abaduck

emtbravo.com suddenly comes up blocked as an 'attack site'... anyone else seeing this? .net is fine.

It's Mozilla/Goggle: What is the current listing status for www.emtbravo.com? Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer. What happened when Google visited this site? Of the 32 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-07-20, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-07-20.Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including reliablebanner.com/. This site was hosted on 2 network(s) including AS36351 (SOFTLAYER), AS11279 (GEORGE).

The boys and the boat: VERY smart, good luck to the FDNY with her! Was very impressed with the boat dock/dive platform at the stern; sure it will be an effective rescue boat. Wouldn't be a bad SCUBA charter boat either!

I agree with that statement; that's not what I'm proposing. I'm not saying refusal should be indicative of guilt of DWI - that's the same slippery slope as the 'presumed guilty of possession' example I gave. What I'm saying is that refusal to give a specimen when an LEO has *reasonable cause* to suspect DWI/DUI should be a V&T offense in and off itself; you're guilty of refusal to give a specimen, not guilty of DUI. You get tried and sentenced for refusal, simple as that. Does anyone know if that is in fact the law in any states? Think of it as the equivalent of an obstruction charge where someone prevents or tries to prevent an LEO from performing a probable cause search. Does that make sense?

It's odd the things our constitution allows or prohibits, or some people think it allows or prohibits. I have no issue whatever with refusal to consent to a sample when an LEO has reasonable suspicion you've been drinking being an offense in and of itself, carrying the same penalty as providing a positive sample. That's exactly how it should be. Otherwise you have a huge incentive for drunks to simply refuse the test. Is that the law in any other states? It certainly is in the UK, and always has been. But I have huge issues with things which are apparently allowed - such as 'presumed possession' laws, where if drugs or weapons are found in a place or vehicle, everyone in that place is presumed to be guilty of possession of them. That's just bad and wrong; most unjust. Ditto the asset confiscation laws they have some places, where you lose your car or money and have to prove you're NOT a criminal to get it back.

Why is this even an issue? Why the need to draw blood for this purpose? If it's a minor MVA and the suspect has no serious injuries, the LEO should breathalyze them right there and then. If they refuse the test, that's an offense right there, and it carries exactly the same penalty as a positive test - mandatory license suspension for one year, minimum. At least that's how it's done in the UK. If there are more serious injuries and the suspect is being transported, get the blood in the ER. This isn't rocket science.

Seth, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be sold to the public. Collecting ex-military vehicles is a long-established hobby. Fancy an armoured scout car? http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ferret-Scout-MK-2-armored-vehicle-Military-Army-Tank-/190412247465?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Military_Vehicles&hash=item2c557451a9#ht_918wt_1167 I myself have a vehicle based on an ex-army truck. Some people even collect tanks! Obviously with the weapons removed or rendered inoperable...! No big deal at all. If anyone, militia or otherwise, wants one - they can just go to a dealer or show and buy one. Or check the small ads: http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1 Mike

We're back! And getting citzenship

This sounds a lot like the system used in the UK. There are virtually zero unpaid volunteers in that system; the busiest and big-city houses are staffed by 'wholetime' (what we would call career) FFs, quieter and more rural/small-town houses are staffed by what they call 'retained' FFs; they live or work within 5 mins of the house, they get paid an annual retainer (hence 'retained' FFs), and are paid at union hourly rates for time worked - calls, training, drills, maintenance. They're considered career FFs, just not full-time ones, are trained pretty much to the same level, and generally join the union. The system works well for the UK, and I'm surprised it's not more used over here.

Ahhhh thanks far that. I live and learn. So both no-strike and binding arbitration are imposed by state law, not as a result of a negotiated contract - and Mr. Feiner is living in cloud cuckoo land (as we say in Scotland!)

It seems to me that, if they tear up the arbitration panels, they tear up the no-strike deal too; they can't have it both ways. Fair binding arbitration is what you have to have for a no-strike deal to be possible. Firefighters in the UK can and do strike for this very reason - when they strike, the army is called in to provide cover for serious incidents.

Pranks. I'll give you pranks. Nobody pranks like the British Royal Air Force: http://static.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-48117.html http://static.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-243545.html http://static.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-138299.html Are any of these staples of the US fire service?

Lighters have been legal for carry-on for almost three years now: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/sop/index.shtm

Note the date of publication, guys...

1. I hate these bastards as much as anyone else; they make my blood boil. But I don't want them to know that - I'm sure they get their perverted kicks out of making peoples blood boil. 2. Yes they are smart, they're a family of lawyers and they make their money with this too. 3. I believe in the First Amendment. Fully. It's easy to support free speech when you agree with what someone has to say. The real test is when you're faced with someone saying something hateful; I don't inquire into the substance of someone's views before supporting their right to express them. Sad but true: good men died so that Phelps and his ilk would have that freedom, let's not forget that. 4. The best cure to hate speech is more speech and louder speech. Large motorcycles could well be effective; if I had one I'd likely volunteer to use it

I'd hope for "Professionally staffed by firefighters" but that's just me...

Hazmat, I believe.

How much tax revenue did NYC 'export' to the rest of NY State last year? $11 Billion or so? Did any of that go towards supporting career firefighters in, say, Syracuse? How many fire departments (and other services beyond counting) are those taxpayers who pay for the FDNY (and other NYC services) also supporting? Aren't they bankrolling OFPC for the rest of the state? This is a much bigger can of worms than just the bill in question.; it goes to the heart of our tax and public finance systems. This bill isn't even small dust in the balance.

"disposable structures" about sums it up; the site will be cleared and a new one thrown up in a month. Or they'll take the insurance and run. Think: do you want your lasting memorial to be a plaque in memory of Firefighter XXXX on the wall of an <expletive deleted> *McDonalds*???!!! As for specific hazards, I'll throw one in: liquid nitrogen, anyone?

I'm not quite clear how far your objections go. Are you suggesting that there should be some kind of Chinese wall between career and volunteer funding? Take the Valhalla FTC, for instance. Who pays for that? Are some of the taxes being used to provide the facilities and train volunteers there being paid by people who have already paid for a career department to protect them? Is that fair? How far should we go in stopping the redistribution of the proceeds of taxation beyond the community where the taxpayer lives? Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, Chief, but I detect a certain parochialism in your thinking here. Having said that, on the original question... I'm a vollie, and I don't need or want a dime from anybody for what I do; I don't *personally* support this bill. The occasional 'thank you' from the people we serve is enough for me - as the Runrig song says, "we don't play for fame, we don't play for cash". But I speak only for myself there.

A certain instructor once said to me 'do garbage collectors get excited when they see garbage?' That stuck with me.

I wondered how long it would take before the story made it here. I could comment on this on all kinds of levels, but it's just too easy...

1. I don't see why Cablevision should pay in the first place; all they're doing is distributing a free-to-air channel. Heck, 7 should pay THEM for getting their commercials into more homes. 2. If they are being squeezed to pay, the remedy for the future is simple; for pennies (pretty much) per box, they could put a receiver for broadcast digital TV in their cable boxes. Hook up an aerial and you're done. They wouldn't have to pay the broadcast channels a cent, and the customers would get a seamless experience: the channels would still be in the same places, they would still be on the channel guide - they would just be pulled off the air instead of down the pipe. Sure it would take a while to roll out all the new boxes, but it would give Cablevision leverage and they would be free of demands from broadcast channels. 3. Cablevision, you have more foreign language channels than I can count. When the hell are you going to give me BBC America?! 4. Open up the system so customers can choose their own boxes to put their Cablevision cards in - I would like a single box that did cable, broadcast, satellite, and DVR.

More info here... http://www.independent.com/news/2010/feb/24/chp-officer-cuffs-montecito-fire-battalion-chief/ JJB531, I appear to be correct:

I'll open my big mouth and stick my oar in... I don't get this on a couple of levels: 1. IF the CHP officer really was the IC, then it becomes a matter of insubordination - failing to follow orders in the chain of command - not a criminal law enforcement matter. So it should be handled as any other disciplinary matter; no justification for arrest and cuffs. Or so it seems to me. 2. It's been claimed that the law states that the CHP officer is the IC on any highway incident. Oh really? Are CHP officers trained and qualified in fire suppression tactics and hazmat operations then, just for starters? I don't see how the law can purport to govern command in that way; you could wind up with a rookie line CHP officer giving orders to a BC with 20 years in! Wouldn't OSHA, for instance, have something to say about placing a quite possibly unqualified individual, or the least experienced individual on scene, in command? I don't see how that can be legal. I'm not taking potshots or passing judgements, just trying to get my head round how this is supposed to work.