Slashdot Mirror

Let me google that for you. I know, it's an arduous ten seconds compared to just making up bullshit about what 'many people you know' have done.

FAR Section 91.21

Having "rules and regulations" about the highest-powered public vehicles on the planet seems ridiculous until you use your brain for just a minute. Did the Boeing engineers design the 767 (for example) to tolerate a few hundred cell phones broadcasting alongside its avionics? Probably not, since it was produced in the early 80s. Can you personally guarantee that a 30-year-old plane will operate normally, every time under such conditions? If not, then why are you talking like you have a clue about it?

There is already a law on the books requiring a GPS device in every car

Oh please. If that were actually the case, there would have been a major hue and cry about it. Of course if you can actually cite such a law - GPS in every car - I will change my sig to say "grantspassalan is the smartest guy on slashdot." Since the actual law doesn't even require the logging of direction of travel, I'm pretty confident your name won't be appearing in my sig.

This Black Box is similar to stuff that's already IN your car, and airplanes, etc. Here is the legislature that will be revised to *require* the devices, so you can look at the details of what's being required.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=adfa70d7fb0603db957cef53e728148f&rgn=div5&view=text&node=49:6.1.2.3.31&idno=49

Particularly, check the latter sections. "Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must meet the requirements specified in 563.7 for data elements, 563.8 for data format, 563.9 for data capture, 563.10 for crash test performance and survivability, and 563.11 for information in owner's manual."

DISCLAIMER: IANAL, so this is not legal advice.

Having said that, I am rather interested in DIY drones, and therefore, I have been following technical and legal aspects of amateur drones/UAVs/UAS' for a couple of years. I don't see any *technical* reason why what you want to do isn't possible. However, if you live in the USA, I don't believe what you want to do is legal. As I understand, the FAA requires amateur operated drones to be under line-of-site control at all times. Here are some links to help you figure out the legal restrictions for what you want to do:

DIY Drones Regulatory FAQ

  FAA Advisory Circular 91-57

  Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

HTH!

Also: Fact Sheet - Unmanned Aircraft Systems

DISCLAIMER: IANAL, so this is not legal advice.

Having said that, I am rather interested in DIY drones, and therefore, I have been following technical and legal aspects of amateur drones/UAVs/UAS' for a couple of years. I don't see any *technical* reason why what you want to do isn't possible. However, if you live in the USA, I don't believe what you want to do is legal. As I understand, the FAA requires amateur operated drones to be under line-of-site control at all times. Here are some links to help you figure out the legal restrictions for what you want to do:

DIY Drones Regulatory FAQ
FAA Advisory Circular 91-57
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

HTH!

Couple of days, couple of hours...anyway, here's the citation for the "charitable flights" exemption: 91.146 Passenger-carrying flights for the benefit of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event.

It may not be so much a question of the FBIs Literacy as the Supreme Courts (mis) interpretation and (skewed) analysis of the Constitution. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html has recent official propaganda from SCOTUS.

I think a lot of your questions on the subject will get answered there.

If you really want to know, look at:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

Specifically, here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/

Basically, for general aviation, you don't need to file a flight plan or anything. You go out to your plane, get in and fly...like your car. If you are at an airport with an operational tower, you will need to get clearance and authorization for when to take off, but it is still your decision where you go, and when. As soon as you leave the airport's airspace with VFR flight, you can fly however you want.

Playing classical music that is no longer protected by copyright and performed for the purpose of free redistribution/public performance keeps the IP lawyers away. They can't stand to hear anything that cannot be used as the basis of a lawsuit. Interestingly enough, keeping the lawyers off the streets may reduce crime more than keeping rowdy teens away.

We may be on to something here... what can we play in public places to keep bank execs away? Anyone have audio transcripts of Congressional inquiries into the subprime mortgage crisis? I'd like to play that loudly on my phone the next time I'm standing in line at the bank... if everyone did that, it would be better than a sea of Guy Fawkes masks.

Just to check I'm interpreting this correctly: a well-defined algorithm in daily use across the globe is 'export controlled' if it happens to be implemented by a US company?

Yes. See the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), Part 774 (Commerce Control List), Category 5, Part 2 (Information Security).

What I do wonder with regards to SSL or TLS is if you can get away with using it as long as your limit the key length? Is it possible to limit key lengths used to encrypt the data traffic on an SSL or TLS connection?

You are incorrect. Obama came into office on January 20, 2009. By the first Monday in February, the President must submit his budget request (Congressional Budget Act of 1974). That budget takes effect starting October 1. So FY2009 was already well in effect. The FY2009 Budget was proposed to Congress by George W. Bush on Feb 4, 2008.

According to the Treasury Department, the debt ending Sept 30, 2008 was just over $10T. The debt ending Sept 30, 2009 was just over $11.9T. So the last budget from George W. Bush was almost $1.9T deficit, an increase of over $800B from the previous year. Obama's first budget (FY2010) ending on Sept 30, 2010, gave us an overall debt of just over $13.5T. That means the deficit from his budget was just over $1.65T, which is LESS than the almost $1.9T from Bush. In fact, it was a net reduction in deficit of $233B.

So yes, the GP post was correct that Obama inherited the largest deficit in history, and the deficit has decreased each year since Obama came into office. In fact, someone was nice enough to go through all the data from the Treasury Department website and show a breakdown of the numbers to make it easy to see how the budgets/deficits have changed over time.

You are incorrect. Obama came into office on January 20, 2009. By the first Monday in February, the President must submit his budget request (Congressional Budget Act of 1974). That budget takes effect starting October 1. So FY2009 was already well in effect. The FY2009 Budget was proposed to Congress by George W. Bush on Feb 4, 2008.

According to the Treasury Department, the debt ending Sept 30, 2008 was just over $10T. The debt ending Sept 30, 2009 was just over $11.9T. So the last budget from George W. Bush was almost $1.9T deficit, an increase of over $800B from the previous year. Obama's first budget (FY2010) ending on Sept 30, 2010, gave us an overall debt of just over $13.5T. That means the deficit from his budget was just over $1.65T, which is LESS than the almost $1.9T from Bush. In fact, it was a net reduction in deficit of $233B.

So yes, the GP post was correct that Obama inherited the largest deficit in history, and the deficit has decreased each year since Obama came into office. In fact, someone was nice enough to go through all the data from the Treasury Department website and show a breakdown of the numbers to make it easy to see how the budgets/deficits have changed over time.

Unfortunately, it's not legal to be licensed at that age in the USA.

FAA Part 61.103
To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:

(a) Be at least 17 years of age for a rating in other than a glider or balloon.

(b) Be at least 16 years of age for a rating in a glider or balloon.
[...]

I think since the Repubmocrat coup last century, the constitution is an inconvenience to "getting in step with the rest of the world" or to Repubmocrat power, whichever side of it you see. Either way it is being re-interpreted by the corrupt group of hirelings that replaced our Supreme court last century, so don't give it a second thought.
        Like a peekey? http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html#2002 Knock yourself out brother.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/

That's the congressional record. His lies are in there. All the other sites I gathered my personal information from have taken down their inflamatory "baby killer" arguments, mostly around the time of Ralph running for president (whether respect or threats, I can't guess as to their reasons). And his lies spread years, so pinning down one single quote in the congressional record wouldn't seem that interesting or incriminating.

Or have you never wondered why they were initially designed to protect an UNbelted adult male of 185 lbs, and not protect belted passengers? In fact, 10 years in, it was estimated that airbags killed more belted drivers than they saved. Protect those who choose to not protect themselves at the expense of those of us who choose to protect ourselves.

That's Ralph "baby killer" Nader's legacy.

Thus, when military industrial complex spending (not DoD or pentagon budget) is at 1.4 TRILLION per year, and this F35 program alone costs $300 BILLION http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/21/hackers-infiltrate-pentagons-300-billion-fighter-jet-project/ , people are wondering why the $8BN budget for the NSF is facing cuts, despite national funding of science being a major player in human benefit.

From gpoaccess.gov: The total spending on research from the US government in 2010 was 4.2% of total outlays. Of that 4.2%, 4% went to the NSF, 6% to NASA, 2% to Energy, 23% to NIH, and 57% to Defense. Spending on "Defense" is so far out of whack that even the small portion of federal spending allocated to research is dominated by the military. The entire budget for the NSF, which funds research from all disciplines of science, was about $8 billion. The budget for the Missile Defense Agency, which is funded through the DoD for the specific task of developing missile defense technologies was about $7 billion. I constantly see stories about how the US is investing in STEM, trying to produce more scientists and engineers, and creating a "green economy" by investing in sustainable energy, but these numbers tell a different story: that the US places the priority of war-making so much higher than anything else, that the military is tasked with deciding how the vast majority of taxpayer dollars are invested in basic research.

No.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con016.pdf

...just pointing out that provided they don't fire it into controlled airspace, no-one's going to bat an eyelid...

Ummm...he did fire it into controlled airspace. In most of the contiguous United States, any airspace over 1200 feet above ground level (AGL) is "Class E" airspace. Okay, I don't know exactly where he launched from, so he could have been in one of the exceptions where the floor of Class E airspace is "as published", but even then, anything above 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and below 60,000 MSL is "Class A" airspace (see the 14 CFR 91 and the Aeronautical Information Manual for more information on and Class E airspace). I would assume he notified FAA before launch, and received permission to penetrate at least the Class A airspace; I'm not sure if any notification would be required to penetrate Class E, since (for aircraft at least) there is typically no regulatory requirement to contact air traffic control before entering the airspace.

..how many of the people posting take this so lightly. There should be outrage here. Companies bearing weight on congress is not a good idea, people. Maybe many of you are too young to see what is going on, but the idea is that the country is governed by the people and for the people, not by Mr. Facebook for his company. And while you have 20 seconds of laugh writing a funny post, your future is eroding right in front of your eyes, and you are completely oblivious to it...

I understand your feelings, but when it comes down to it outrage isn't going to *do* anything about the problem of "companies bearing weight on congress." Love it or hate it, corporate influence on US government is a reality. That bell has already rung.

The reason that so many are just fine with corporate influence on Congress is that, well, corporations are people. I don't mean in the sense of legal recognition, I mean the CEO, the board, middle management, HR, accounting, and stakeholders -- these are all of-the-by-the people too, and they the right to organize themselves as they see fit. Corporate organization is one method of organization that people use to, intentionally influence Congress.

My concern is that generalizing this to some larger principle that "corporate influence on congress = bad" oversimplifies things. Because, despite the legions of lobbyists whose only target is money, there are actually other well-intended groups of (of-the-by-the) people who have used the corporate form as a method to organize and more effectively lobby Congress to address their own concerns.

Of course, *I* want f/b to have as little influence on legislation as possible --they could realistically do some serious damage to privacy statutes and regulations. But I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of somehow stripping of-the-by-the people of their rights to organize simply because they use a common form of business organization to be profitable. A lobby-specific approach seems more effective to me than just outrage. Perhaps outrage can inspire people to action, but most of the time I think it just adds stress that ultimately gets in the way.

It would be useful to keep a close eye on any upcoming amendments to privacy law, if you're not already. The Federal Register is the official daily publication of Congress, and will probably be the first place any f/b lobby influence appears. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

If you've never taken a moment to read your country's laws in raw form, I highly recommend it. Try a search for "privacy", and dive in. Note that most proposed regulations have a "request for comments." These comments eventually do become part of the official regulatory history. Unfortunately at this point --in part because let's face it, regs are kind of boring to read-- these comment sections are incredibly sparse, often containing only pre-canned statements from industry groups (coordinated by your favorite corporate lobby, of course). Next most often is individual commentary around the level of the youtube comment section.

You might be able to effectively focus your outrage here. But from what I've seen of regulatory history, the most effective comments are note outraged -- they are those that are calm (not angry), to the point with the person's concern, what they feel the effect of proposed reg would be, and light on the preaching, light on the adjectives, and light on the hyperbole -- preferably none of that noise, at all.

Nice job. FAA letter on the way and your education will now be complete. You may learn about high speed collisions and hazards to air navigation. I know it was probably day VFR, but controlled airspace is 1400 AGL (except in the mountains). Part of doing this correctly is to play by the rules and there are a lot of them.

Seems every geek modeler with enough sense to build a UAV ought to be wise enough not to endanger the flying public.

As long as they weren't in a restricted zone near an airport, I don't think this balloon and it's 1.6 lb payload violated any FAA regulations:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ea968eea871ed9ab2380f6d979eaa7a6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.15&idno=14

Except as provided for in 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that—

(i) Carries a payload package that weighs more than four pounds and has a weight/size ratio of more than three ounces per square inch on any surface of the package, determined by dividing the total weight in ounces of the payload package by the area in square inches of its smallest surface;

(ii) Carries a payload package that weighs more than six pounds;

(iii) Carries a payload, of two or more packages, that weighs more than 12 pounds; or

(iv) Uses a rope or other device for suspension of the payload that requires an impact force of more than 50 pounds to separate the suspended payload from the balloon.

(b) For the purposes of this part, a gyroglider attached to a vehicle on the surface of the earth is considered to be a kite.

Except during a really short timeframe during takeoff and landing, perhaps a combination of common sense and FAR 91.119? Yeah, I suppose 91.119 d might give you an out, but if you aren't worried about cruising around at an altitude that's high enough to kill you and low enough that you can't deploy a parachute, that's your call, I guess.

Worse yet they're more efficient that the Repubmocrats here. Billary Clinton has handed off the socialist baton to Crackrok Obama who have done both their parts to architect a future generation mindset.( Kids R Suckerz). Badly enough though, its been going on since at least President Wilson and as social correct consciouslessness rises freedoms dissapear altogether, taken a little piece at a time. Think about it, Socialist Scientologist Democrat gave us the last huge screwing on Copyright in the name of the almighty Mouse. Thankfully he was ASSassinated by a patriotic tree on a ski slope.
Don't let 'em fool you kid, you were born and bred in the U.S.S.A.

Go back and read the founding documents, the writings of the founders, see their intent for yourself, then you can see where the supreme court got good and F**KING corrupt. Just take a lookee at their "analysis and interpretation of the constitution" after you see what you're getting suckered out of. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html

To answer your question, they're like our government but with a stronger hold on the people.

Think of it like the old adage about how to cook a frog.
You put froggy in a pot of water, but build the fire slowly.
The frog won't even notice he's done for until it is too late.
China is an old recipe for frog soup.
The U.S. just thinks this is a relaxing spa so far.

What the fuck are you talking about?

DoD budget this year is $553 Billion. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-7.pdf

The Department of Health and Human Services, which funds both Medicare and Health and Human Services has a budget of approximately $80 Billion. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-11.pdf

What the fuck are you talking about?

DoD budget this year is $553 Billion. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-7.pdf

The Department of Health and Human Services, which funds both Medicare and Health and Human Services has a budget of approximately $80 Billion. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-11.pdf

1.8 trillion total since the GWoT started more like.

FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars

US defense budget FY2010
Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent increase over 2009.
Includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 to support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

Visualizing the US defense budget

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/01/information-is-beautiful-military-spending

I'm going to put on my buzz kill hat and say that it's only a matter of time before one of these contraptions is going to get sucked into a jet engine or foul a propellor.

The FAA does have rules on flying unmanned balloons. They say things like don't operate them near airports, deploy them only on days with less than 50% cloud coverage, if they're deployed at night they have to have blinking lights, etc. Without more details, we don't really know if these kids followed those rules or not, but they're pretty simple rules to follow, and given the sophistication of their device I'm betting these kids were capable of following them.

They'd only be collision hazards during the limited time periods of ascent and descent. At 95,000 feet, there is no traffic of any kind except for those that bring their own oxidants with them (rockets.) And when you think about it, airspace is really really big, so the chances of a mid-air collision are vanishingly small. When you say "a matter of time", you might be talking thousands of years.

As far as a jet engine vs. this contraption, well, given that it's being lifted by a balloon less than a meter in diameter, it's probably made of the lightest mass plastic components possible, and would have a pretty small chance of causing damage to an engine. And consider the worst case, where the battery gets sucked into the engine and explodes. In the middle of a screaming combustion chamber. Designed to burn gallons of Jet-A fuel every second. It's probably not going to make too much of an impact there.

I just ran this 5.4MB PDF (found w/ random search) while using Chrome's native plugin, and, with 12 other tabs open and 0% idle CPU time, it took ~15 seconds to progressively download... and it didn't lock the browser... and my CPU time never went above 10%.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.15&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.15.4

In the US, the FAA has rules for untethered balloons. If you're below certain size and material restrictions, you're good to go. Issuing a NOTAM (Notice To Airmen) is highly recommended, even if you're not required to file one. Demonstrates that you're being professional about your activities.

Yes. FAR 91.119 defines the minimum altitudes at which aircraft can legally operate. The reg is broken into three parts for fixed-wing aircraft (presumably including drones, although that isn't explicitly stated in this particular reg): 1) anywhere: an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface; 2) over congested areas: ...an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft; 3) over other than congested areas: an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas and over open water or sparsely populated areas, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

So no, flying at 2 feet above your house is not legal, although I don't know if it would qualify as "trespassing". The FAA also has a rule about careless and reckless operation, which I would expect to cover this as well.

You might actually want to check and see who is actually sending in more money to the government. I am betting you think it is the poor or middle class. You would be wrong according to the reported government numbers. The bottom 50% earners are only paying 2.7% of the total income tax received. This is actual money sent in to the government. Where is the myth that the poor are paying more than others coming from?

If the bottom 50% of the earners are only paying 2.7% of the income tax that ends up to be even less of the total amount of revenue that the federal government actually gets. How do people say the "rich" are getting off scott-free and the middle class and the poor are actually paying for everything? The actual revenue numbers being reported by the federal government don't seem to support that statement.

Top 1% Pay 38% of all income tax
Top 5% Pay 59% of all income tax
Top 10% Pay 70% of all income tax
Bottom 50% Pay 2.7% of all income tax
47% of American Households didn't pay any income tax for 2009.

45% of all the revenues of the government in 2009 and 2010 were from income tax. Corporate tax revenue was 13% in 2009 and 9% in 2010 of total revenues. The federal government revenues from largest to smallest are Income Tax, Social Security and other payroll taxes, Corporate Tax. All the other taxes don't even add up to the Corporate Tax amounts.

So if you added corporate taxes to the top 5% then you are talking 71.7% of revenues in 2009. It would 67.7% of revenues in 2010. So it would appear to me that the "rich" in this country are paying significantly more than half of the cash needed/used for the government to run.

So exactly who are the "rich" that we are talking about? It is just the fat cats on Wall Street and the CEOs? I don't think so.

If you look at who the corporations are in this country you might be surprised. 99% of all corporations/firms in this country have under 100 employees. They make up 30% of the revenue of all US companies. If you move up to companies with under 500 employees now you are talking about 46% of all the revenue of US companies. So small businesses are paying roughly 30% of the corporate taxes and small-medium companies are paying roughly 46% of all the corporate taxes. I suspect that most of the people who own these businesses would be considered "rich" by most people, but they are not the wall street fat cats and typical CEOs that people think of as the "rich". I make that comment because I hear people saying the middle class is disappearing. If that is the case then I would assume that those who own their own business are considered "rich".

Please explain to me how this is suppose to work where the "rich" supposedly are not paying their fair share. I am not saying the distribution of earnings in the US is a good/perfect thing. I do think everyone still has a chance to make more money and own their own business today, if they are willing to work hard and take the risks required.

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
http://budget.house.gov/
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-revenue
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/income-tax-47-of-american_n_529059.html

Here's some numbers straight from the Fed themselves:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html

Table 15.3 seems pretty relevant (warning: Excel file). As of 2005 they have government spending as percentage of GDP at 31.4%. Granted, the table is a bit out of date, but the numbers hang around 30% until you get back into the early 1960's. The earliest date they have is 1948 at 17.2%. Too bad this table doesn't have any pre-WW2 data. Table 1.2 goes back to 1930, and it only includes Federal spending (no state and local), and has federal spending at 3.4% of GDP in 1930. So I'll say that the 40% number for total spending seems high, but not implausible given the huge stimuluses (stimuli?) in the pass couple of years. However, I'm going to guess that the 2% number is federal spending only and therefore not comparable to the 40% number.

... she is actually a supporter of ongoing government waste and corruption.

This is old news, sorry.

... all bills before Congress should be made publicly available before they are voted on...

They are.

You seem to have been operating on misinformation.

There is no money in the trust fund. To quote from this government document: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf - "If in any year revenues are greater than costs, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Managing Trustee of the trust funds, is required to invest this positive annual balance (or cash flow surplus) in securities backed by the U.S. government(3). The purchasing of the securities allows the surplus to be used for other government purposes(4)". Reference (4) goes on to say, "This is often referred to as 'borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.'". So the trust fund contains in essence only IOUs.

Since there is effectively no differentiation between the SS monies and the general pool, interest is not being earned, but being paid on the net negative balance. If you isolate just the SS trust fund, then you're missing the whole picture (large total federal debt and its ongoing growth).

Further, SS ran a deficit this year: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html. Deficits are expected to grow rapidly after 2014 - read the document. But even had this recent downturn not happened, the situation is still dire. Here is a chart showing the problem - made before the recent increases in federal outflows: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png.

Not an issue of spending? This government spreadsheet of the most recent and prior federal budgets contradicts your claim: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist01z1.xls. Note how the growth in outlays out-paces the growth in revenue. Note the much bigger jump in outlays between 2008 and 2009 (nearly twice the magnitude of the drop in revenues over the same period).

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space, PART 101—MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, AMATEUR ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS when in doubt consult the pertinent regulations.

First off, even if there were no regulations, they would still be lobbying as much (more, actually, since 'regulation' also covers lobbying) to get favorable treatment, government contracts, etc. etc.

No one is saying that we should only deregulate, they're arguing that all forms of government intervention and spending need to be limited.

Secondly, during our best and strongest years(post-WW2), the top tax rate was in the 90's, the banks were heavily regulated, and the government was distributing a large percentage of the GDP ((laundry list excised))

The top tax rate was 90%, and no one paid it. That's why government revenue didn't go down substantially when they cut the rate. If you're rich, you have the money to move your money around and hide it. Or, if it comes to it, you have the option of simply not working as much.

My initial inclination is that it's simply not possible for banks to have been nearly as regulated as they are now because there were no computers. But if you have a metric of how much a sector is regulated, I'd like to see some numbers to back up your assertion.

And your numbers are simply wrong on the % of GDP. After WWII, federal spending dropped to 14.5% of GDP. It climbed up to 20% and has stayed at about that level since then. Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/hist.html Social Security and Medicare were both started around that time, but both of them are wealth transfers from the young and poor to the old and rich. They take money out of the hands of potential entrepreneurs and put it in the hands of people with limited means, so even by Keynesian theory they can't be stimulative.

And while the claim is that WWII proved Keynes right, we've recently spent massive sums on stimulus and unemployment is at 9%. Japan did it and suffered the "lost decade." Germany is *not* doing it and they are rebuilding their economy. The rational explanation seems to be that the recovery from the Depression occurred before WWII, and that while a shared sense of purpose may be beneficial, massive programs to dig holes and fill them in again actually depress the economy.

Both the commercial sector AND government can be great positive OR negative forces. Crippling EITHER is sheer idiocy! We merely need to curtail the TRUE threats without succumbing to slippery slope rhetoric by the radicals.

You need to check your facts and understand other people's arguments. No one is arguing that we're on a "slippery slope" to anything, just a steady decline into a European-style welfare state. While it may be apparently comfortable, it's antithetical to liberty and the human condition. If you're looking for radicals, they're all on the left: do a burnt car / broken window / cracked skull count at a Tea Party rally, now look at the behavior of leftists at a G20 summit and get back to me.

The private sector and the government are not forces, they are organizations of people who have to make sense of the world to operate. Virtually all organizations, whether commercial, non-profit, government, are run by people who have a surprisingly superficial understanding of how their own operation works, and they prefer to ignore change in the world if they can. The difference is that organizations in the private sector (unless a politician deems them "too big to fail") can go out of business and be replaced, whereas in the government there has to be a public outcry and years of campaigning to fix anything.

The government can be a good force, but we the people have to be attentive managers. We can only effectively managed it as long as the our collective attention span can keep track of it. The reality is that our collective attention span is more or less a fixed resource. We've gone past diminishing marginal returns at all levels of education and are presently overwhelmed with information from modern news sources. The rational thing to do is limit the siz

Worried? Why would you worry about that?

It's public spectrum.

If you want to use it, you gotta play by the rules, just like everyone else -- including Google*.

If you don't want to, then don't. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and telling you that you must make WiFi available to yourself.

Just turn it off.

Alternatively, take the tinfoil hat off and get over it. This data is useful to folks, and it's all fair game.

For years, now, my first-gen iPod Touch has done a great job of finding where I am using nothing but Wifi signals, even in my own podunk town -- which was useful when I carried it everywhere to complement my (then) lousy cell phone. But by the time I visited Chicago a few months ago, my GPS-capable Droid did a fine job of figuring out where I was with startling accuracy, within a downtown hotel and without a GPS fix.

Meanwhile, I myself have uploaded a few tens-of-thousands of APs with GPS coordinates to Wigle during my daily wardriving escapades. I have no idea what gets done with that data, but I do enjoy collecting it, and I like looking at the maps it produces.

But, again. If you don't like the game, then don't play it. The price of copper is down right now, so Cat5e is cheap. So just cable your gear up, and nobody will be able to drive by and map it.

*: IIRC, Google got themselves in trouble recently for accidentally recording Wifi traffic when they thought they were only recording location data. Nobody accused them of this; they admitted it all on their own in a very altruist fashion. You've got far more devious organizations than Google to worry about, if you're still insistent on wearing that stupid tin foil hat.

Where the heck are you getting your numbers? $24 trillion would be something like 1.6 times the total US GDP, how would it even be physically possible to spend that much?

Per the official US Budget DoD section, the total amount including supplemental spending hasn't exceeded $666 million. (see here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf)

Wikipedia's got a pie chart showing general expenditures for 2009, demonstrating that total defense spending was 23% of the budget, whereas Medicare and Medicaid are barely less at 19% of the budget (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png)

But the big problem, as noted, is not today's spending, but what happens in the future. Wikipedia's got a great graph for that, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png

ITAR is export controlled only.

...which includes "deemed export", e.g. exporting information by permitting a foreign national access to it.

Typically DoD stuff.

Most of the categories in the list of "munitions" covered by ITAR are pretty clearly military. Category XV, however, covers "Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment", including non-military equipment.

Just like government cars and trucks that are bought for every day use are assembled in Mexico/Canada from parts from China or wherever GM/Ford builds them.

See "deemed export". Sending drawings and technical data to an overseas supplier would get you in trouble.

The 'older versions' would be specific snapshots of the draft (in no particular order): Introduced in House, Engrossed in House, Enrolled Bill, Referred to Senate, Reported in Senate, Received in Senate, etc. It's like v0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4.1, 0.5, 1.0RC1, 1.0RC2, 1.0, etc. You get the point.

The legislative process already follows a development process rather similar to open source software development. Many can review and provide input, or just yammer. Only a few have commit privileges. At specific events, a line is drawn and a version of the bill is released.

If you follow some of the hearings, a lot of time is devoted to reading out loud what are essentially diffs expressed in prose. We can keep that for tradition's sake but it does not preclude using a proper versioning system.

one possible reason to use a distributed versioning system would be to allow schools to tear off a chunk and play with it.

The interview was given in 2007. The federal budget for 1997 was over $1.6 trillion (see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy97/browse.html citizen's guide PDF has it on page 10). Of that $1.6 trillion, about $1.25 trillion spent on non-social security expenses.

The budget for 2007 was $2.8 trillion with about $160 billion in non-income tax revenue. This does not include social security revenue either since, obviously, social security revenue is intended to be spent solely on social security.

This also does not take into account inflation. Taking inflation into account, the 1997 budget would be about $2.05 trillion in 2007 dollars (or $1.6 trillion for the non-social security part of the 1997 budget). How you get $160 billion to pay for 10 times that amount is anyone's guess.

The only way to make Ron Paul's numbers even close to reality is to ignore inflation and use social security as a primary income for the federal government while dropping it as an expense.

I am pretty sure Gates is just the mouthpiece for the administration on this. His job is to say and do what the Commander In Chief (aka President) says. Either way, considering roughly 1/6th of the federal budget is millitary spending, we ought to be seeing some better results for that than failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
For 665 billion dollars a year, we ought to have hover cars, laser rifles, robot/android soldiers, forcefields and fusion power by now.
 
2010 Federal budget: 3.552 Trillion Dollars
 
Total Federal revenue to pay for budget: 2.381 Trillion Dollars
 
Amount we put on the "Federal Credit Card" (a.k.a. our Children's Grandchildren), just for 2010: 1.717 Trillion Dollars
 
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf

Or are you talking about the oil industry which makes 7-10% profit per year, 5-8% less than what the federal government taxes their product at, plus the additional state taxes upon their product.

Oh, pity poor Exxon/Mobil, with its profits on the order of $40 billion dollars a year. This one oil company could only outspend the entire fscking EPA by a factor of slightly less that four-to-one and still maintain a profit. We can see how it is that the poor oil industry only constitutes half of the top ten, and only three of the top five, of Fortune's Global 500.

The taxation levels on oil products are far, far too low. If we paid at the pump for the environmental damage and the foreign policy costs of our oil addiction, gasoline would be at least twice as expensive.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=635f26c4af3e2fe4327fd25ef4cb5638&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title12/12cfr205_main_02.tpl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_code

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/

see the wiki section on legal status.

That said, us law, and law of pretty much every country, does suck ass. And you're right about there being way too much of it.

In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

I drive a motorcycle, so I suspect my braking distance is significantly better than a typical suburban assault^Wutility vehicle. I also have about 1/20th the mass of a typical SUV, and about 1/100th the crumple zone of a typical SUV. If I have any doubts about whether or not traffic behind me can stop, I will go through the intersection. In all honesty, I will admit that I haven't had to do that yet on my motorcycle...but I have been rear-ended (twice) in a car, so that thought process is there in the back of my head when I'm on my bike. As soon as I start braking at an intersection, I'm watching traffic behind me. Give me a choice between a fine for violating the law and life in a wheelchair or death because, even though I got in a wreck, it wasn't my fault and I obeyed the law, I'll take the fine, thanks.

Second, did you even read my statement above? If you are driving an average car at 50 mph when the light turns yellow, and you are less than about 100 feet from the intersection, you will be physically unable to stop the car before entering the intersection. That is the whole point behind yellow lights. Cars don't stop the moment you touch the brake; they have inertia, and therefore, it takes some time for them to come to a stop. Furthermore, it takes something like half a second (that's about 37 feet at 50mph) for the average driver to detect that the light has changed, to decide what that means, and to even begin braking. In other words, there is no way on God's green earth that anyone with even half a brain can seriously expect that, as soon as the light turns yellow, all traffic will stop at the intersection. It simply isn't physically possible.

Actually, I can't think of a single seal of approval, or certification, that means anything.

How about FAA certification? There's extensive testing and verification required for commercial aircraft to be in compliance with the FAA regulations

FAA Part 103 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14 covers the flight privileges for this device.

Generally, don't cause trouble, and don't make a scene. ( Sec. 103.9 No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.)

Specifically, not allowed to fly in most controlled airspace, not allowed to fly over congested areas (i.e. don't fly where people can see you), can't fly at night, can't fly in instrument conditions.

So, a great sport device, but not so great for commuting.

/frank

viking80, you have a lot of errors or misunderstandings in your post.

As Icepick points out, GSM/EDGE standards allow up to 2W in low band and 1W in the higher bands.

Newer CDMA based standards have maximum output power even lower, more like +24 to +26dBm (about 0.4W). The actual transmit power level of your phone is determined by the path loss between you and the base station, and it's controlled by feedback from the base station. Typically it will be transmitting much less. For CDMA based standards the average power is between 0 and 5dBm, or 1 to 3mW.

Also your WiFi information is wrong. Look at 47 CFR Part 15.247. In the 915MHz and 2.45GHz ISM bands, if using spread spectrum (most every product does), WLAN routers are allowed to use up to 1W, just like cellphones, but the difference is you don't usually hold them up to your head... But then again, you don't hold your phone to your head for very long either.

Here's link to the regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title47/47cfr15_main_02.tpl

sigh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_district_court

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