Slashdot Mirror

No, we're bankrupt due to tax cuts, wars and bailouts.

No, really, its entitlements:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy06/hist.html

Have a look. Medicare spending alone went from 120B to 260B, then we have Medicaid on top of that, and then we have Social Security on top of that still. It's really, an additional 1T of entitlements spending.

Entitlements worked when people had 4 kids. Now they have 2, and don't. We can't afford the entitlements any more.

And in the United States, you can only label something "scotch" if it is made in Scotland.

(7) “Scotch whisky” is whisky which is a distinctive product of Scotland, manufactured in Scotland in compliance with the laws of the United Kingdom regulating the manufacture of Scotch whisky for consumption in the United Kingdom: Provided, That if such product is a mixture of whiskies, such mixture is “blended Scotch whisky” (Scotch whisky—a blend).

27 C.F.R. 5.22(b)(7).

And in the United States, you can only label something "scotch" if it is made in Scotland.

(7) “Scotch whisky” is whisky which is a distinctive product of Scotland, manufactured in Scotland in compliance with the laws of the United Kingdom regulating the manufacture of Scotch whisky for consumption in the United Kingdom: Provided, That if such product is a mixture of whiskies, such mixture is “blended Scotch whisky” (Scotch whisky—a blend).

27 C.F.R. 5.22(b)(7).

I'd say the only real fishy thing about it is that they are asking for emergency processing in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.13. The Federal Register listing doesn't say why though. I wonder which one of these was their problem:

(i) Public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed;

(ii) An unanticipated event has occurred; or

(iii) The use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to prevent or disrupt the collection of information or is reasonably likely to cause a statutory or court ordered deadline to be missed.

Did someone miss a deadline or did something unexpected happen?

Link if you are interested:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=5:3.0.2.3.9&idno=5#5:3.0.2.3.9.0.48.13

Other than that I don't think anything horrifically fishy is going on. The whole reason InfraGard is a bit opaque has to do with what authorized it in the first place, PDD 63.

Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd-63.htm

To save you the reading time, here's are 2 goals I lifted out:

* Seeks the voluntary participation of private industry to meet common goals for protecting our critical systems through public-private partnerships;

* Protects privacy rights and seeks to utilize market forces. It is meant to strengthen and protect the nation's economic power, not to stifle it.

Sometimes you have to do things behind closed doors to get all the players to the table. Security through obscurity? Maybe.

If you really want to learn more about PDD 63, I suggest you read this: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/white_pr.htm

Discuss.

It's not classified information. It's just called "sensitive" information under 49 CFR 1520. That's a federal regulation, not a criminal law, and it only applies to persons authorized to receive the information, not to the general public. If the TSA finds the authorized person who is the source of the leak, they can charge them a civil penalty, but a non-authorized recipient has no obligation to keep the material confidential.

There are criminal penalties associated with actual classified information, but they don't apply here. Homeland Security has the authority to create classified documents, but then they have to comply with all the requirements of accountability, marking, numbered copies, copying restrictions, approved containers, encrypted transmissions, burn bags, and security clearances. They can't send something to every airline gate agent and baggage handler and call it "classified", because those people aren't cleared for classified information.

It's not classified information. It's just called "sensitive" information under 49 CFR 1520. That's a federal regulation, not a criminal law, and it only applies to persons authorized to receive the information, not to the general public. If the TSA finds the authorized person who is the source of the leak, they can charge them a civil penalty, but a non-authorized recipient has no obligation to keep the material confidential.

There are criminal penalties associated with actual classified information, but they don't apply here. Homeland Security has the authority to create classified documents, but then they have to comply with all the requirements of accountability, marking, numbered copies, copying restrictions, approved containers, encrypted transmissions, burn bags, and security clearances. They can't send something to every airline gate agent and baggage handler and call it "classified", because those people aren't cleared for classified information.

For anyone who would like to look at the actual data and draw their own conclusions.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 321

Consumption expenditures 2010 Estimate ( % GDP )

Defense - 4.8
Nondefense - 2.5

Consumption expenditures 2002 ( % GDP )

Defense - 3.5
Nondefense - 2.0

Current Transfer payments 2010 Estimate ( % GDP )

Government social benefits - 11.0
Grants to State and local governments - 3.8
Other transfers to the rest of the world - 0.3

Current Transfer payments 2002 ( % GDP )

Government social benefits - 8.7
Grants to State and local governments - 2.9
Other transfers to the rest of the world - 0.2

Country-----Budget (in Billions)
United States of America----667.7[1]
United Kingdom----57.670
France----54.592
Germany----38.145
Italy----33.454
Turkey----30.936

The US spends more money on it's military than the next 5:

In fact, the US spends 3.6819728360069040437182576664112 times MORE MONEY than the five next biggest spenders on earth.

Translation: We're really fuckin' scared of other countries and will fucking kill you if you wink at us the wrong way.

It is the debt and "entitlement" and social security obligations that are going to kill us down the road.

SS sucks, but it's only about 3% of your paycheck (it's part of the FICA tax). It doesn't even come out of your regular IRS taxes, in theory. And as I understand it, Federal welfare was cut way back in the Clinton years. There's still a lot of welfare spending, but I believe it's mostly at the State and local levels. Don't live in California and it shouldn't be that big a problem.

You obviously didn't listen to grandparent poster when they told you Google federal spending. If I take the federal government budget for 2009 and look at the total DoD spending it only comes to 21% of the budget. Conveniently that matches pretty well with Social Security spending. You seem to want to exclude that since "it's part of the FICA tax," which comes no where close to covering its (projected) cost. If federal welfare was cut way back, why is it still the single largest part of the federal budget, and we haven't even started including Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other welfare programs?

If government weren't so in control of everything, you wouldn't have to worry about businesses controlling governement.

Well then relax, because government isn't nearly in control of everything. Big business prevails.

Look at the numbers. ExxonMobil reported 2008 revenues of nearly $373 billion and a profit of almost $41 billion. The EPA's 2010 budget is $10.5 billion.

If the EPA devoted itself entirely to policing this one oil company, ExxonMobil could outspend it three to one -- and still turn a profit!

It's not just multi-nationals. United Health projects profit of $5 billion this year. Four states total budget is less than this.

Well......

With the comm system you can have it just on the headphones, just on the speaker or both.

I have missed ATC calls before do to tons of chatter, but after a minute or two they call again, especially if you are getting close to your decent point.

My PWAG ( pilots wild ass guess ) is that they were simply engrossed in whatever they were doing and had the speakers either turned WAY down or off and had the headsets dangling around their necks and hence didn't hear the calls.

Some other guesses besides sleeping ( not unheard of since it is REALLY boring at 36K on auto pilot cruise and there is really NOTHING for the pilots to do ) is that they were doing each other, a flight attendant or whatever.

The action of the FAA to revoke their certificates ( it is not a license, it is a certificate ) is a bit heavy handed since they now have to find a new career. They have 10 days from notification in which to file an appeal, but I cannot for the life of me ponder what the appeal would be based on. Now as far as I can tell, they did not violate a specific rule of Title 14, Part 91, of the Code of Federal Regulations so that may be the basis for an appeal since the administrator has to base the revocation on existing regulations. I for one would have opted for a restriction on their certificates removing their ATP ( Airline Transport Pilot ) endorsement so they could at least fly cargo, just not carry passengers.

Never the less, losing situational awareness for at least 30 minutes ( they were about 15 minutes past the airport )is pretty much inexcusable for so many reasons that need not be reiterated by me since I think you can come up with plenty on your own.

Put the entire USC, regulations and pending legislation into SVC? Or better yet, an expert system.

Its been done. But there are (highly profitable) industries who provide consulting or advisory services based on this sort of knowledge base. But this on a free web page and millions (billions?) of dollars in profits vanish in a puff of open source smoke.

If you want this sort of access, you can buy it. Well, maybe not you, unless you are quite wealthy.

Actual US 2007 Outlays [1]:
NASA: 15.9 Billion USD
DOT: 61.7 Billion USD
DOD: 529.9 Billion USD (excluding War on Terror)

We could cut 10% of DOD's budget, and increase NASA's budget by over 400%. Or DOT's budget by 85%.

Clearly, we need to give space exploration a military spin (like we did in the 60's).

[1]: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy09/browse.html

Actually, according to the Constitution (10th Amendment):

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Since the US Constitution says nothing about prisons save for prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment", as long as Arpaio does not cross the line into "cruel", harshness is definitely allowed. Arizona's constitution says nothing about prisons. Arizona's law (a href="http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=31">Title 31) deals with prisons and the duties of Sheriffs, but within those provisions, counties have quite a wide latitude on how lenient/harsh they wish to be.

I hope you have learned something today.

(c) Nature of required deposit.
...
(2) In the case of certain works, the special provisions set forth in this clause shall apply. In any case where this clause specifies that one copy or phonorecord may be submitted, that copy or phonorecord shall represent the best edition, or the work as first published, as set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
...
(vii) Computer programs and databases embodied in machine-readable copies other than CD-ROM format. In cases where a computer program, database, compilation, statistical compendium, or the like, if unpublished is fixed, or if published is published only in the form of machine-readable copies (such as magnetic tape or disks, punched cards, semiconductor chip products, or the like) other than a CD-ROM format, from which the work cannot ordinarily be perceived except with the aid of a machine or device, the deposit shall consist of:

(A) For published or unpublished computer programs, one copy of identifying portions of the program, reproduced in a form visually perceptible without the aid of a machine or device, either on paper or in microform. For these purposes "identifying portions" shall mean one of the following:

( 1 ) The first and last 25 pages or equivalent units of the source code if reproduced on paper, or at least the first and last 25 pages or equivalent units of the source code if reproduced in microform, together with the page or equivalent unit containing the copyright notice, if any. If the program is 50 pages or less, the required deposit will be the entire source code. In the case of revised versions of computer programs, if the revisions occur throughout the entire program, the deposit of the page containing the copyright notice and the first and last 25 pages of source code will suffice; if the revisions do not occur in the first and last 25 pages, the deposit should consist of the page containing the copyright notice and any 50 pages of source code representative of the revised material; or

( 2 ) Where the program contains trade secret material, the page or equivalent unit containing the copyright notice, if any, plus one of the following: the first and last 25 pages or equivalent units of source code with portions of the source code containing trade secrets blocked-out, provided that the blocked-out portions are proportionately less than the material remaining, and the deposit reveals an appreciable amount of original computer code; or the first and last 10 pages or equivalent units of source code alone with no blocked-out portions; or the first and last 25 pages of object code, together with any 10 or more consecutive pages of source code with no blocked-out portions; or for programs consisting of, or less than, 50 pages or equivalent units, entire source code with the trade secret portions blocked-out, provided that the blocked-out portions are proportionately less than the material remaining, and the remaining portion reveals an appreciable amount of original computer code. If the copyright claim is in a revision not contained in the first and last 25 pages, the deposit shall consist of either 20 pages of source code representative of the revised material with no blocked-out portions, or any 50 pages of source code representative of the revised material with portions of the source code containing trade secrets blocked-out, provided that the blocked-out portions are proportinately less than the material remaining and the deposit reveals an appreciable amount of original computer code. Whatever method is used to block out trade secret material, at least an appreciable amount of original computer code must remain visible.

(f) Scanning receivers shall have a label permanently affixed to the product, and this label shall be readily visible to the purchaser at the time of purchase. The label shall read as follows:

WARNING: MODIFICATION OF THIS DEVICE TO RECEIVE CELLULAR RADIOTELEPHONE SERVICE SIGNALS IS PROHIBITED UNDER FCC RULES AND FEDERAL LAW.

I don't know if the term "practical" means some other form of research than the type going on at Universities and companies across the United States, but the U.S. Government spends a great deal of money on research. Including biomedical research. NSF has $ 6 Billion in 2009 and NIH has $29 Billion this year. I'm sure there are other programs but that is not chump change. Budget of the United States Government.

The problem with doing U.S Government funded research is that they expect you to tell people what you found. I think a car company doing its own research kinda implies they want to keep what the learn proprietary. IMHO.

Are you saying the budget is 300% of the GDP, or 3%? Because both numbers are way off, even if you add in the spendulous bill (which, btw, doesn't all happen this year, even if it is committed this year).

According to the government itself, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html (look at summary tables), Federal spending will amount to 21% of the GDP.

Federal spending.

That does not, afaikt include the spendulous bill, and I was too lazy to skim through and see if it included debt service. It definitely does not include state governments, which while not federal are still government, and looking at my tax bill last year, are roughly equivalent (a little less) to the federal amount (assuming I don't live in a state that's exceptionally more spendthrift than the others.)

If you play with the chart posted by jgtg, you can see that their estimate for the federal spending is also 21%, which corresponds to the official government publication.

I don't really feel like going through all 50 states and adding up their spending to correlate the total spending figure, but it looks proper in regards to my personal tax bill, so I'm inclined to believe that state spending accounts for roughly 16% of the GDP.

10 Billion dollars may seem a lot, but given its based around 40 years it cuts it down quite a bit.

Ok, just to be clear, the math is: $10,000,000,000 / 40 years = $250,000,000 per year.

Now, from the United States Government Printing Office, the President's 2009 Budget says:

Promotes stability in the Middle East. Approximately $75 million for the Palestinian people to promote good governance and invest in education and public health. Approximately $142 million to continue support for the democratic government of Lebanon.

So that's $217 million for 2009 alone, for a major portion of the State Department's Middle East Peace Program. And the argument here is that $250 million per year, over 40 years, isn't that much?

The US Federal Aviation Administration rules relevant to unmanned rocketry are in CFR Title 14, 101.21 to 101.27. In 101.22 one finds the definitions of "Model Rocket", "High-Power Rocket", and "Advanced High-Power Rocket" relevant in the United States:

101.22 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this subpart:

(a) Class 1--Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that:
        (1) Uses no more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant;
        (2) Uses a slow-burning propellant;
        (3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic;
        (4) Contains no substantial metal parts; and
        (5) Weighs no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces), including the propellant.

(b) Class 2--High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model rocket that is propelled by a motor or motors having a combined total impulse of 40,960 Newton-seconds (9,208 pound-seconds) or less.

(c) Class 3--Advanced High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model rocket or high-power rocket.

[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27390, 73 FR 73781, Dec. 4, 2008]

So according to this taxonomy, Mr. Eves' rocket is an advanced high-power rocket, and is not a model rocket.

That's a cool graph, but if President Obama gets his budget, the deficit will be more than triple the highest of those bars in the first year, and after the third year be at similar levels to the Bush administration's before growing some more. Check out page 114 of that PDF. I like Obama but I consider that pathetic.

Troops were only quartered in foreign countries in which British troops were fighting wars or police actions. They were rarely quartered in Britain itself (save Ireland, anyway, that hotbed of rebellion), because they never had to fight a land war in Britain, much like American troops were not quartered in American houses, except...during the War of 1812 and the Civil War, during which troops were, in fact, quartered in American houses. Particularly during the Civil War, troops were quartered in southern homes, and some northern homes, without any provision by Congress. Oh.

I will agree that the right to bring torts before a jury has largely not been infringed, however. This pdf that I found details some of the (largely unsuccessful) challenges based on it, mostly involving the limit of the power of a judge to vacate or direct a jury verdict, a power which existed at the time of the passage of the Seventh Amendment.

If you want to test the power of the Seventh Amendment today, you could always start a substantial rebellion in your state of residence, and see what happens. I'm sure we will all be interested in the result. Really, though, two out of ten amendments have remained largely uninfringed, and you think that is a great record? The Third Amendment requires pretty extraordinary circumstances to violate, and the government has no interest in violating the seventh amendment. Instead of forcing a bench trial, the Congress or the courts just find that you can't sue the government at all in various cases (Cough! AT&T! Cough! NSA!)--constitutional crisis avoided, apparently.

The GP does appear to be rather unhinged. He may be reading the Bill of Rights, but apparently he isn't reading the news. There have certainly been plenty of supreme court cases dealing with violations of the first and second amendments in the past decade, even: perhaps a certain recent landmark Washington D.C. case should be foremost in your mind. And as for the first, please advert to COPA and its ilk--the Congress keeps on trying--or to state laws establishing mandatory video game ratings/controls, for that matter. Finally, in the spirit of the GP's anal imagery, I will leave you with with this metaphor: thank goodness! I have made it through my sentence in federal PMITA prison, and only 80% of my orifices (including all the important ones, admittedly) have been regularly forcibly violated! But my left ear goes on, unblemished!

if they qualify under  50.24 Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research, The probably. You have read this, right?

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=21:1.0.1.1.19.2.31.3&idno=21

In the US one can notify the FAA of such events and they will release a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that will let them know the craft is in the area, with a description and advice. They require 24 hours notice. Every pilot in the US checks for NOTAMs along their designated flight plan and adjust accordingly. This is standard procedure before any takeoff and taught at the most basic level by flight schools before you ever leave the ground.

If you do launch _any_ craft into the air in the US it will fall under some sort of regulation that you should follow. In this case it's most likely part 101 Around the world governments have similar regulations in place.

My point? This has been done before and done right, safe procedures are in place.

We have noise pollution laws for everything but aircraft.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Ten seconds on Google would get you to Title 14, Part 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Certification". All airplanes built in the United States are certified to this standard. Europe (EASA) has very similar regulations, and most of the other national regulatory bodies in the world pattern their regulations off of the FAA/EASA regulations.

That same FAA disregard for anything that might negatively impact total air passenger miles got us 9/11

Wait, what? Are you seriously implying that 9/11 was the FAA's fault? Citation please.

and continues to cause well documented health and mortality effects in areas around major airports.

Please point me in the direction of some of these "well documented ... effects."

Enlightened governments are re-locating their airports away from population centers and building fast and convenient light rail to make it convenient to get to them.

Light rail is awesome, and has nothing to do with the FAA.

Another thing government could be doing to balance the substantial subsidies air industries have enjoyed is divert some of those dollars to rail and R&D into quieter and more efficient aircraft.

Ok, but your ticket prices will go up.

Also, you asked for quieter and more efficient aircraft, so here you go.

Airlines are still focused overwhelmingly on the next quarter and the FAA doesn't care.

The FAA's job is not to make the airlines profitable. It's to make them safe.

...but if your wireless mics really are in the TV bands, and really aren't Part 15 devices, then they're Part 74, Subpart H devices, which do require a license. There are no other options. You're one of many who've been sold a bill of goods by unscrupulous manufacturers of these microphones which, by law, can only be licensed to television stations, broadcast networks, cable television systems, motion picture producers, television program producers, and Multipoint Multichannel Distribution System (MMDS) licensees (Title 47 USC, 74.832). See this for a pretty good, if slightly dated, FAQ on what's required to license a wireless microphone in the US.

These microphones typically will be offered no protection against interference from whitespace protocols like the IEEE 802.22 standard. Note that the IEEE 802.22 group is also in the final stages of standardizing a beacon protocol, IEEE 802.22.1 [pdf]. This beacon is to be present whenever the (licensed) wireless microphone is in operation, and produces a signal easier to detect (at a greater range) than the microphone itself, so that cognitive white space secondary users can more reliably determine that that television channel is occupied and move elsewhere. This system avoids interference to the wireless microphone by the secondary user.

...but if your wireless mics really are in the TV bands, and really aren't Part 15 devices, then they're Part 74, Subpart H devices, which do require a license. There are no other options. You're one of many who've been sold a bill of goods by unscrupulous manufacturers of these microphones which, by law, can only be licensed to television stations, broadcast networks, cable television systems, motion picture producers, television program producers, and Multipoint Multichannel Distribution System (MMDS) licensees (Title 47 USC, 74.832). See this for a pretty good, if slightly dated, FAQ on what's required to license a wireless microphone in the US.

These microphones typically will be offered no protection against interference from whitespace protocols like the IEEE 802.22 standard. Note that the IEEE 802.22 group is also in the final stages of standardizing a beacon protocol, IEEE 802.22.1 [pdf]. This beacon is to be present whenever the (licensed) wireless microphone is in operation, and produces a signal easier to detect (at a greater range) than the microphone itself, so that cognitive white space secondary users can more reliably determine that that television channel is occupied and move elsewhere. This system avoids interference to the wireless microphone by the secondary user.

If the curing is done properly, it is quite effective. And your post fails to explain why cured ham is very frequently eaten uncooked in southern Europe, with little to no problem of trichinosis. Basically as long as you use enough salt and cure them for long enough, it isn't an issue.
A description of acceptable curing processes for ham by the USDA is described here.

Bear in mind that if these were ineffective, trichinosis would be rampant in the US, and even moreso in Southern Europe where cured ham is far more common.

This isn't really a response to parent. I just saw a lot about federal spending in this thread, and as it happens, I was looking over the numbers for the FY 2007 actual budget the other day.

Following are the top 15 federal expenses which accounted for ~83% of the 2007 budget (all numbers are millions USD, my annotations in [braces]):

If you want a better idea, see here (XLS). Also, the top 34 expenses in that spreadsheet comprised 98.07% of that budget. From looking over all this I basically figured out that most of our top expenses come out of one of three categories:

• Military
• Social welfare of some kind
• Paying interest on our national debt

Now I'm the kind of guy who just loves to rant about how much we waste on the drug war, miniluv, etc. But if you look at the numbers, you see that law enforcement, and even education and highways barely stacks up to these three categories.

If you want to know more about the national debt, first go to the oracle and learn about bills, bonds, and notes. Then you can look here and here for more info on it.

Oh, and /. needs <table>.

Excuse me?

It looks to me like spending has gone up every year since 1968 regardless of who was in congress or the whitehouse. I don't know where people got the idea that Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than democrats.

The data at the link is not in current dollars, if one wishes they could go get the data direct from GPO, in adjusted or non adjusted dollars and then graph it. I for one would welcome my new energetic overlords if someone did that and posted it somehow. I was going to but got too lazy.

Two significant positive economic events occurred during the Clinton presidency: Decreased DOD spending and huge Internet/technology growth and Y2K spending.

Internet growth + Y2K = economic growth = Increased tax revenue

End of Cold War = "Peace Dividend"

Neither series of events had anything to do with either party's politics or economics. Since presidency's are likely to never have the same historical events, broad comparisons are always flawed. Eisenhower also had several years of positive revenue.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/hist.html

$800 billion to shore up the faltering American economy is a drop in the bucket. Look up the numbers sometime.

Howzabout now? Here are the numbers: $5.63 trillion in debt held by the public in 2008; we just authorized an additional 0.8 trillion, or 14% additional debt.

drop in the bucket: A small, usually inadequate amount in relation to what is needed or requested.

14% is neither "small" nor "inadequate"; the word "obscene" comes to mind, though, and it's exactly "what was requested" by the Bushites. So, no, by no stretch of the imagination was this a "drop in the bucket".

All this ludicrous deficit spending even though we have yet to even begin a recession (despite three years of intense politically-motivated media cheerleading).

I'm canadian and we have neither problem with our heavily regulated banking industry.

And the United States wins again - Paulson just used his $800,000,000,000 blank check to effectively buy the banking industry in the USA. And another industry succumbs to the growing socialist sentiment.

Jefferson's spin is undoubtedly approaching its relativistic limits.

Fortunately, having the federal government take over a sector of the economy guarantees its success. I mean, look how much better education has fared since Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education in the mid-1970's.

I see your point, its a catch 22 in many, but not all regards; however, these things are being marketed as commuter vehicles that transition from flight configuration to road configuration.

Personally I think they should be classified as any Cessna 152/172 should be classified as a GA aircraft that require a Third Class medical Certificate because these things are going to be flown into civil airports near major business centers that have large population densities. If you don't like that, ammend the rules to prevent them from operating in any airspace requiring MODE C.

It is not like you are flying a glider out over the rolling hillside and chances are if you heart valve, pace maker, or whatever fails you are probably only going to kill yourself, but you are likely to be making an approach into the GA side of say Oakland, Hayward, San Jose, Palo Alto, San Carlos, all of which have large residential communities close by as well as major business centers with lots of people on the ground.

A third Class Medical Certificate is just NOT that hard to get and there is no age limitation.

Here is a link to the actual rules:

CFR 14.61.23

The WSJ opinion column is listed among the most ultra-right publications in the US.

It's about as credible and unbiased as Freedom Socialist [socialism.com]

Nice ad hominem attack. The "column" reprinted direct quotes by those senators and congressmen. Are you claiming they didn't actually say those things? Fine, go look in the Congressional Record. You lefties are unbelievable. A "right wing source" reports on something that the mainstream media ignores, and you call the former biased rather than the latter. Nice logic!

I'm sorry, but the organizations you're bashing were legitimate. Just because they're meant to assist lower income families doesn't make them any more corrupt than the big wall street houses which also fell victim to corporate malfeasance.

"Legitimate" if you think the role of government is to create entities which tinker with the markets, which I do not, on both ideological grounds and the fact that THEY COMPLETELY HOSED THE HOUSING MARKET. The Wall Street houses made some bad decisions on credit swaps, but that's because they didn't know what a house of cards the market would turn out to be because of the bad loans pushed by government policy. The mantra seems to be if a little old lady makes a bad investment because she didn't know all the facts, she's a victim. If Lehman does the same thing, they are corrupt greedy fat cats who get what they deserve. The point is, DEMOCRATS fought to stop any reform of this subprime lending.

How dare you attack democratic defense of the lower-middle and lower classes from abuses of wealthy people who are just as bigoted against them as white supremacists are againt the afro-american population.

How DARE I express my opinion! Right, because people with bad credit deserve to live in homes and get loans or else the lenders are racist.

So let me get this straight: We needed a giant government-created enterprise to ensure that the "wealthy" lend money to poor people with bad credit and low income. Then, when said poor people default on the mortgages, it is the wealthy's fault? Which is it? That they wouldn't loan them money or that they did (with government coercion, no less)?

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions. In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

They are arguing that tieing to AT&T, and then firmware releases bricking phones that have been unlocked to another carrier is an illegal/tortious act on the part of Apple. They allege Apple has told customers that downloading of unapproved software (but software that should be legal to install, under the MM act, imo) will void their warranty. Furthermore they have a vested financial interest in "approved" software from the Apple store, and obviously refuse to allow unlocking software to be included in that store. They refuse to provide customers who have lawfully canceled their AT&T contracts with unlocking codes so they may use their device with another carrier (again, covered by MM act). The list of allegations goes on. Full text of 15 USC Chapter 50, which is the section of the statute they have sued under (although I believe Title 16 - Commercial Practices, Chapter I - Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter G - Rules, Regulations, Statements and Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Part 700 Section 102 also deals with warranty denials, text here).

They are alleging illegality on the part of Apple in that they monopolized the market for iphone applications, and also apple+AT&T for voice and data service monopolization. And of course the alleged illegality I spoke of above (services ties, denying consumers the ability to break these ties, pushing software updates that intentionally break the phones of users who have circumvented product ties, and then denying warranty coverage for these affected users)

I hope that was somewhat helpful.

I'm going to feed this troller to death.

The 2009 US military budget is 651,2 Bil. and $79.6 Bil. of that goes to military research and testing. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf [gpoaccess.gov]

On the other hand, only $6.9 billion went for the National Science Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget#Total_spending [wikipedia.org]

Now, to be fair, the NSF doesn't include medical research so we'd have to consider that but where do you think you'd have to cut first?

*walks away*

The 2009 military budget for research is: $79.6 Bil. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

While $6.9 billion went for the National Science Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget#Total_spending

Now, the NSF doesn't include medical research so we'd have to consider that.

I know what I'm talking about.

I'm betting moral rights didn't enter the equation because normal people wouldn't be thinking that far ahead in how to fuck someone over.

Wow, someone's a little bitter. Unfortunately, in 1834, the Supreme Court disagreed with you. In Wheaton v. Peters, the court ruled against the notion of a common law copyright (the idea that copyright is a natural or moral right which statues simply recognize). And if you for some reason don't like Wikipedia, you can read about it here, as well, in the analysis of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (see page 262):

A divided Court held in favor of Peters on the legal question. It denied, in the first place, that there was any principle of the common law that protected an author in the sole right to continue to publish a work once published... The exclusive right which Congress is authorized to secure to authors and inventors owes its existence solely to the acts of Congress securing it...

Mr. Beckerman, I don't know if you'll have a chance to respond to this, but I'm kind of itching to ask after reading something.

It seems to me that the whole copyright debate has shifted from what was originally an issue of economic incentive to an issue of natural and moral rights. The starving artist is invoked not only to inspire our sympathy, but because we're told to think that it's only fair for someone to be able to control their ideas.

Now, according to the analysis of the copyright clause of the Constitution available here, there is no natural, moral, initial, or other right of exclusive use. I.e., the only reason the rights exist are because of the copyright clause - it's not that the copyright clause was expressing a natural right that pre-existed:

Wheaton, while denying this assertion of fact, further contended that the statute was only intended to secure him in his pre-existent rights at common law. These at least, he claimed, the Court should protect. A divided Court held in favor of Peters on the legal question. It denied, in the first place, that there was any principle of the common law that protected an author in the sole right to continue to publish a work once published. It denied, in the second place, that there is any principle of law, common or otherwise, which pervades the Union except such as are embodied in the Constitution and the acts of Congress. Nor, in the third place, it held, did the word "securing" in the Constitution recognize the alleged common law principle Wheaton invoked. The exclusive right which Congress is authorized to secure to authors and inventors owes its existence solely to the acts of Congress securing it, 1446 from which it follows that the rights granted by a patent or copyright are subject to such qualifications and limitations as Congress, in its unhampered consultation of the public interest, sees fit to impose.

So my question is, is this Wheaton v. Peters idea still in force? Or has the law evolved since then to find some sort of natural right? If not, doesn't that make so much of the copyright debate ultimately misguided?

Dude, they already CAN. In most cases all of the internet traffic flows through phone lines called "the backbone". The phone company owns them. The phone company has just recently recieved immunity in law for letting them (the government) listen illegally. Unless your traffic is going to a server in the same room, it is most likely passing through one of the major peer exchanges (read that article, please) which are these rooms, usually at a phone company building. They are almost always phone company buildings because they used to need huge buildings for their switches but now an exchange is only about 10 feet, and most of that is the connectors. So they have tons of room. Plus they used to need tons of batteries and backups. Now they use "SONET" rings and frame relay and stuff which rely on local (on-site) power backup. Your home line is probably still standard, but business lines account for the vast majority of active phone lines nowadays.. So the phone company leases "rack space" to these "ISPs" who basically also lease Copper or Fiber from the phone company to move their data on. Unless they've pulled their own copper or fiber or use some other expensive WAN technology like microwave (which is easily listened to, also), they go thru the phone company.

So, they turn on a span port on the peer point router (usually a Cisco 12000 type router), and just copy traffic off, probably using some sophisticated filtering technology. It's a lot of data, but they only check when they want to. Yep, in almost any large phone company datacenter in most metro areas there's this little "room"...... anyway, EVERYONE knows about the room, and it doesn't matter. The government is more than just a few guys. Sure, they are fucking corrupt, but really this country is run by us. If we don't get out and vote, and choose the right leaders, NOT just by listening to Cable News but by actually READING the testimony in Congress or the Senate, looking at the voting records of your representatives, GETTING involved. You can actually MEET your senator if you're in a small state, and you can almost definitely meet your congressperson. I think they should probably expand congress again, but that's neither here nor there.

So, you can keep the fear and paranoia stuff, but that's SO 2005. We are looking for solutions now. Maybe a better faster networking technology would help us communicate even more effectively, and find those solutions more quickly.

Um, the Executive Office of POTUS (the source linked and credited by the Wikipedia article) is "random people on the Net", while your source (a political action committee seeking to cut military budgets to fund more education projects) are "accountable"? Really? To whom?

You do need to get out more...

>Secondly, it's unlikely that if 20g to orbit is $2000, 200g to orbit will be $20000.

My assumption was that this rocket is either your only means to space and you have to assemble in orbit (I don't know how), or that for comparison you hitch a ride and pay by weight. Then having the Kg to orbit price helps comparing your options. However I doubt that you can get away with only paying for the weight, probably they let you pay for a part of the launch service and that won't be cheap.

Also I just read somewhere (not just your comment) that hitching a ride is difficult and only infrequently an option.

The reason this might not be entirely illegitimate a comparison is that the N-Prize doesn't require you to put the licensing and other non-technical stuff on the budget to win the prize, so in our wonderful world of engineering we only pay for the price to put a kilogram into orbit.

Just as a side note regarding the non-technical aspect, if you plan to go into orbit you are most probably exceeding the amateur rocket class and you need a license from the FAA for an ELV:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=411c0579c5834b8dfae3aee3e75392dd;rgn=div5;view=text;node=14%3A4.0.2.9.9;idno=14;cc=ecfr

I don't know how much this costs but I fear you are going to lose as a hobbyist just because of the requirements. The guys from Cambridge may have a better chance to pull this off I guess.

Also notice that the US is said to have the least complex regulations for you to reach space as a commercial enterprise for instance, so I wonder whether you will find an easier country to deal with.

I agree with your third point but it holds some promise. Spaceflight has driven miniaturization and it will continue to do so unless some drastically cheaper way to orbit comes along. Also the N-Prize requirement says that your payload should not weigh more than 19.99g.

Really? The Republic water carrier said that? Oh it must be true then.

The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the forrner Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick
-redacted -, Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S.officials he thought there
was "nothing to the story." Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled
the former ambassador saying "he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had
reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.''

Intelligence Cmt Report

You would also have to add in the cost of a launch license add in the cost to make it safe enough to launch, no way would 10,000 be enough. Of course thats in the US, not sure what it is for Europe. Maybe they don't care if people try to launch several small "missile" like rockets that can reach orbital velocity.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

I don't have time to find this exact rule...someone looking for Karma care to reply with it?

most plant designs aim to achieve $1 per kWh/year (that makes the installed cost about $10/watt)

You lost me on converting the $1 annual KWH running cost to the $10/watt installation cost. If you derived that from construction of other power plants (e.g., coal), I'm not sure how good an estimate that is. Each type of power plant has its own construction peculiarities (coal needs fuel deliveries/storage space and scrubbers, nuclear requires umpteen gazillion safety checks plus nuclear material, solar thermal has big tanks of molten salt) to go along with commonalities (ties to the power grid).

I was refering to the 3 gigawat plant metioned in the article.

Ah, sorry.

The largest solar thermal plant I've heard of being planned was in Australia, somewhere in the outback, but I forget the name and so can't give a link or any stats. How big an individual plant can scale to is definitely a worthwhile question.

but you don't see me making up numbers and adding them to my cost to make it more compelling

The only citation you've provided is Wikipedia (which is routinely described here on /. as not being a citeable source), and there's still no source for your construction cost estimate.

I will stick with the congressional budget, thank you very much.

Which was $500 billion three years into the war, which was three years ago. Looking at the budget allocations, I'm not convinced the war got dramatically cheaper. So even if it isn't to the $1 trillion mark yet, it will be pretty soon. And that's without your "funny numbers", some of which aren't too damn funny if you're the one missing a leg.

Remember, you're the one who said "By comparison the Iraq war has not cost a trillion (unless you do a lot of hand waving and use funny numbers)" and "I will stick with the congressional budget, thank you very much", so you still have some explaining to do.

I've checked further at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ , and according to the United States Code (USC) using at least 5 forged IPs to send SPAM is illegal. I'm still checking the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR.)

Andy