Slashdot Mirror

2 the FAA will require a pilots license

This flying jet ski is supposedly an ultralight; a true single seat ultralight requires no license to fly (assuming it meets the requirements of Part 103 for an ultralight aircraft).

The jet ski/ultralight part isn't enough to save you. You might want to refamiliarize yourself with all of Part 103, not merely the literal text:

The position of the FAA has consistently been that these vehicles may be operated for sport and recreation purposes only. The justification for allowing the operation of these vehicles without requiring aircraft and pilot certification has been that this activity is a ''sport" generally conducted away from concentrations of population and aircraft operations. Like any sport, the participants are viewed as taking personal risks which do not affect others not involved in the activity.

You're free to use your "no license to fly" vehicle in the middle of nowhere, but you're not going to be flying it over a recreational lake where people are boating, fishing, swimming, hanging out at their lakefront property, etc.

103.15 Operations over congested areas.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

The FAA's position is based on the fact that ultralight vehicles are not certificated as airworthy by any approved method and are flown by uncertificated pilots for sport or recreational purposes only. Similar limitations apply to the operations of experimental and restricted category aircraft based on catastrophic incidents which have occurred in the past....The FAA believes that concentrations of the general public must be protected from the possible dangers inherent in the operations of vehicles of uncertificated, possibly unproven designs. In specific limited instances, with appropriate operational limitations, ultralight operations may be approved over congested areas, through the waiver provisions of Â103.5.

Guess what, the FAA doesn't even like licensed pilots in certified aircraft cruising over recreational lakes. The moment the flying jet ski begins to regularly come into contact with regular jet skis, and everything else, you're going to see licensing added to part 103. Idiots and their drones made aircraft licensing mandatory for anything a bit more than half a pound (250 grams). A multi-hundred pound combination of aircraft and idiot will be a cinch to make GP's prediction come true.

nope that was it, and i wasn't trying to be facetious, i was not aware of the braille machine, though one wonders who pays for that 1300 dollar device...

the analogy in this case would be that berkeley should be responsible for purchasing the machine for the deaf and blind person. because, you know, why not? if they're responsible for transcribing the audio, why aren't they also held liable for rendering the transcription into braille?

at some point you really must draw the line. my view of the scope of this law is that if there is a single person classified as disabled who cannot access this content free of charge to themselves, berkeley is doing something contravening the ADA and can be held liable for it.

a blind and deaf quadripalegic then, if they so chose could sue berkeley to have this information made accessible in their preferred transfer medium.

this course we are taking will certainly result in equality, we will all be equally poor and ignorant.

You don't want to quit do you. Is Berekely responsible for buying the computers for sighted-hearing students to render the YouTube videos? Of course not. But even sighted-hearing people generally can't decode VP9 or MP4 videos without the computer? The blind deaf person will have to purchase their own braille reading machine.

I figured you would go the blind-deaf-quadriplegic angle. You should read up about Christopher Harmon... Perhaps spending money on people like him is a waste of money and public money could be spent better than to give this person interpreter services, but the spirit of the ADA was to at least do what is at least affordable to help people like Christopher out before abandoning him to his final passing that put an end to his increasing life of solitude.

Sorry, kwbauer, the fact is, we've already heard that sentiment. Republicans have proclaimed they have a mandate. Oh you may sputter over use of another phrasing, and you certainly won't admit the meaning is clear, but we've heard it.

Don't worry, some of us remember. Hypocrisy, and amnesia may be your defect, but others, others have their own recollections, and can spot your lies.

You have done it. You will do it again. Your political side has done it, in this particular instance. They have made the claim, get to the back of the bus. And yet...Trump still has less voters than Obama did. And a tighter margin.

Feel free to shock me, admit my interpretation is correct, then deny that Paul Ryan was correct.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...
"Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+
"Truthfully...white people are the problem"

I'm curious in what context such a statement (applying any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?

Let's see:
"Truthfully...black people are the problem"
"Truthfully...gays are the problem"
"Truthfully...jews are the problem"

And one wonders how the "Climate Change" message doesn't seem to resonate with the majority of Americans?

Perhaps patronizing racism *isn't* the kind of thing with which one builds consensus?

Yesterday, I heard on NPR (I believe it was a climate forum) one of the talking "experts" opined "well, basically, white people are the problem" followed by chuckles and murmurs of assent.

I'm curious in what context such a statement (changing any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?

"well, basically, black people are the problem".
"well, basically, gays are the problem".
"well, basically, jews are the problem".

EDIT: aha found it.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...
"Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+
"Truthfully...white people are the problem"

And damn you all for making me listen to that crap AGAIN to find it.

I'd say you're being willfully ignorant.

1) 60% of the 22,000(ish) gun-related deaths recorded by the CDC in its most recent study were suicides.
And? That doesn't change my argument. Sensible gun laws would reduce the number of suicides and murders, maybe even equally. That's a lot of mothers out there avoiding funerals.

2) Gun crime as a whole is down nearly 50% since the 1990s, yet the media and the government would have you believe the opposite.
I haven't seen anything claiming it's rising, but fine I'll believe it.

3) Less than 5% of overall gun-related deaths involved a rifle of ANY kind. That's around 1,000 or so deaths caused by a long gun.
Yup, my high school paper noted that handguns have only one purpose - killing other humans (contrarians using the wrong tool for a job aside). I never blindly advocated restriction of all guns in America. Well, that actually brings us to the next point...

4) If you take Washington, DC, Detroit, and Chicago out of this count (note that these have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country), then not only does the gun violence drop WAAAAAY down (but wait, I thought guns were illegal so why do the criminals have them???). So do the overall violent crime statistics for our country.
Have you ever wondered why it worked in Australia? What is it about America where we have the highest gun murder rate in the rich world? One of the most obvious reasons is that Australia is surrounded by water. The government made a law that was difficult to break. Individual cities in America are surrounded by places without restrictive gun laws. Simple import/export. Do you know where Mexican cartels get their guns from? America. Do you know the source of guns in 99% of gun-related crimes in America? Law abiding gun owners. That's right, you. You probably don't keep your guns locked up - at least not well enough to prevent theft for sure. But what are the best ways to insure prevention of theft? Once stolen, where are the biggest trouble spots, where does law need to crack down on criminals trading? How are guns used legally and illegally? What's the best way to stop criminals but allow legal ownership? We can't know for sure. Why? Like most gun arguments, knowing the real stats is hard because we're not allowed to study or track anything related to guns. It's against the law to be knowledgeable about the facts. I'm sure you'll come up with several excuses for remaining willfully ignorant, but if you ever considered the entire situation and removed your own bias, you'd find that it's not worth it.

You may be willing to roll over and die like a coward at the hands of a criminal, but I am not.
Cute. Surprise, I'm a "safe" gun owner, I've studied several martial arts, practiced several ranges of scenarios, but I use the right tool for the right job. Situations can be different, and if you choose to pull your gun, it increases the chance that someone else does the same, and that it's used against you. I might be prepared to deal with that, but you'd be stupid not to consider the odds, and I wouldn't mind taking those scenarios off the table for all of us. I bet I'd win in almost any situation, but I'd rather live in a society that deals a little less with killing.

See this article:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...

Note:

The so-called "Caliphate Cyber Army" posted the details of 36 officers on the encrypted messaging app Telegram

Get that? It was posted on an "encrypted messaging app" - although oddly the police and FBI were able to read it.

You'll see more and more of this in the news - linking encryption and ISIS.

While not exactly a narcotics units in Minnesota the Meto Gang Task Force was shutdown for rampant corruption. The case mentioned in the the MPR article is just one of many examples that came out when the story broke so things like this do happen.

Two comments. First, I expect better of the MPR audience than a bunch of personal attacks on the politicians involved ("crazy", "nut job", etc.). Where is the dialog in that? [They were discussing Rep Bachman]

Second, this Republican agrees that the [Cuban] embargo was a success, but not in the sense that it kept Cuba from profiting from its low wage workers (a form of serfdom?), but rather in the sense that Cuba was able to attempt to build a socialist paradise absent the machinations of the free world and its powerful interests. Did they succeed? If you think that universal health care at the 1950's level is success, with life expectancies comparable to US, and with a thriving black market in access to medical care for those with money (similar to ours, except that our high-payer patients subsidize the entire health industry rather than just the people they bribe), perhaps they did. If you think that a two-level economy is success (the have-nots and the tourists), perhaps they did. If you think a population with low expectations of their government and a high level of self sufficiency, perhaps they did succeed. Certainly their model of socialism is much more benign than, for example, North Korea's alleged communist system (I say alleged because NK is communist only in its choice of friends, not in its actual economic system, which is more a large slave plantation, as near as I can tell). So while I can understand a certain amount of hostility towards Cuba for their oppression of their people's freedoms, I must also acknowledge that, for a Luddite nation, they are doing much better than their Russian handlers did.

Do you have a point? TFS mentioned several specific advantages sacramento had going for it, not just "It's hip."

Furthermore, no, check your stats. Detroit is the top in terms of violent crime, murder, and assault. It's fourth highest in robbery, second highest in vehicle theft. San Francisco is about in the middle of the list, with Sacramento being slightly ahead of it (just beneath Wichita KS, oddly.)

(If anyone is wondering why Minneapolis is so high in rape, evidently Minneapolis is just more proactive about defining it.)