Attendance Request Form Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

The goal of every airline is to institute as many unpopular rules as possible, because there is no better way to generate repeat business than angering and inconveniencing their valuable customers. These types of seemingly absurd restrictions are gradually being lifted, now that the FAA has officially relaxed their PED use regulations.The FAA has recommended that all operators (aka Airlines), adopt Personal Electronic Device (PED) policies that would allow their usage by passengers from gate to gate. The only restriction would be placed on larger devices, such as laptop computers, which could be projectile hazards, as those still must be stored under seats or in overhead bins prior to takeoff and landing.Cellphone usage for phone calls would be restricted from takeoff until 10,000 feet, and from 10,000 feet to landing. That’s an FCC restriction, to prevent cell tower interference. Their cellular data doesn’t work anyway, and phone calls are only possible via various messenger APPS (VOIP), but most airlines ban VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) calls (because it’s annoying to other passengers).Portable Electronic DevicesThe FAA has determined that airlines can safely expand passenger use of Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) during all phases of flight, and is immediately providing the airlines with guidance. Expanded use will not happen overnight. The process will vary among airlines, but the agency expects airlines to allow passengers to safely use their devices in airplane mode, gate-to-gate, by the end of 2013.For more information:Press ReleaseFAQThe decision is based on input from the PED Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) which concluded that most commercial airplanes can tolerate radio interference signals from PEDs.For more information:Fact SheetPED ARC report (PDF)The FAA is streamlining the approval of expanded PED use by giving airlines updated, clear guidance. These FAA tools will help assess the risks of potential PED-induced avionics problems for their airplanes and specific operations.For more information:InFO 13010, Expanding Use of Passenger PED (PDF)InFO 13010 SUP, FAA Aid to Operators for the Expanded Use of PEDs (PDF)Notice 8900.240 – Expanded Use of PEDsThe FAA is not considering the use of cell phones for voice communications during flight because Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations currently prohibit any airborne calls using cell phones.FAA Portable Electronic DevicesThe FAA has given leeway to the airlines to perform their testing on PED’s to determine if they interfere with aircraft navigation systems, but have also provided PED testing data to show that they do not.It’s a matter that has been left up to the individual airlines to decide, and therefore its employees must comply with the rules of that particular airline. To ignore the Flight Attendants requests to turn off your electronic devices, including cell phones, prior to pushback from the gate, would likely result in your legal removal from the aircraft.Listen to the FA’s. They can handle kvetchers and curmudgeons, but they won’t tolerate any shenanigans, impishness, skullduggery, knavery, rascality, roguery, deviltry, or mischievousness. Swashbuckling is allowed, but only above 10,000 feet, and when the seatbelt sign has been turned off. Please don’t be swashbuckling until then.Any of these actions can result in the following responses:If the airplane is still at the gate:Ladies, we’ve got you covered too:Once airborne and you try and talk on your blessed cell phone, the adjacent passengers get first dibs, and it’s been FAA and DOJ approved. (warning- it’s harsh):No, we don’t land the airplane short of destination to remove an inflight cellphone talker. We have other ways of dealing:

Several of my friends have different preferred methods for skipping a class period here and there. I’ve used most at one time or another.Harris:Obtained his mom’s email password, logged it in on his phone, and whenever he wants to skip, he writes an email to the attendance office saying something along the lines of “Please excuse my son from 4th period today.” He then deletes the email from the sent folder, and then the trash folder. Make absolutely sure the school won’t email your parent back to confirm or something, or else you have problems.Maddie:Heard about Harris’s method, and the next year simply created an email account of her parent’s name and submitted it as her guardian’s email. This works best if you have inattentive parents who won’t notice that they suddenly stop receiving school correspondence of any kind.Olin:Walked out to go to the bathroom right at the start of a test that he hadn’t studied for. He waited in the hall until the assistant principal walked by. Olin pretended to suck on something and then hurriedly put his hands in his backpack, making sure the assistant principal saw him. Long story short, Olin spent the next thirty minutes having his belongings searched for a Juul. When it became clear he didn’t have one, the assistant principal was forced to write him a note excusing him from the test.Jamey:Keeps a filled out doctor’s note PDF on his Google Docs. He simply changes the date and prints a new note every time. A special upside is that in my area medical appointments are the only acceptable excuse for missing school where sports are concerned. Jamey’s way lets you skip school and still play in the game.Carl:When there was a substitute in our history class, Carl and I finished the assigned work in ten minutes, and just walked out. Substitutes tend to put the lesson on the board and stare at their phones for an hour and a half. They won’t know who is who, or notice two kids missing.Meg:Stole a 500-pack of notes that the counselors send for kids whenever they have meetings scheduled. Used plenty herself but gave them out to those in need. Once she just slipped one to a girl who’s eyes were red and had obviously been crying who took it and left without question. She’s sort of like the hooky fairy.I don’t exactly recommend skipping school.I’m not a goody two-shoes by any stretch of the imagination. But school is infinitely easier if your teacher likes you, which they tend to do if you attend class, are quiet unless participation is requested, and don’t make their life any more difficult than it needs to be.Very basic standards. Teenagers just set a low bar.But there are situations where you need to escape for a little bit. And I vouch for any of the above methods, as reliable ways to get out of class when you need to.

Short answer in case the following is “too long to read”: probably we’ve temporarily (for the next few centuries) reached a peak of intelligence, but we have probably not reached our overall peak of intelligence.A year ago I would have simply said “no”, humanity has not reached any sort of peak of intelligence. During the 20th century, the average IQ of many populations around the world actually rose, a lot. This is known as the Flynn effect.Why? I assumed the answer was probably “better nutrition”. After all, many populations have got taller and fatter over the same period. Better nutrition is likely a part of the answer. Dramatically improving general health is likely also a part of the answer.However, Flynn himself thinks a key cause is likely a cultural shift towards abstract thought. We have become more familiar with tests, and more familiar with the idea of abstract logical thought and its importance. People are increasingly pushed to justify themselves in logical terms and to think about things logically. Many of us juggle multiple mobile phones, bank accounts and computers. We are increasingly “wearing scientific spectacles”, and seeing the world in terms of science.Whatever the truth, the Flynn effect is apparently an environmental effect. IQ scores are also not a direct measure of whatever might be called “intelligence”; they are merely statistically correlated with it. Other things can affect IQ.At some point relatively recently, the increase in IQ found in many countries halted or reversed.IQ Scores Are Falling in "Worrying" Reversal of 20th Century Intelligence BoomThis also appears to be a largely environmental effect, and has been found even within families.We know that IQ can rise and fall for environmental reasons, but there must be limits to that. Perhaps an even more interesting question is, what is happening to our genetic capacity for intelligence? Genetic capacity must ultimately constrain environmental effects: a dog cannot learn to read, no matter what you do with it, and a human cannot overcome genetics to the point of being three metres high. Genes constrain the magnitude of environmental effects.Evidence largely points to the genetic capacity for intelligence falling, and generally falling in most countries that have managed to nearly eliminate child mortality. This fall, if continued, must ultimately overwhelm environmental effects and cause a fall in IQ: “slow and steady wins the race”. The slow and steady fall in genetic capacity for high IQ must eventually drag down any rise brought about by improved or altered environment.Firstly, there is indirect evidence for this fall from evolutionary principles and studies of fertility. Again IQ is most often used as a measure of intelligence in studies, since that’s the best we’ve currently got, but sometimes other proxies are used to assess what is happening.IQ is heritable; variation in IQ between adults is thought to be 50–80% or more due to genetic variation: Heritability of IQ - WikipediaIt is genetic variation in a trait that allows natural selection to work on it. Without genetic variation in IQ, we could not have become more intelligent throughout our evolution.Humans have clearly become enormously intelligent, with massive brains. That is surely in large part due to natural selection; throughout human evolution, more intelligent people must have had more children. Another possibility is that sexual selection played a key role; the human brain is then a bit like the Peacock’s tail, in terms of its likely evolutionary history.Either way, the more intelligent have continually left more descendants.Pre-industrial societies typically have extremely high death rates, and in such societies it has sometimes been possible to demonstrate that more intelligent people leave more surviving children behind.Child mortality in early 19th century Britain has been estimated to have been around 20-40%.https://www.jstor.org/stable/3091628?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contentsChild & Infant MortalityDeath rates were high in general by modern standards, with children suffering particularly high mortality rates.Estimates for many other countries are similar; in the range 20–50% for infant mortality.However, as a general rule with some exceptions, the death rate was far higher among the poor than among the wealthy, and that continues to be the case to the present day. Child mortality was higher among the poor than among the wealthy, as also generally continues to be the case.The poor are dying almost 10 years younger than the rich in the UKPoorer people are always more likely to die of almost all causes than wealthy people.We all know that many wealthy people are not very bright, while many poor people are very intelligent. However, in terms of statistical averages, income and IQ are correlated, and IQ in turn is associated with intelligence.See this (which is misleadingly titled): Smarter people are no better off“Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year”Why is this? If you think about it, it makes complete sense. Wealth is generally held to be desirable; it allows people to avoid many undesirable things, such as poverty, and living conditions that may cause disease. Intelligence allows people to more easily figure out how to obtain wealth. Wealth is a proxy for intelligence, statistically. The more meritocratic a society, the more this is the case, and few societies (if any) are not meritocratic at all.However, by 1900, nearly all children in Britain survived to adulthood, and the death rate had fallen enormously. This was repeated around the world, as countries industrialised.While in 1800, we might expect that smarter people would on average have more surviving children than less smart people, by 1900 in many countries that was no longer necessarily the case.In fact, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was widely believed that the least smart people were on average having more children than the smartest people. This led to a global preoccupation with genes and breeding known as “eugenics”; a preoccupation which was not entirely new (even the ancient Romans had worried about precisely who was having children and whether they were having “enough”), but which took off enormously not long after Darwin published On the Origin of Species (1859).This preoccupation ended only after Naziism made clear the full horror of eugenics in practice, and its attendant tendency to branch out into pseudoscience.Some early post-Naziism studies found that more intelligent people were having more children than others, but later studies have generally found the opposite.See: Fertility and intelligence - WikipediaOn this basis, various researchers have estimated that genetic effects should be leading to steady fall in IQ of up to three points per decade (but usually a lot less; excluding effects due to immigration and emigration), and many feel that this should have been taking place (excluding environmental effects) since around 1850 in Britain, which industrialised before other countries.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222557600_The_decline_of_the_world's_IQEvidence of dysgenic fertility in ChinaNew evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States | Richard Lynn | Request PDFOther lines of evidence, unearthed for example by researcher Michael Woodley, also point to a dysgenic effect. For instance, reaction times have apparently increased in Britain since the Victorian era (in other words, our reactions have become slower).https://jellereumer.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/woodley-ea-2013-intelligence-daling-iq.pdfReaction times are somewhat correlated with IQ (inversely; more intelligent people on average have faster reaction times).What about more direct lines of evidence? Various genes have been found to be correlated with IQ or educational attainment, and at least one study has found the frequency of these genes to be decreasing.Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainmentAll in all, these studies would suggest that “dsygenic” fertility in relation to IQ is presently a reality. If so, this would imply that intelligence will decline until eventually societal order breaks down, re-establishing “eugenic” fertility.I’ve written about this several times so far on Quora, due to finding it fascinating. However, I must admit that these findings are all very uncertain. Above all, I advocate not worrying about it; we’ve seen what happens when people worry about this sort of thing too much. Even aside from the barbarism that too much concern is likely to produce, any attempt to “improve” ourselves genetically, in regard to anything other than outright disease, is likely to have unpredictable consequences.If the least intelligent people are presently having the most children (which seems moderately certain), that’s probably partly because welfare states have grown and have become relatively generous in some countries. That state of affairs is unlikely to last, for economic reasons, barring massive technological innovation that practically removes the need for work. We don’t really know how long this has been occurring for, and meanwhile, in the 20th century, improving education and nutrition, and improving general health, dramatically outpaced any “dysgenic” effect.In theory, since the capacity for both low and high intelligence (relatively; in human terms) is built into us, intelligence can increase and decrease relatively rapidly on account of who has the greatest number of children. In the long term, genetic effects must win out over greater environmental effects, but that’s the long term: conditions that prevail for some decades or even centuries are unlikely to persist indefinitely, and the fundamental condition of the human race appears to entail a steady selection pressure towards ever-higher IQs.Meanwhile, it seems likely that IQs have now peaked in many countries, and are likely to decline for some time into the future.The entire field of IQ research, especially in relation to fertility and genetics, has suffered due to the barbarism of the Nazis and subsequent taboos. Very many researchers are intent of finding proof of environmental effects only, and those researchers that research IQ and genetics are either brave people who follow the truth where it leads, or unsavoury types who want to find evidence for genes determining more than they actually do, depending on your perspective: many of them are somewhere between these two extremes. With bias in both directions, the field of IQ research and genetics has suffered tremendously.