Among the treasure trove of government actions he brought to light, were emails and other documents showing how the US government was secretly strong arming other countries into adopting the MPAA's version of copyright. (Hey, the MPAA paid for their government so they are getting some mileage out of it...) https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
And thanks to Snowden we now know how the US is strong arming (read as extorting) countries around the world to bow down to the Hollywood lobby.
But on the bright side of this story:
Hollywood has basically let all of us know that this software works really good for ripping movies. Thanks for the well advertised endorsement!
Regulations are how laws are actually implemented. An agency by its administrative mandate develops its regulations and enforces them. If someone has an issue with the regulations then that is handled by the judicial branch. Three branches of government acting as checks and balances against each other.
Sounds pretty much in line with the constitution and with what was taught in social studies...
----
BTW - The FAA does regulate baseballs, frisbees, spitwads, polevaulting, and falcons on board an aircraft. Try using any of them on a commercial flight and see how their regulation gets you into metal bracelets. Plus regulation will insure that you can't carry the last two on the plane. Regulation and enforcement at work.
The constitution VERY SPECIFICALLY doesn't address specific regulations. Those are generated by LAWS. The constitution does give a very firm guide for how we are to come up with laws. Things like electing officials to create and maintain laws and having people in official capacities to enact those laws.
Staying awake during junior high and high school social studies classes would have avoided this incredible lack of knowledge. (If there wasn't the benefit of a proper education then there is a valid excuse for such ignorance.)
It is just as inane to say "Show me where in the constitution it says that police can enforce speed limits!" People really don't need to loudly proclaim their ignorance and supporting their ignorance makes a statement too...
Your figures assume that there was nothing of value in the cargo bay. Even on a ISS resupply mission the mass in the shuttle bay would be figured to be the higher portion of the launch expense.
(I still think the $20 million figure was a bit fudged...)
So driver automation caused the decrease in accident deaths? Really? Exactly what driver automations were instituted in that time period? (other then automated distractions)
I guess the massive improvements in energy absorbing crush structures didn't have that much to do with it. The pervasive requirement that occupants use seat belts didn't make much difference either. Passive restraints such as airbags, drastically improved seats, and car interiors specifically designed around energy absorption for occupant safety probably didn't make any difference. The MASSIVE improvement in tire safety and grip doesn't add up to much either then...
Your argument fails ridiculously and if you take a look at information from the NHTSA or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety it points that out VERY clearly.
An interesting little auto safety tidbit feeding back to the original point that "automation of any human ability leads to humans losing that ability for themselves."
An independent analysis of the data gathered after 10 years of the 55 MPH national speed limit did not find anywhere near the number of lives saved that should have been expected from the change. (Especially when you start adding in the leaps and bounds that were made in crush structures that happened in that time period.)
One of the more accepted interpretations was that the reduction of speed had increased driver inattention and had basically bred a new generation of drivers that were less competent in general. Use it or lose it.
This whole argument is a fallacy based on absolute ignorance of *actual* human behavior, history, and even basic linguistics.
Ok. Let's see point by point.
>Children have had calculators for *decades*, and still learn how to do math in their heads. (In fact, students today are actually being expressly taught the methods that work best for doing math in your head, instead of having to stumble across the methods on their own. That accounts for about 90% of the 'Common Core suxxors' arguments you see out there.)
Common core teaches children a method to understand what a math problem means. Only problem is that it is basically a "let's count on our fingers" method and it has not been shown to produce an adult with a good working ability with math. It probably won't make a difference seeing that they will all have a calculating device in their pocket. (Odds are they are one EMP or lack of a charge station from helplessness.)
California has been allowing children to use calculators in class as early as 4th grade which misses the whole point of math classes in school. The point IS NOT to get the correct answer. The point is to pound basic mathematics (including the time tables) into their heads so they have a chance of remembering how to do the math when they are 40.
People have had contact lists for *centuries*, and still remember names, addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, etc. Storing the list electronically is no different than storing it on paper, except that if you lose your electronic device, you can probably recover all that information instead of having to painstakingly replace it over the course of the next few years.
Yeah, this argument is so obviously wrong. Twenty plus years ago the average adult had a minimum of 20 phone numbers in their head. Now you have "functioning adults" who don't remember their home phone number. If you have a smartphone, put it to the side and write down all the phone numbers that you can remember. You will prove my point.
Apparently you think that manipulating a clutch with your foot and a lever with your hand is what 'driving' means. Strangely enough, people have driven vehicles that lacked *both* of those for *centuries* before they were invented, and are *still* driving vehicles in which manual access to those controls isn't required.
You can poo-poo using a clutch but for starters: Name one single attribute of driving that is improved by using an automatic transmission.
[crickets]
Driving a clutch will teach a driver to manage the engine power which is required for any level of true car control. It allows you to shift the weight and the balance around so the driver is controlling it instead of simply reacting to it. If you don't understand what this all means I have to say, "Exactly. You are proving my point."
Driving like all arts is all about the subtle things. Probably the most subtle thing you can do driving is drive on ice or snow. If you have a chance (with your automatic) pull up to a complete stop where the surface is glazed by sliding tires and drips coming off cars. Now go back and as you get near put the car in neutral and see how much quicker it stops without skidding a tire. The difference at really low speeds is huge. (Now you can try to figure out WHY?)
Automatic transmissions reinforce a bunch of bad habits.
- Not coming to a complete halt at a stop sign is a common one (nope a little bit of roll isn't the same thing).
- Delayed acceleration of a second or two comes from the delay you get when you step on the gas. That "second or two" is a surprisingly big contributor to traffic congestion on large freeways. Take a backup of 50 cars and add a 1 or more second delay to each one's acceleration. Yeah, it is a problem. The other bit is that it can influence a person's driving mindset to delay other seemingly unrelated driving behaviors. You will tend to see a correspo
This is all a fallacy based on the "wishes for the future". Actual automation does not work in this fashion EVER.
Repeat the following until is sinks in: "Automation of any human ability leads to humans losing that ability for themselves." (Now repeat...)
- Give children calculators and they will not be able to do math in their head.
- Everyone has a cell phone with a contact list so now people can't remember any phone numbers.
- Give someone a car with an automatic transmission and you end up with someone who aims a car instead of drives a car.
Either make the cars self driving or take all the touchscreen/infotainment crap out of the cockpit. Anything that can't be operated without taking your eyes off the road has zero business being in a human operated car.
Oh, and the idea that automation is making people better drivers is insane. Automation makes it so people can spend less time being engaged with the process of driving. (People's attention span is gone anyway.)
Auto-braking = I don't need to pay attention to what is outside that big window in front of me! Lane assist = I don't have to pay attention or even know where my 2 tons of steel is! ABS = I don't need to learn basic car control techniques. At best all the automation comes down to an automated slap up side the head to notice what you should have been paying attention to anyway.
"America’s security depends on dispensing with people's liberty when we can come up with a scary possibility."
Liberty is a risk. We are supposed to cherish that we in the "home of the brave" were brave enough to choose the RISK of liberty.
The endless pulpit banging about risks to the "Fatherland"... (wait... oops... erase, erase, erase...) I mean risks to the Homeland are still a microscopic percentage of the risk of getting in your car to drive to work.
QUIT PROTECTING ME FROM LIBERTY! (and pass me the Advil...)
Youtube was started in 2005. Hell Google paid over $1.5 billion for Youtube in 2006 so it was quite well established. Article starts with "In 2005...". It is now 2015 which makes that 10 years ago...
So in other words: "... doesn't mean there iscurrentlyan economically viable way of doing so."
So that would mean that with an investment in research maybe you could make it viable. In fact you would actually have to expect that it would become more cost effective with the normal manufacturing economies of scale and the vast improvement in materials science. That just leaves the question of getting past environmental hurdles. That will require... (wait for it!)...
more research!
Exactly. There is demand but the state of the technology isn't to a point where it can compete on price with the entrenched technology with a vast advantage of decades of vastly higher levels of investment.
So in a multi billion dollar industry maybe it deserves some investment looking at the problem. Hence this story...
So you get the price down so it costs 2.5 times as much per hour to operate the airframe and it would then be a MAJOR competitor. At 1/2 the flight time 2.5X hourly cost would mean increasing the cost to 125% which would be very attractive.
Conceivably flying at a higher altitude would reduce fuel consumption which is an obvious savings. It also could give the opportunity to fly over much more severe weather which could reduce costs caused by flight delays and cancellations. If you can't fly then you aren't paying for the plane...
So there is no demand for getting from point A to point B faster? Simply the most obviously stupid thing said here in a while. Are you still driving 30 miles per hour on the freeway?
The single most dreaded thing about travel is the uncomfortable time it takes wasted in a cramped tube full of people. There are a number of questions of profitability and what naught in this thread to support the idea of "no demand" but those arguments have nothing to do with demand. They are simply reflections on one specific airliner program. If you need to fly from New York to Paris and you get to the counter and they ask you, "Would you like to be on the plane for 7-1/2 hours or for 4 hours?" which are you going to answer? If the price was pretty close you will chose 4 hours.
That is the definition of "demand".
Magnetic isn't irrelevant as it is both useful and more importantly for this question: It works exactly the same way.
From the magnetic north pole go magnetically south a mile, west a mile, and then north a mile and you end up at the point you started. (Unless the pole moved while you were traveling.)
Sp you're saying that AC lamers that come out for "First posts" are enabled by their technically savvy parents?
I really fail to see any possible connection, or why that would be germane to the subject of the original article.
The point is the decisions about how to monetize their media are made by idiots. Instead of saying "How many ways can we offer it so we get revenue?" they instead go and try to apply across the board control in any instance possible to their own detriment.
All you need to know about "entertainment companies" can be found on the beginning of any retail DVD or Blueray disc. It starts with a big "entertaining" warning about copyright infringement that can not stepped past. (Helps get you into an entertained mood...) The only way to skip this unwarranted interruption is to get a nice pirated copy of the movie.
Everyone who has enough technical know how to plug a disc into a player knows that pirating movies is illegal and the "entertainment" companies are pounding the message in a very unentertaining manner down the throats of what they know are paying customers. If an industry is this stupid there really isn't much hope for them.
Slashdot Mirror
DingDingDing
We have a winner!
Among the treasure trove of government actions he brought to light, were emails and other documents showing how the US government was secretly strong arming other countries into adopting the MPAA's version of copyright. (Hey, the MPAA paid for their government so they are getting some mileage out of it...)
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
And thanks to Snowden we now know how the US is strong arming (read as extorting) countries around the world to bow down to the Hollywood lobby.
But on the bright side of this story:
Hollywood has basically let all of us know that this software works really good for ripping movies. Thanks for the well advertised endorsement!
If there is an editor it appears that they couldn't recognize that the links for "Live" and for the emojis has been switched ...
Regulations are how laws are actually implemented. An agency by its administrative mandate develops its regulations and enforces them. If someone has an issue with the regulations then that is handled by the judicial branch. Three branches of government acting as checks and balances against each other.
Sounds pretty much in line with the constitution and with what was taught in social studies...
----
BTW - The FAA does regulate baseballs, frisbees, spitwads, polevaulting, and falcons on board an aircraft. Try using any of them on a commercial flight and see how their regulation gets you into metal bracelets. Plus regulation will insure that you can't carry the last two on the plane. Regulation and enforcement at work.
The constitution VERY SPECIFICALLY doesn't address specific regulations. Those are generated by LAWS. The constitution does give a very firm guide for how we are to come up with laws. Things like electing officials to create and maintain laws and having people in official capacities to enact those laws.
Staying awake during junior high and high school social studies classes would have avoided this incredible lack of knowledge. (If there wasn't the benefit of a proper education then there is a valid excuse for such ignorance.)
It is just as inane to say "Show me where in the constitution it says that police can enforce speed limits!" People really don't need to loudly proclaim their ignorance and supporting their ignorance makes a statement too...
Your figures assume that there was nothing of value in the cargo bay. Even on a ISS resupply mission the mass in the shuttle bay would be figured to be the higher portion of the launch expense.
(I still think the $20 million figure was a bit fudged...)
So driver automation caused the decrease in accident deaths? Really? Exactly what driver automations were instituted in that time period? (other then automated distractions)
I guess the massive improvements in energy absorbing crush structures didn't have that much to do with it. The pervasive requirement that occupants use seat belts didn't make much difference either. Passive restraints such as airbags, drastically improved seats, and car interiors specifically designed around energy absorption for occupant safety probably didn't make any difference. The MASSIVE improvement in tire safety and grip doesn't add up to much either then...
Your argument fails ridiculously and if you take a look at information from the NHTSA or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety it points that out VERY clearly.
An interesting little auto safety tidbit feeding back to the original point that "automation of any human ability leads to humans losing that ability for themselves."
An independent analysis of the data gathered after 10 years of the 55 MPH national speed limit did not find anywhere near the number of lives saved that should have been expected from the change. (Especially when you start adding in the leaps and bounds that were made in crush structures that happened in that time period.)
One of the more accepted interpretations was that the reduction of speed had increased driver inattention and had basically bred a new generation of drivers that were less competent in general.
Use it or lose it.
This whole argument is a fallacy based on absolute ignorance of *actual* human behavior, history, and even basic linguistics.
Ok. Let's see point by point.
>Children have had calculators for *decades*, and still learn how to do math in their heads. (In fact, students today are actually being expressly taught the methods that work best for doing math in your head, instead of having to stumble across the methods on their own. That accounts for about 90% of the 'Common Core suxxors' arguments you see out there.)
Common core teaches children a method to understand what a math problem means. Only problem is that it is basically a "let's count on our fingers" method and it has not been shown to produce an adult with a good working ability with math. It probably won't make a difference seeing that they will all have a calculating device in their pocket. (Odds are they are one EMP or lack of a charge station from helplessness.)
California has been allowing children to use calculators in class as early as 4th grade which misses the whole point of math classes in school. The point IS NOT to get the correct answer. The point is to pound basic mathematics (including the time tables) into their heads so they have a chance of remembering how to do the math when they are 40.
People have had contact lists for *centuries*, and still remember names, addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, etc. Storing the list electronically is no different than storing it on paper, except that if you lose your electronic device, you can probably recover all that information instead of having to painstakingly replace it over the course of the next few years.
Yeah, this argument is so obviously wrong. Twenty plus years ago the average adult had a minimum of 20 phone numbers in their head. Now you have "functioning adults" who don't remember their home phone number. If you have a smartphone, put it to the side and write down all the phone numbers that you can remember. You will prove my point.
Apparently you think that manipulating a clutch with your foot and a lever with your hand is what 'driving' means. Strangely enough, people have driven vehicles that lacked *both* of those for *centuries* before they were invented, and are *still* driving vehicles in which manual access to those controls isn't required.
You can poo-poo using a clutch but for starters: Name one single attribute of driving that is improved by using an automatic transmission.
[crickets]
Driving a clutch will teach a driver to manage the engine power which is required for any level of true car control. It allows you to shift the weight and the balance around so the driver is controlling it instead of simply reacting to it. If you don't understand what this all means I have to say, "Exactly. You are proving my point."
Driving like all arts is all about the subtle things. Probably the most subtle thing you can do driving is drive on ice or snow. If you have a chance (with your automatic) pull up to a complete stop where the surface is glazed by sliding tires and drips coming off cars. Now go back and as you get near put the car in neutral and see how much quicker it stops without skidding a tire. The difference at really low speeds is huge. (Now you can try to figure out WHY?)
Automatic transmissions reinforce a bunch of bad habits.
- Not coming to a complete halt at a stop sign is a common one (nope a little bit of roll isn't the same thing).
- Delayed acceleration of a second or two comes from the delay you get when you step on the gas. That "second or two" is a surprisingly big contributor to traffic congestion on large freeways.
Take a backup of 50 cars and add a 1 or more second delay to each one's acceleration. Yeah, it is a problem. The other bit is that it can influence a person's driving mindset to delay other seemingly unrelated driving behaviors. You will tend to see a correspo
This is all a fallacy based on the "wishes for the future". Actual automation does not work in this fashion EVER.
Repeat the following until is sinks in: "Automation of any human ability leads to humans losing that ability for themselves." (Now repeat...)
- Give children calculators and they will not be able to do math in their head.
- Everyone has a cell phone with a contact list so now people can't remember any phone numbers.
- Give someone a car with an automatic transmission and you end up with someone who aims a car instead of drives a car.
Either make the cars self driving or take all the touchscreen/infotainment crap out of the cockpit. Anything that can't be operated without taking your eyes off the road has zero business being in a human operated car.
Oh, and the idea that automation is making people better drivers is insane. Automation makes it so people can spend less time being engaged with the process of driving. (People's attention span is gone anyway.)
Auto-braking = I don't need to pay attention to what is outside that big window in front of me! Lane assist = I don't have to pay attention or even know where my 2 tons of steel is! ABS = I don't need to learn basic car control techniques.
At best all the automation comes down to an automated slap up side the head to notice what you should have been paying attention to anyway.
. . .
It has lake front property for cheaper than these areas due to excess supply.
. . .
Here, let me fix that for you...
. . .
It has cheap lake front property... IF you are looking in an area that has no roads in a hundred miles.
. . .
Gotta love that "lake front property" that you can't get to and you can't get back from! It's a bargain!
Yeah and all the food those kids eat must be free then? And that food didn't need to be shipped by air to the state?
So please, go move up to Alaska and put your get rich quick scheme into place and tell us how it works out for you!
Yep. Nobody.
No one cares
"America’s security depends on dispensing with people's liberty when we can come up with a scary possibility."
... (wait... oops... erase, erase, erase...) I mean risks to the Homeland are still a microscopic percentage of the risk of getting in your car to drive to work.
Liberty is a risk. We are supposed to cherish that we in the "home of the brave" were brave enough to choose the RISK of liberty.
The endless pulpit banging about risks to the "Fatherland"
QUIT PROTECTING ME FROM LIBERTY! (and pass me the Advil...)
Youtube was started in 2005. Hell Google paid over $1.5 billion for Youtube in 2006 so it was quite well established. Article starts with "In 2005 ...". It is now 2015 which makes that 10 years ago...
What are you talking about?
So in other words: "... doesn't mean there is currently an economically viable way of doing so."
... (wait for it!) ...
So that would mean that with an investment in research maybe you could make it viable. In fact you would actually have to expect that it would become more cost effective with the normal manufacturing economies of scale and the vast improvement in materials science. That just leaves the question of getting past environmental hurdles. That will require
more research!
Exactly. There is demand but the state of the technology isn't to a point where it can compete on price with the entrenched technology with a vast advantage of decades of vastly higher levels of investment.
So in a multi billion dollar industry maybe it deserves some investment looking at the problem. Hence this story...
So you get the price down so it costs 2.5 times as much per hour to operate the airframe and it would then be a MAJOR competitor. At 1/2 the flight time 2.5X hourly cost would mean increasing the cost to 125% which would be very attractive.
Conceivably flying at a higher altitude would reduce fuel consumption which is an obvious savings. It also could give the opportunity to fly over much more severe weather which could reduce costs caused by flight delays and cancellations. If you can't fly then you aren't paying for the plane...
So there is no demand for getting from point A to point B faster? Simply the most obviously stupid thing said here in a while. Are you still driving 30 miles per hour on the freeway?
The single most dreaded thing about travel is the uncomfortable time it takes wasted in a cramped tube full of people. There are a number of questions of profitability and what naught in this thread to support the idea of "no demand" but those arguments have nothing to do with demand. They are simply reflections on one specific airliner program. If you need to fly from New York to Paris and you get to the counter and they ask you, "Would you like to be on the plane for 7-1/2 hours or for 4 hours?" which are you going to answer? If the price was pretty close you will chose 4 hours.
That is the definition of "demand".
Magnetic isn't irrelevant as it is both useful and more importantly for this question: It works exactly the same way.
From the magnetic north pole go magnetically south a mile, west a mile, and then north a mile and you end up at the point you started. (Unless the pole moved while you were traveling.)
Sp you're saying that AC lamers that come out for "First posts" are enabled by their technically savvy parents?
I really fail to see any possible connection, or why that would be germane to the subject of the original article.
Maybe as a fuel it will use some of that atmosphere that surrounds it...
The point is the decisions about how to monetize their media are made by idiots. Instead of saying "How many ways can we offer it so we get revenue?" they instead go and try to apply across the board control in any instance possible to their own detriment.
All you need to know about "entertainment companies" can be found on the beginning of any retail DVD or Blueray disc. It starts with a big "entertaining" warning about copyright infringement that can not stepped past. (Helps get you into an entertained mood...) The only way to skip this unwarranted interruption is to get a nice pirated copy of the movie.
Everyone who has enough technical know how to plug a disc into a player knows that pirating movies is illegal and the "entertainment" companies are pounding the message in a very unentertaining manner down the throats of what they know are paying customers. If an industry is this stupid there really isn't much hope for them.
Isn't outing a manufacturer over product issues more of a Twitter thing?