See my other reply, but largely your rights are only absolute in to the extent they don't infringe on others rights. For instance your free speech rights can't come at the expense of someone else's free speech rights. The movie theatre example is the classic one from law school, it's illegal, and not free speech to yell "fire" in a movie theatre because it causes a panic and injures others. If the theater is empty, go right ahead.
In the case of the FCC, their jurisdiction is only over "the commons", that is the broadcast spectrum. If a station wants to use the commons, that is send a radio signal out that everyone can listen to, they have to get a license to use that spectrum and because it goes to "everyone" they have to abide by a common set of rules. It's a Tragedy of the Commons situation, one person/company/entity can't take more than their fare share of a common resource.
By contrast, "cable TV" is a private enterprise, not using the common broadcast spectrum, and paid for by individual subscribers. That's why you can get PPV porn, HBO can swear all they want, and so on. The FCC can't control what they do, because they are not using the commons.
Your state level issue is largely handled by the Federal Preemption clause in Article VI, clause 2. So no, the states can't preempt the constitution, by joining the union they signed on to agreeing. Fun fact, "Congress" in this usage almost certainly includes state legislatures, just as it includes the house and senate. It's a generic term meaning a gathering of the people's representatives.
Personally, I find the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no laws", especially given the number of groups besides Congress that make laws in this country (every city, county, state government, as examples).
I'm afraid the standard definitions do not support your interpretation of infringe:
to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)
It is in fact possible to "correctly" limit someone else's rights. Oddly enough, most people understand this in a first amendment context, where the "no laws" prohibition makes it more dicy. Yell "fire" in a crowed movie theatre and you can be prosecuted for "inciting a panic" or "causing a disturbance". As a society we recognize that while you have a right to free speech, that right is only absolute in so much as it does not infringe on others rights, in this case not being trampled as people panic trying to leave the not on fire theater. Most people find this relatively uncontroversial.
Apply the same logic to the second though, for instance that you have to take a gun safety class before being allowed a fire arm so you don't accidentally shoot someone else and people go bonkers. It's the same logic, an individuals rights are only absolute to the point where they do not trample another's rights. Your right to a gun does not allow you to (accidentally) take the life of another person.
Let me assume for the moment that your view is correct.
Given our government owns, in no particular order, M1A1 tanks, drones, tomahawk missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, rail guns, and even (in Austin Powers voice) fricken' lasers doesn't that mean that for the people to defend themselves they need similar weaponry?
It doesn't matter if you look at small scale skirmishes like Waco, where the government brought to bear 9 APC's, 3 helicopters, and a variety of medium arms, or large scale skirmishes like Desert Storm, the military took on a million man, trained army and rolled over them in 21 days.
Honestly, if your view is correct, then you should support rewriting the second amendment. Owning a AR-15 is not going to protect you from the Government. Having a million of your friends own an AR-15 will not protect you from the government. The world has changed, you can be blown up by a drone at 60,000 feet you'll never see. If you want citizens to be able to defend themselves from the government, we need some entirely new mechanism for that, because small arms won't do the job any longer.
I won't guess what the founding fathers really had in mind with the second amendment. However, I will argue that they did not imagine the world of today might exist, and thus did not consider the situations that might arise today. I wish we could stop arguing about what they intended a few hundred years ago, and instead focus on something sane and rational that works in today's world. The constitution was intended to be a living document, with an amendment process.
Your argument is popular, but incomplete. Let's look a the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The second amendment could easily have been constructed in a similar fashion, I'll write my own "what if":
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the ownership of arms.
Nice, simple, and would support your interpretation. However that's not in the historical record. In fact, the Second Amendment was not only written differently but was passed with different text by congress than the states used to ratify! Here are the two versions:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So where the first amendment is an absolute prohibition "no laws", the second amendment uses an arguably gentler "shall not be infringed". To put that in a frame of mind, consider something like having to get a license. Under the first amendment a license to be part of the press would clearly be no good under the "no laws" clause. Under the second amendment, is having to get a license infringement or not? To a lot of the public it is not.
It is also interesting that they saw it necessary to include the concept of a militia. I won't attempt to guess what they really intended there (although plenty of others have), I will just point out the language is a marked departure from the absolute, unabridged nature of the first amendment.
In short, assertion would require that there be striking similarity between the two causes, such that a limit on "arms" would have the same parameters as a limit on "freedom of the press". But the two clauses are not only dissimilar, but completely different. I think based on text alone it is entirely reasonable to make the general statement that "the founders viewed the ownership of arms differently than freedom of the press", otherwise the much simpler text of the first amendment, or indeed adding "arms" to the first amendment, would have been far, far simpler.
OP has it right, but we can add more information. I've been following the discussion over at www.airliners.net where some people know more about this plane's electronics.
First some back story. The SATCOM system is sort of like your cable modem, or more accurately a cell data stick for a laptop. It's a sort of modem that knows how to connect to the satellites. Like a unprovisioned cell phone it still reaches out and says "can I have service", and then gets no answer. ACARS is an application that runs on another computer in the plane. It's sort of like a "twitter feed" for a plane. Short messages can be placed on it and routed off to other places. Boeing offers a service where the plane reports its health back to boeing using this application. Rolls Royce offers a service where the engines report back to them using this service. Pilots can even send short text messages over the service back to their HQ. The GPS system can send a message with its position. ACARS knows how to transmit over HF, VHF, and SATCOM. It also goes through a cleaning house (think twitter again) who routes the individual messages to the right party.
Mayalsia Airlines apparently bought the "limited" package of monitoring. As such ACARS was programmed to send no information to Boeing, and only limited information to Rolls Royce. Compare with the Air France crash in the Atlantic where they subscribed to the "full" suite of monitoring and 29 messages were generated. Further, Mayalsia apparently didn't pay for SATCOM airtime, instead letting it report over HF and VHF. If it was far enough out over water these methods would not be within reach of the radios.
However, the plane still had a SATCOM system on it (comes standard), and it was still like an unprovisioned cell phone saying "can I have service", apparently once per hour. Further the satellites in orbit have directional antennas that cover a particular section of the ground. It appears in this case ACARS was disabled (either intentionally, a small switch in the cockpit) or via failure (fire, or whatever).
The key detail is that while ACARS and many other functions can be turned off from the cockpit, the only circuit breaker for the SATCOM systems are NOT in the cockpit according to experts. It would require going to the electronics room on the plane which is not easy to reach in flight, and more importantly would not be possible to reach if a individual had taken over the plane.
So the stories line up. Boeing received no messages as the plane was not programmed to send them any. Rolls Royce received two during the normal part of flight, and then nothing as the system was turned off or disabled. However that SATCOM modem apparently continued, once per hour, to look for service. I guess the US authorities were able to talk to the satellite provider and get logs of it making those requests, and perhaps even narrowing it down to a specific antenna on the satellite.
On power; the experts say the plane has ~30 minutes of battery in the case of total electrical failure. In flight it also has a ram air turbine (think mini-windmill) that can generate enough power. If it did a "miracle on the hudson" style landing in water and it somehow stayed afloat (being under water even 1' makes the sat signal too week) batteries would only last ~30 minutes.
One of the most bizarre incidents ever recorded. The outcome of this is going to be very interesting.
Perhaps "money" is more than just the coins, paper, or bits that represent some units, and actually only has value when it is in a predictable and stable system. Who knew!
I don't want to tax the rich, I want to tax the rich corporations. The share paid by corporations has dropped from about 30% in 1940, to about 12% today, see source. Individual taxes have stayed, overall at about the same level, and the gap in corporate taxes has been made up in payroll taxes, which largely come out of someone's (potential) salary.
So while taxing Bill Gates a bit more only helps a little, the real crime here is that many of the richest Americans hide their money in corporations, tax shelters, and move it through tax-exempt organizations in ways that over time have deprived the Treasury of revenue.
But TubeSteak is also right. This problem was created over 20-30 years, it may take 20-30 years to run the deficit to zero should we chose to, I would argue some deficit is good.
Here's a fun fact the right doesn't often talk about. I've spoken to a number of actual illegals over the years about how much they fear being captured. Several of them appear to have what are "above board" jobs, having gotten identification numbers on a temporary work via and then continued to use them, or on various other methods. They overstayed, and are now illegal.
The general response was interesting. INS doesn't have enough resources to do anything unless you're a felon. Even getting arrested for a misdemeanor is unlikely to get INS involved unless your in a few border areas. They really didn't fear INS at all. However, each said they very carefully paid their taxes to the IRS each year, often omitting some questionable deductions to which they might be entitled. Why? The IRS will audit them. And while the IRS is forbidden by law to share information with other federal agencies so a return won't get you arrested, if the IRS choses to arrest you then you're in the federal system, automatically handed over to INS, and deported in short order.
The result is in fact many illegals pay taxes, but are not entitled to receive many of the benefits that other tax payers could receive. They are in fact the opposite of takers, but are rather over contributors.
The issue here is that Google got to keep their jets at AMES at all, not that they got fuel subsidies. NASA sold them fuel the only way NASA knew how, and probably in full compliance with regulations. The issue is not with the fuel sales, but with Google being able to keep their jets their at all.
Anyone familiar with the area knows that AMES is much more convenient for a private plane of the size the Google Execs own than pretty much any other option. SFO, OAK, and SJC are all busy, and have various red-tape on them. Airports like SQL are too small for the google jets. Normally no non-NASA flights can be at AMES. There are no Apple Jets, no Cisco Jets, no Facebook Jets at this airport. Google attempted to get around this by offering free instrumentation on their jets to NASA.
This is the first step in calling bullshit. This should have never happened. A few instruments does not make it a NASA project. Google should have never been there in the first place. Someone gave them preferential treatment using the instruments as an excuse.
In the vast majority of cases (in fact I would suggest > 90% of all rail miles) the railroad owns a 50 foot wide strip of land. This is due to the history of how railroads procured land when the routes were selected. You would own the property on both sides, and the railroad pays property tax on that 50 foot wide strip in the middle.
There are some cases where the railroad does not own the land, but has an easement for the use of the land. Railroads hated that arrangement for a number of reasons, but could in fact be the arrangement where you own property. In that case it's like any other easement (for a pipeline, electric line, or even a driveway to a landlocked property) they have a right of use for the purpose of running a railroad, but do not own any property and would not pay property tax as a result.
It's actually worse than that, and only begins to look at the problem.
Railroads own their own right of way, which means property, which means they pay property tax! They are also required by mandate to upgrade to any new safety standards the government dictates.
Neither apply to roads. The government owns the land the roads are built on, and exempts itself from tax. If a road safety standard is updated, existing roads are grandfathered in until they next time they are rebuilt.
Add in the fact that state and local government subsidize roads out of general tax revenue coffers, and use tax-free government bonds to finance them and railroads are at a significant financial disadvantage in the US. That's why they can only compete on large volume, bulk commodities. Want millions of tons of coal for a power plant? Well, even though they have to eat all those costs it's more efficient. Want to stock a Walmart? The cost of the spur to it would never be made back.
I would never write a script in tcsh, however I consider it's configuration flexibility and command line behavior to be much better for interactive use. Scripts should be in/bin/sh or perl, or similar.
They don't let us call them secretaries anymore, but I agree with stevegee58. Let an administrative assistant sort, or better yet run them through a Fujitsu SnapScan and then let the computer do the sorting.
You are correct about the behavior, but I think I can explain why Apple made the choices at work here.
It turns out iMessages are cryptographically secured with public key cryptography using a per device key. There is a recent Techcrunch Article that details what they have released, but it appears to be a highly secure implementation. Each device has a private key that never leaves the device. An iMessage is actually encrypted to multiple public keys so each device can read it. No one outside the device holder, not even Apple, has the ability to decrypt messages.
I think the argument Apple would make, and I would agree with is to fall back to SMS would be insecure. It's possible to conceive of ways an attacker could prevent an iMessage from being delivered (a Denial of Service attack, for instance). That could force a fallback to SMS, which is often not well secured and/or permanently archived by the carrier or governments. Worse, with your algorithm simply sending someone a text message from a spoofed source would clear the bit, and might result in an insecure communication.
As a result, I would argue if you value strong encryption and privacy, Apple's choices make perfect sense. Turn on strong crypto when you can, and don't automatically fall back to something without strong crypto.
If the issue is the CO2 canisters, or even other supplies like liquid oxygen, what about launching supplies? Could the Russians have launched faster, perhaps with a vehicle already on the pad? Could we have used a unmanned rocket that would normally launch a satellite or similar to launch a payload of supplies?
From my read of the timeline even buying just a week or two might have changed the "launch a backup shuttle" plan from amazingly risky to just somewhat risky. I'm not trying to suggest getting supplies there would have been trivial, but if the right sort of rocket was ready to go it might have been a way to buy time.
I think you're leaving out the competitive nature of humans. Today we compete for money, in the Star Trek world people compete for opportunity.
Picard did not become captain of the Enterprise by showing up one day and saying "I'd like to do that". There is only one position as Captain of the flagship of the fleet. He became that by being the best possible at what he does, and rising to the top of his peers.
Many people in society today already choose pursuits that do not maximize their monitory return because they enjoy what they are doing. Being an Olympic Athlete is not as profitable as the NFL. Being a Veterinary is not as profitable as being a Heart Surgeon. There is only one President of the United States, regardless of his income. Many of the past's prolific inventors were relatively poor, their inventions not capitalized on until well after their deaths.
I would agree the shows depict a sort of Utopia, but I suspect it's possible for Humans to get far closer to it than you may believe.
If we all stop using SlashDot classic in "protest", there will be no one to upset with the change, and they will move forward with the Beta site. Once the users are lost there's no incentive for them to keep it around.
If you want classic to stay around you need to boycott the beta, and use the crap out of classic.
I want to be very clear on this, the world is much grayer than this bill, or the terms at hand would indicate.
Science has almost ways been published behind paywalls. Prior to the internet it was published in journals, which at the most basic level someone had to subscribe to in order to get a copy. I'm sure the youngins on here don't remember Magazines, but they were a big deal for a long time. Even when not, often times you had to pay to copy, you can show up at the Government Printing Office and get a copy of all sorts of studies, government records, and the like: for a fee.
So there's a continuum of access, here are some interesting points along it:
Source won't release the data to anyone.
Source charges $1,000,000 a copy for the report.
Source charges $500 for a copy of the report.
Source charges $5 for a copy of the report.
Source publishes the report in a magazine that can be purchased for $1.99.
Source publishes the report online, for free.
Clearly the first one isn't open access, and clearly the last one is, but where is the line? There is some de-minimis burden that is acceptable for it to still be "publicly available science". By attempting to set a standard of "free and open" it's an attempt to push people to the last line item, where the costs are all borne by the researcher. Imagine someone doing good research on an important topic, only to spend the next years battling hackers and DDoS'ers online trying to take down the work, all on their own expense? Crazy. That's part of why publishing in journals, all of which cost money, is the accepted method.
To directly answer your question, I do believe that any science the EPA uses should be available to the general public, the difference is I am ok with it being via paywalls with de-minimis fees. If I have to go buy a copy of a journal to find out the science, I think that's ok.
"For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."
That quote is not the same attitude that would come from someone who is looking for solid, reproducible science. I believe most of the people who are strong supporters of solid, transparent, reproducible science would actually say the EPA has been near toothless, not overbearing. For example West Virginia chemical spill that contaminated the Kanawha/Ohio/Mississippi and the drinking water for millions and yet the company was allowed to store the chemical right next to the river with nearly zero monitoring or oversight. Another would be fracking, for which there is ample evidence of ground water contamination, and it causing earthquakes, and yet "full speed ahead!".
No, this is a bureaucratic trick, often used in Washington, so let's translate:
Transparent - prohibit the EPA's administrator from proposing or finalizing any rules unless he or she also discloses "all scientific and technical information" relied on by the agency. The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government. The government does not, in all cases, have the rights to republish. The standard being set is all, so if the EPA finds 10 studies on something, all of which agree it's very, very bad, but can only publish 9 out of 10, it's no go! You can imagine GOP friendly companies (like those run by the Koch brothers) would do studies and then prevent them from being published just to gum up the works.
Reproducible - In it's most benign form this is a delaying tactic. Perhaps everyone agrees on the science, but until it can be "reproduced" regulations can be delayed. There will be calls for private industry to reproduce findings when there is no (business) reason for them to do so, and then their lack of action will be used to gum up the works. However, in a more malignant form GOP friendly companies will do bad science on purpose, and attempt to question the validity of EPA findings. It's easy to imagine again 10 studies that all agree, and then right as the regulation comes to pass some bad science pseudo-report being released that calls into question the "reproducibility" of the science.
The tactic is alive right in the promotion of the bill. The "Institute for Energy Research" turns out to be a lobbying group run by an ex-Enron director, funded by ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers. As a result I think you can see the sort of transparent, reproducible "science" that will be in play here, starting with the "2013 poll from the Institute of Energy Research" used to back up this bill.
One major flaw of CSS Regions is its reliance upon markup that is used solely for layout, violating the separation of content and style that CSS is intended to enforce.
I love the idea that content is marked up based on it's intrinsic content (this is a heading, this is a paragraph, this is a footer) and that is independent from the styling (make this text blue and center it). However if anyone thinks HTML+CSS is a good example of how to do this, they are delusional. View source on any web site and you'll find tens to hundreds of "divs", that is markup, used solely for layout purposes. Even worse, what should be pure markup is often abused for presentational purposes. h1/h2/h3/h4/h5/h6 are rarely used in "outline" form as they are intended, but rather h1's are styled one way, and h2's are styled another, and any particular section of content may start with one or the other based on visual style.
Regions are clearly no worse, or better, in this respect.
I do think "the web" needs something like Regions to go along with load-on-demand content baked into the service. Many web sites simulate that today with Javascript. Given that device sizes are actually getting more spread out, from watches to 80" TV displays, the layouts will have to be different. Being able to design a small/medium/large layout, including some flow of where the content should go, and then providing a list of content (here's 20 articles, load however many fit on the screen) would be awesome. Phones could load one at a time. A 30" monitor user would have all 20. It would all flow, without excessive markup.
In short, I see a lot of the pot calling the kettle black here, and people arguing rather than innovating.
Given that plenty of companies sell GPL'ed software, I don't think your second statement is accurate.
With respect to money, the GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but if you make money off those tweaks you must provide them for free to the entire world."
In general, BSD licensed projects that need a compiler are in a pickle, they could include GPL v2 software without too many issues, but the GPLv3 is considered poison to them. "gcc" is one of the more important GPLv3 licensed things, so it was the first to get attention and be replaced.
Which is an interesting data point in this entire argument, when the GPL proponents tried to force everyone to use the GPLv3, much of the rest of the world walked away completely.
Slashdot Mirror
See my other reply, but largely your rights are only absolute in to the extent they don't infringe on others rights. For instance your free speech rights can't come at the expense of someone else's free speech rights. The movie theatre example is the classic one from law school, it's illegal, and not free speech to yell "fire" in a movie theatre because it causes a panic and injures others. If the theater is empty, go right ahead.
In the case of the FCC, their jurisdiction is only over "the commons", that is the broadcast spectrum. If a station wants to use the commons, that is send a radio signal out that everyone can listen to, they have to get a license to use that spectrum and because it goes to "everyone" they have to abide by a common set of rules. It's a Tragedy of the Commons situation, one person/company/entity can't take more than their fare share of a common resource.
By contrast, "cable TV" is a private enterprise, not using the common broadcast spectrum, and paid for by individual subscribers. That's why you can get PPV porn, HBO can swear all they want, and so on. The FCC can't control what they do, because they are not using the commons.
Your state level issue is largely handled by the Federal Preemption clause in Article VI, clause 2. So no, the states can't preempt the constitution, by joining the union they signed on to agreeing. Fun fact, "Congress" in this usage almost certainly includes state legislatures, just as it includes the house and senate. It's a generic term meaning a gathering of the people's representatives.
Personally, I find the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no laws", especially given the number of groups besides Congress that make laws in this country (every city, county, state government, as examples).
I'm afraid the standard definitions do not support your interpretation of infringe:
to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)
It is in fact possible to "correctly" limit someone else's rights. Oddly enough, most people understand this in a first amendment context, where the "no laws" prohibition makes it more dicy. Yell "fire" in a crowed movie theatre and you can be prosecuted for "inciting a panic" or "causing a disturbance". As a society we recognize that while you have a right to free speech, that right is only absolute in so much as it does not infringe on others rights, in this case not being trampled as people panic trying to leave the not on fire theater. Most people find this relatively uncontroversial.
Apply the same logic to the second though, for instance that you have to take a gun safety class before being allowed a fire arm so you don't accidentally shoot someone else and people go bonkers. It's the same logic, an individuals rights are only absolute to the point where they do not trample another's rights. Your right to a gun does not allow you to (accidentally) take the life of another person.
Let me assume for the moment that your view is correct.
Given our government owns, in no particular order, M1A1 tanks, drones, tomahawk missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, rail guns, and even (in Austin Powers voice) fricken' lasers doesn't that mean that for the people to defend themselves they need similar weaponry?
It doesn't matter if you look at small scale skirmishes like Waco, where the government brought to bear 9 APC's, 3 helicopters, and a variety of medium arms, or large scale skirmishes like Desert Storm, the military took on a million man, trained army and rolled over them in 21 days.
Honestly, if your view is correct, then you should support rewriting the second amendment. Owning a AR-15 is not going to protect you from the Government. Having a million of your friends own an AR-15 will not protect you from the government. The world has changed, you can be blown up by a drone at 60,000 feet you'll never see. If you want citizens to be able to defend themselves from the government, we need some entirely new mechanism for that, because small arms won't do the job any longer.
I won't guess what the founding fathers really had in mind with the second amendment. However, I will argue that they did not imagine the world of today might exist, and thus did not consider the situations that might arise today. I wish we could stop arguing about what they intended a few hundred years ago, and instead focus on something sane and rational that works in today's world. The constitution was intended to be a living document, with an amendment process.
Your argument is popular, but incomplete. Let's look a the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The second amendment could easily have been constructed in a similar fashion, I'll write my own "what if":
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the ownership of arms.
Nice, simple, and would support your interpretation. However that's not in the historical record. In fact, the Second Amendment was not only written differently but was passed with different text by congress than the states used to ratify! Here are the two versions:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So where the first amendment is an absolute prohibition "no laws", the second amendment uses an arguably gentler "shall not be infringed". To put that in a frame of mind, consider something like having to get a license. Under the first amendment a license to be part of the press would clearly be no good under the "no laws" clause. Under the second amendment, is having to get a license infringement or not? To a lot of the public it is not.
It is also interesting that they saw it necessary to include the concept of a militia. I won't attempt to guess what they really intended there (although plenty of others have), I will just point out the language is a marked departure from the absolute, unabridged nature of the first amendment.
In short, assertion would require that there be striking similarity between the two causes, such that a limit on "arms" would have the same parameters as a limit on "freedom of the press". But the two clauses are not only dissimilar, but completely different. I think based on text alone it is entirely reasonable to make the general statement that "the founders viewed the ownership of arms differently than freedom of the press", otherwise the much simpler text of the first amendment, or indeed adding "arms" to the first amendment, would have been far, far simpler.
OP has it right, but we can add more information. I've been following the discussion over at www.airliners.net where some people know more about this plane's electronics.
First some back story. The SATCOM system is sort of like your cable modem, or more accurately a cell data stick for a laptop. It's a sort of modem that knows how to connect to the satellites. Like a unprovisioned cell phone it still reaches out and says "can I have service", and then gets no answer. ACARS is an application that runs on another computer in the plane. It's sort of like a "twitter feed" for a plane. Short messages can be placed on it and routed off to other places. Boeing offers a service where the plane reports its health back to boeing using this application. Rolls Royce offers a service where the engines report back to them using this service. Pilots can even send short text messages over the service back to their HQ. The GPS system can send a message with its position. ACARS knows how to transmit over HF, VHF, and SATCOM. It also goes through a cleaning house (think twitter again) who routes the individual messages to the right party.
Mayalsia Airlines apparently bought the "limited" package of monitoring. As such ACARS was programmed to send no information to Boeing, and only limited information to Rolls Royce. Compare with the Air France crash in the Atlantic where they subscribed to the "full" suite of monitoring and 29 messages were generated. Further, Mayalsia apparently didn't pay for SATCOM airtime, instead letting it report over HF and VHF. If it was far enough out over water these methods would not be within reach of the radios.
However, the plane still had a SATCOM system on it (comes standard), and it was still like an unprovisioned cell phone saying "can I have service", apparently once per hour. Further the satellites in orbit have directional antennas that cover a particular section of the ground. It appears in this case ACARS was disabled (either intentionally, a small switch in the cockpit) or via failure (fire, or whatever).
The key detail is that while ACARS and many other functions can be turned off from the cockpit, the only circuit breaker for the SATCOM systems are NOT in the cockpit according to experts. It would require going to the electronics room on the plane which is not easy to reach in flight, and more importantly would not be possible to reach if a individual had taken over the plane.
So the stories line up. Boeing received no messages as the plane was not programmed to send them any. Rolls Royce received two during the normal part of flight, and then nothing as the system was turned off or disabled. However that SATCOM modem apparently continued, once per hour, to look for service. I guess the US authorities were able to talk to the satellite provider and get logs of it making those requests, and perhaps even narrowing it down to a specific antenna on the satellite.
On power; the experts say the plane has ~30 minutes of battery in the case of total electrical failure. In flight it also has a ram air turbine (think mini-windmill) that can generate enough power. If it did a "miracle on the hudson" style landing in water and it somehow stayed afloat (being under water even 1' makes the sat signal too week) batteries would only last ~30 minutes.
One of the most bizarre incidents ever recorded. The outcome of this is going to be very interesting.
Perhaps "money" is more than just the coins, paper, or bits that represent some units, and actually only has value when it is in a predictable and stable system. Who knew!
I don't want to tax the rich, I want to tax the rich corporations. The share paid by corporations has dropped from about 30% in 1940, to about 12% today, see source. Individual taxes have stayed, overall at about the same level, and the gap in corporate taxes has been made up in payroll taxes, which largely come out of someone's (potential) salary.
So while taxing Bill Gates a bit more only helps a little, the real crime here is that many of the richest Americans hide their money in corporations, tax shelters, and move it through tax-exempt organizations in ways that over time have deprived the Treasury of revenue.
But TubeSteak is also right. This problem was created over 20-30 years, it may take 20-30 years to run the deficit to zero should we chose to, I would argue some deficit is good.
Here's a fun fact the right doesn't often talk about. I've spoken to a number of actual illegals over the years about how much they fear being captured. Several of them appear to have what are "above board" jobs, having gotten identification numbers on a temporary work via and then continued to use them, or on various other methods. They overstayed, and are now illegal.
The general response was interesting. INS doesn't have enough resources to do anything unless you're a felon. Even getting arrested for a misdemeanor is unlikely to get INS involved unless your in a few border areas. They really didn't fear INS at all. However, each said they very carefully paid their taxes to the IRS each year, often omitting some questionable deductions to which they might be entitled. Why? The IRS will audit them. And while the IRS is forbidden by law to share information with other federal agencies so a return won't get you arrested, if the IRS choses to arrest you then you're in the federal system, automatically handed over to INS, and deported in short order.
The result is in fact many illegals pay taxes, but are not entitled to receive many of the benefits that other tax payers could receive. They are in fact the opposite of takers, but are rather over contributors.
I wish I had a citation, but I don't.
The issue here is that Google got to keep their jets at AMES at all, not that they got fuel subsidies. NASA sold them fuel the only way NASA knew how, and probably in full compliance with regulations. The issue is not with the fuel sales, but with Google being able to keep their jets their at all.
Anyone familiar with the area knows that AMES is much more convenient for a private plane of the size the Google Execs own than pretty much any other option. SFO, OAK, and SJC are all busy, and have various red-tape on them. Airports like SQL are too small for the google jets. Normally no non-NASA flights can be at AMES. There are no Apple Jets, no Cisco Jets, no Facebook Jets at this airport. Google attempted to get around this by offering free instrumentation on their jets to NASA.
This is the first step in calling bullshit. This should have never happened. A few instruments does not make it a NASA project. Google should have never been there in the first place. Someone gave them preferential treatment using the instruments as an excuse.
In the vast majority of cases (in fact I would suggest > 90% of all rail miles) the railroad owns a 50 foot wide strip of land. This is due to the history of how railroads procured land when the routes were selected. You would own the property on both sides, and the railroad pays property tax on that 50 foot wide strip in the middle.
There are some cases where the railroad does not own the land, but has an easement for the use of the land. Railroads hated that arrangement for a number of reasons, but could in fact be the arrangement where you own property. In that case it's like any other easement (for a pipeline, electric line, or even a driveway to a landlocked property) they have a right of use for the purpose of running a railroad, but do not own any property and would not pay property tax as a result.
It's actually worse than that, and only begins to look at the problem.
Railroads own their own right of way, which means property, which means they pay property tax! They are also required by mandate to upgrade to any new safety standards the government dictates.
Neither apply to roads. The government owns the land the roads are built on, and exempts itself from tax. If a road safety standard is updated, existing roads are grandfathered in until they next time they are rebuilt.
Add in the fact that state and local government subsidize roads out of general tax revenue coffers, and use tax-free government bonds to finance them and railroads are at a significant financial disadvantage in the US. That's why they can only compete on large volume, bulk commodities. Want millions of tons of coal for a power plant? Well, even though they have to eat all those costs it's more efficient. Want to stock a Walmart? The cost of the spur to it would never be made back.
I would never write a script in tcsh, however I consider it's configuration flexibility and command line behavior to be much better for interactive use. Scripts should be in /bin/sh or perl, or similar.
Uh, it has better tab completion than bash, and home/end works just fine. I think your Solaris install was broken.
They don't let us call them secretaries anymore, but I agree with stevegee58. Let an administrative assistant sort, or better yet run them through a Fujitsu SnapScan and then let the computer do the sorting.
You are correct about the behavior, but I think I can explain why Apple made the choices at work here.
It turns out iMessages are cryptographically secured with public key cryptography using a per device key. There is a recent Techcrunch Article that details what they have released, but it appears to be a highly secure implementation. Each device has a private key that never leaves the device. An iMessage is actually encrypted to multiple public keys so each device can read it. No one outside the device holder, not even Apple, has the ability to decrypt messages.
I think the argument Apple would make, and I would agree with is to fall back to SMS would be insecure. It's possible to conceive of ways an attacker could prevent an iMessage from being delivered (a Denial of Service attack, for instance). That could force a fallback to SMS, which is often not well secured and/or permanently archived by the carrier or governments. Worse, with your algorithm simply sending someone a text message from a spoofed source would clear the bit, and might result in an insecure communication.
As a result, I would argue if you value strong encryption and privacy, Apple's choices make perfect sense. Turn on strong crypto when you can, and don't automatically fall back to something without strong crypto.
And hope you're not in a state that requires two party consent for audio recording, otherwise you'll be the one sent to jail, not them.
If the issue is the CO2 canisters, or even other supplies like liquid oxygen, what about launching supplies? Could the Russians have launched faster, perhaps with a vehicle already on the pad? Could we have used a unmanned rocket that would normally launch a satellite or similar to launch a payload of supplies?
From my read of the timeline even buying just a week or two might have changed the "launch a backup shuttle" plan from amazingly risky to just somewhat risky. I'm not trying to suggest getting supplies there would have been trivial, but if the right sort of rocket was ready to go it might have been a way to buy time.
I think you're leaving out the competitive nature of humans. Today we compete for money, in the Star Trek world people compete for opportunity.
Picard did not become captain of the Enterprise by showing up one day and saying "I'd like to do that". There is only one position as Captain of the flagship of the fleet. He became that by being the best possible at what he does, and rising to the top of his peers.
Many people in society today already choose pursuits that do not maximize their monitory return because they enjoy what they are doing. Being an Olympic Athlete is not as profitable as the NFL. Being a Veterinary is not as profitable as being a Heart Surgeon. There is only one President of the United States, regardless of his income. Many of the past's prolific inventors were relatively poor, their inventions not capitalized on until well after their deaths.
I would agree the shows depict a sort of Utopia, but I suspect it's possible for Humans to get far closer to it than you may believe.
If we all stop using SlashDot classic in "protest", there will be no one to upset with the change, and they will move forward with the Beta site. Once the users are lost there's no incentive for them to keep it around.
If you want classic to stay around you need to boycott the beta, and use the crap out of classic.
I want to be very clear on this, the world is much grayer than this bill, or the terms at hand would indicate.
Science has almost ways been published behind paywalls. Prior to the internet it was published in journals, which at the most basic level someone had to subscribe to in order to get a copy. I'm sure the youngins on here don't remember Magazines, but they were a big deal for a long time. Even when not, often times you had to pay to copy, you can show up at the Government Printing Office and get a copy of all sorts of studies, government records, and the like: for a fee.
So there's a continuum of access, here are some interesting points along it:
Clearly the first one isn't open access, and clearly the last one is, but where is the line? There is some de-minimis burden that is acceptable for it to still be "publicly available science". By attempting to set a standard of "free and open" it's an attempt to push people to the last line item, where the costs are all borne by the researcher. Imagine someone doing good research on an important topic, only to spend the next years battling hackers and DDoS'ers online trying to take down the work, all on their own expense? Crazy. That's part of why publishing in journals, all of which cost money, is the accepted method.
To directly answer your question, I do believe that any science the EPA uses should be available to the general public, the difference is I am ok with it being via paywalls with de-minimis fees. If I have to go buy a copy of a journal to find out the science, I think that's ok.
"For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."
That quote is not the same attitude that would come from someone who is looking for solid, reproducible science. I believe most of the people who are strong supporters of solid, transparent, reproducible science would actually say the EPA has been near toothless, not overbearing. For example West Virginia chemical spill that contaminated the Kanawha/Ohio/Mississippi and the drinking water for millions and yet the company was allowed to store the chemical right next to the river with nearly zero monitoring or oversight. Another would be fracking, for which there is ample evidence of ground water contamination, and it causing earthquakes, and yet "full speed ahead!".
No, this is a bureaucratic trick, often used in Washington, so let's translate:
The tactic is alive right in the promotion of the bill. The "Institute for Energy Research" turns out to be a lobbying group run by an ex-Enron director, funded by ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers. As a result I think you can see the sort of transparent, reproducible "science" that will be in play here, starting with the "2013 poll from the Institute of Energy Research" used to back up this bill.
After reading the comments I want to be sure I have this right. The consensus is the beta needs more jQuery?
One major flaw of CSS Regions is its reliance upon markup that is used solely for layout, violating the separation of content and style that CSS is intended to enforce.
I love the idea that content is marked up based on it's intrinsic content (this is a heading, this is a paragraph, this is a footer) and that is independent from the styling (make this text blue and center it). However if anyone thinks HTML+CSS is a good example of how to do this, they are delusional. View source on any web site and you'll find tens to hundreds of "divs", that is markup, used solely for layout purposes. Even worse, what should be pure markup is often abused for presentational purposes. h1/h2/h3/h4/h5/h6 are rarely used in "outline" form as they are intended, but rather h1's are styled one way, and h2's are styled another, and any particular section of content may start with one or the other based on visual style.
Regions are clearly no worse, or better, in this respect.
I do think "the web" needs something like Regions to go along with load-on-demand content baked into the service. Many web sites simulate that today with Javascript. Given that device sizes are actually getting more spread out, from watches to 80" TV displays, the layouts will have to be different. Being able to design a small/medium/large layout, including some flow of where the content should go, and then providing a list of content (here's 20 articles, load however many fit on the screen) would be awesome. Phones could load one at a time. A 30" monitor user would have all 20. It would all flow, without excessive markup.
In short, I see a lot of the pot calling the kettle black here, and people arguing rather than innovating.
Given that plenty of companies sell GPL'ed software, I don't think your second statement is accurate.
With respect to money, the GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but if you make money off those tweaks you must provide them for free to the entire world."
FreeBSD has jumped ship from gcc to LLVM/clang.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/12/11/07/154250/freebsd-throws-the-clangllvm-switch-future-releases-use-llvm as reported on slashdot.
In general, BSD licensed projects that need a compiler are in a pickle, they could include GPL v2 software without too many issues, but the GPLv3 is considered poison to them. "gcc" is one of the more important GPLv3 licensed things, so it was the first to get attention and be replaced.
Which is an interesting data point in this entire argument, when the GPL proponents tried to force everyone to use the GPLv3, much of the rest of the world walked away completely.