all, it is the Internet.
Half the shit one reads or sees in any given day requires a double check to make sure you saw/read right.
I.e. Transformers 4 made HOW MUCH MONEY?!
Why would anyone go to see that after the last 3 movies which were essentially one and the same movie done 3 times and only made longer?

Most of the world uses something called Civil Law as opposed to your Common Law that you inherited from UK.

Which is why in most of the world precedents don't carry as much weight as they do in Common Law legal systems like yours, where the rationale for the decision makes each sentence a binding precedent in other courts.

And that is why this single decision DOES NOT "effectively now make it illegal to run a Tor exit node" in Austria.
NOR would "Volkswagen be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery".