Did he even need a pilot's license? The article doesn't seem to mention anything about licenses, and the 'copter looks like it *might* full under the weight limit to be classified as an ultralight, which does not need a license to operate
I could be wrong, but I think that only applies in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. In most places airspace is Class G within some distance (700 ft?) above ground level but around airports and in other areas airspace is controlled all the way to the ground. I suspect that the capitol (if not all of D.C.) is controlled all the way down. -- JimFive
I think they set up a fund that grows interest at something like 3% a year, and invest a dollar. By the time they're ready to be reanimated, each of them will have accumulated enough interest to be richer than Google.
That math clearly doesn't work out. At 3% a year an investment doubles in 24 years. So in 96 years that dollar doubles 4 times to become $16. To get to $1 million you need to double at least 20 times which will take 480 years. But really you never get to $1 million because you have to keep the lights on. -- JimFive
Anti-Trust Law is about preventing dominance in one market being used to create an advantage in a different market. Google is accused of using its dominance in search to give itself an advantage in online shopping. Simply not selling your product to a competitor would not be anti-trust.
Google's defense could be "we don't have a dominant position" but they have 90% of the EU search market so that's a loser. It could be, "we don't manipulate the search results to give advantage to our shopping sites", which would end up requiring them to give the code (and history) to the court for analysis. Or it could be a lot of technical legal wrangling which is probably what will happen. It definitely WON'T be "you're anti-trust laws are stupid".
An analogy, if I own 90% of the billboards in a state I can't refuse to sell billboard space to Jack's Auto Repair just because I also own John's Auto Repair. -- JimFive
I am questioning if Google is abusing or is in a position of dominance. A large market share is not a monopoly position.
The allegations are that Google is abusing its position in one market (search) to give itself an advantage in other markets, specifically online Shopping, by promoting sites on its own Google Shopping platform over other sites, and doing so without indicating to the consumer that Google has an interest in those sites. So, Google has a financial interest in people buying from certain retailers and is using its search engine to push consumers toward those retailers without disclosing that interest. This is giving Google Shopping a significant advantage over competitors, not because it has earned that advantage, but because Google Search has a 90% share of that market. This is, arguably, anti-competitive, even without a 100% monopoly position.
If this goes to court the EU would have to show that all of the above is true. -- JimFive
propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics... and which doesn't break the first amendment.
McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics". It was an attempt to say that you can't use a giant megaphone to express those opinions within a certain time before an election. Did it succeed? The Supreme Court said, "No".
Is money corrupting the political process? Is there a way to stop it? Reasonable people can disagree about those things.
Do you think that laws against libel and slander violate the first amendment? What about a law requiring that political ads not be misleading? What about a law requiring that using someone's name in an ad requires the permission of the named? What about a law requiring that any factual statements in an ad or speech be given a reputable source (and what would reputable mean)? What about a law saying that all donors must be disclosed?
By the way, it wasn't Citizen's United ruled that money is speech, it was Buckley v. Valeo(1976)
If you can't find anyone willing to work the job you have for what your offering you need to reconsider what you're offering. The "market" has clearly priced that job at $250k. -- JimFive
That's not how the burden of proof works in the American judicial system. Not collecting evidence (i.e., the camera was turned off) is light years away from the destruction of evidence (i.e., deleting footage after its shot)
Turning off a camera can be treated in the same way as destruction of evidence if that is how the law is written. There's nothing magic about it, if evidence should (In this case "is required to") exist and doesn't then we presume that the evidence goes against the person that should have it.
You're going to automatically side against the LEO because the camera was disabled?
Yes. They can turn the camera back on if they are interacting with the public. -- JimFive
Most of your concerns are addressed by ensuring through law and policy that the purpose of the camera is to act as a witness to the actions of the officer, not the public. To respond to each point: 1) I doubt the cameras are more intimidating than all of the rest of the trappings of a witness interview. 2) Don't allow access to the videos without a specific complaint and legal process (subpoena, etc). 3) Allow them to turn it off, but if a complaint is made and the interaction is not on video then it is presumed that the complaint is valid, just like any other destruction of evidence. 4) The recordings would only become public record if there was an investigation and associated subpoena/warrant activity to get the video into court. -- JimFive
The expression "You're right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" is apt here.
Property value is a proxy for "fitness for purpose". It is possible for your neighbor to use es property in a way that makes your property less useful to you. Your neighbor in that situation is infringing on your right to use your property as you see fit. Resolving these types of conflicts between personal rights is one of the purposes of government. Most local governments use zoning and permitting to set equitable standards for land use to prevent those disputes up front. -- JimFive
You say, "Nonsense," and then proceed to agree with me.
The view, the sound, the smell, the risk, increased traffic, etc. Those are the externalities I was talking about. It is clear in your example that the smelting plant next to you affects the value of your property. It affects its value to you, or you wouldn't move, and it presumably affects its value to potential buyers. Therefore, the smelting plant has reduced the value of your property, that is a sign that the smelting plant is imposing a hidden cost on you and your neighbors. That is an externality.
To put it within your stated moral framework. You aren't telling them what they can do with their land. You are telling them that whatever they do can't affect the commons in such a way that it is detrimental to their neighbors. (For the purposes of this argument, the commons includes visual scenery, the air and intangibles such as danger, if you have a better word, feel free to propose it) -- JimFive
And if they could keep all of the externalities on their land then you would be correct. However, the mere fact that you wouldn't like it indicates that they CAN'T keep the externalities on their land. If they could, you wouldn't care. So, since they can't keep the sight, sounds, smells, pollutants, etc. confined within their property, society has created zones to separate unseemly activities from residential and retail neighborhoods. The fact that commons are involved means that society has a say. -- JimFive
Not quite: Nothing on the balloon can go faster than the snail.
B. The balloon goes faster than the snail.
Not necessarily. Imagine that the balloon has equally spaced marks, for convenience we'll say there are 40(*) marks around the equator of the balloon and they are 10 mm apart. The snail takes 1 second to go 10 mm. However every second the balloon is expanded such that the distance between each mark increases by 1 mm. The snail is moving 10mm/second and the balloon is expanding 1mm/(10mm*sec).
Now, how long will it take the snail to get halfway around the balloon? What, if anything, is moving faster than the snail?
(*)Note, I didn't do the math on this so it's possible the snail can make it halfway around, if so you can increase the initial circumference of the balloon until the snail can't get around it because inflation happens at a faster rate than the snail can move.
struck off as a cab driver, but still be allowed to drive friends and family around? Surely you're either safe enough to use the public roads, or you're not, and the commercial relationships you have with the people inside make no difference?
Surely if your kitchen is safe enough to cook for your friends and family then you should be able to run a restaurant in your house without all those nasty licensing and inspection rules.
Getting into a car with your brother, who you know to be an awful driver, is your choice. Getting into a car with some stranger based only on es willingness to get paid to take you somewhere is a different kind of choice. Having that willingness to get paid backed up by some stricter enforcement of driving rules and vehicle safety inspections is a good thing.
There is a range of "good enough" and personal transportation is allowed to be at the lower end of that range while commercial transportation is required to be higher up the range. -- JimFive
Not according to FAA Regulations. According to the FAA a pilot cannot receive any compensation for flying without a Commercial license. They are very strict on their definition of compensation, including the accumulation of flight hours as compensation. They do allow cost sharing, up to even shares, as long as the pilot was going to make the flight anyway.
So, according to the FAA, his "intent" to earn anything is evidence of commercial flight, there is no requirement that he expect to make a profit. It wouldn't surprise me if the FAA declared that the kudos of internet commentators was enough compensation to make it a commercial flight. -- JimFive
Not as far as FAA regulations are concerned. Without a Commercial license you cannot receive any compensation for flying with, possibly, two exceptions.
1. A passenger can pay up to 50% of the flight costs as long as the pilot was flying there anyway. (That is, the pilot cannot fly his friend somewhere and hang around the airport to bring his friend back, the pilot has to have his own reason for making the trip. The FAA has ruled that even if you aren't paid at all getting "flying time" can be considered compensation)
2. Flight costs can be paid for by an organization as part of a benefit fund raising event. -- JimFive
I think you are misinterpreting the summary. They aren't saying that increasing greenhouse emissions cause economic growth. They are saying that usually economic growth leads to more buying which leads to more production which leads to more energy use which leads to increased emissions. BUT WAIT...That didn't happen this time. So, in effect, you are agreeing with the summary. -- JimFive
Another possibility is that the measured growth is a result of selling inventory and new production hasn't actually ramped up as much as the number indicates. -- JimFive
I'm not sure there is really an absolute correllation between economic growth and greenhouse gas emmissions. An increase in stock value does not increase global emmissions per se.
Well, it's good that economic growth is measured by production per GDP not stock value, isn't it? -- JimFive
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The defendant is supposed to be given the benefit of every doubt.
No. The standard is reasonable doubt, not every doubt.
--
JimFive
Did he even need a pilot's license? The article doesn't seem to mention anything about licenses, and the 'copter looks like it *might* full under the weight limit to be classified as an ultralight, which does not need a license to operate
I could be wrong, but I think that only applies in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. In most places airspace is Class G within some distance (700 ft?) above ground level but around airports and in other areas airspace is controlled all the way to the ground. I suspect that the capitol (if not all of D.C.) is controlled all the way down.
--
JimFive
I think they set up a fund that grows interest at something like 3% a year, and invest a dollar. By the time they're ready to be reanimated, each of them will have accumulated enough interest to be richer than Google.
That math clearly doesn't work out. At 3% a year an investment doubles in 24 years. So in 96 years that dollar doubles 4 times to become $16. To get to $1 million you need to double at least 20 times which will take 480 years. But really you never get to $1 million because you have to keep the lights on.
--
JimFive
Anti-Trust Law is about preventing dominance in one market being used to create an advantage in a different market. Google is accused of using its dominance in search to give itself an advantage in online shopping. Simply not selling your product to a competitor would not be anti-trust.
Google's defense could be "we don't have a dominant position" but they have 90% of the EU search market so that's a loser. It could be, "we don't manipulate the search results to give advantage to our shopping sites", which would end up requiring them to give the code (and history) to the court for analysis. Or it could be a lot of technical legal wrangling which is probably what will happen. It definitely WON'T be "you're anti-trust laws are stupid".
An analogy, if I own 90% of the billboards in a state I can't refuse to sell billboard space to Jack's Auto Repair just because I also own John's Auto Repair.
--
JimFive
I am questioning if Google is abusing or is in a position of dominance. A large market share is not a monopoly position.
The allegations are that Google is abusing its position in one market (search) to give itself an advantage in other markets, specifically online Shopping, by promoting sites on its own Google Shopping platform over other sites, and doing so without indicating to the consumer that Google has an interest in those sites. So, Google has a financial interest in people buying from certain retailers and is using its search engine to push consumers toward those retailers without disclosing that interest. This is giving Google Shopping a significant advantage over competitors, not because it has earned that advantage, but because Google Search has a 90% share of that market. This is, arguably, anti-competitive, even without a 100% monopoly position.
If this goes to court the EU would have to show that all of the above is true.
--
JimFive
He should have trained 535 owls to fly in to the Capitol building and drop the letters on the floor.
--
JimFive
propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics ... and which doesn't break the first amendment.
McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics". It was an attempt to say that you can't use a giant megaphone to express those opinions within a certain time before an election. Did it succeed? The Supreme Court said, "No".
Is money corrupting the political process? Is there a way to stop it? Reasonable people can disagree about those things.
Do you think that laws against libel and slander violate the first amendment? What about a law requiring that political ads not be misleading? What about a law requiring that using someone's name in an ad requires the permission of the named? What about a law requiring that any factual statements in an ad or speech be given a reputable source (and what would reputable mean)? What about a law saying that all donors must be disclosed?
By the way, it wasn't Citizen's United ruled that money is speech, it was Buckley v. Valeo(1976)
If you can't find anyone willing to work the job you have for what your offering you need to reconsider what you're offering. The "market" has clearly priced that job at $250k.
--
JimFive
That's not how the burden of proof works in the American judicial system. Not collecting evidence (i.e., the camera was turned off) is light years away from the destruction of evidence (i.e., deleting footage after its shot)
Turning off a camera can be treated in the same way as destruction of evidence if that is how the law is written. There's nothing magic about it, if evidence should (In this case "is required to") exist and doesn't then we presume that the evidence goes against the person that should have it.
You're going to automatically side against the LEO because the camera was disabled?
Yes. They can turn the camera back on if they are interacting with the public.
--
JimFive
It should also be "ensure" not "insure".
--
JimFive
Most of your concerns are addressed by ensuring through law and policy that the purpose of the camera is to act as a witness to the actions of the officer, not the public. To respond to each point:
1) I doubt the cameras are more intimidating than all of the rest of the trappings of a witness interview.
2) Don't allow access to the videos without a specific complaint and legal process (subpoena, etc).
3) Allow them to turn it off, but if a complaint is made and the interaction is not on video then it is presumed that the complaint is valid, just like any other destruction of evidence.
4) The recordings would only become public record if there was an investigation and associated subpoena/warrant activity to get the video into court.
--
JimFive
WhatsApp isn't the man in the middle, they are at both ends.
The expression "You're right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" is apt here.
Property value is a proxy for "fitness for purpose". It is possible for your neighbor to use es property in a way that makes your property less useful to you. Your neighbor in that situation is infringing on your right to use your property as you see fit. Resolving these types of conflicts between personal rights is one of the purposes of government. Most local governments use zoning and permitting to set equitable standards for land use to prevent those disputes up front.
--
JimFive
You say, "Nonsense," and then proceed to agree with me.
The view, the sound, the smell, the risk, increased traffic, etc. Those are the externalities I was talking about. It is clear in your example that the smelting plant next to you affects the value of your property. It affects its value to you, or you wouldn't move, and it presumably affects its value to potential buyers. Therefore, the smelting plant has reduced the value of your property, that is a sign that the smelting plant is imposing a hidden cost on you and your neighbors. That is an externality.
To put it within your stated moral framework. You aren't telling them what they can do with their land. You are telling them that whatever they do can't affect the commons in such a way that it is detrimental to their neighbors. (For the purposes of this argument, the commons includes visual scenery, the air and intangibles such as danger, if you have a better word, feel free to propose it)
--
JimFive
And if they could keep all of the externalities on their land then you would be correct. However, the mere fact that you wouldn't like it indicates that they CAN'T keep the externalities on their land. If they could, you wouldn't care. So, since they can't keep the sight, sounds, smells, pollutants, etc. confined within their property, society has created zones to separate unseemly activities from residential and retail neighborhoods. The fact that commons are involved means that society has a say.
--
JimFive
They keep asking for it, but it isn't required (yet?).
--
JimFive
A. Nothing can go faster than the snail.
Not quite: Nothing on the balloon can go faster than the snail.
B. The balloon goes faster than the snail.
Not necessarily. Imagine that the balloon has equally spaced marks, for convenience we'll say there are 40(*) marks around the equator of the balloon and they are 10 mm apart. The snail takes 1 second to go 10 mm. However every second the balloon is expanded such that the distance between each mark increases by 1 mm. The snail is moving 10mm/second and the balloon is expanding 1mm/(10mm*sec).
Now, how long will it take the snail to get halfway around the balloon?
What, if anything, is moving faster than the snail?
(*)Note, I didn't do the math on this so it's possible the snail can make it halfway around, if so you can increase the initial circumference of the balloon until the snail can't get around it because inflation happens at a faster rate than the snail can move.
struck off as a cab driver, but still be allowed to drive friends and family around? Surely you're either safe enough to use the public roads, or you're not, and the commercial relationships you have with the people inside make no difference?
Surely if your kitchen is safe enough to cook for your friends and family then you should be able to run a restaurant in your house without all those nasty licensing and inspection rules.
Getting into a car with your brother, who you know to be an awful driver, is your choice. Getting into a car with some stranger based only on es willingness to get paid to take you somewhere is a different kind of choice. Having that willingness to get paid backed up by some stricter enforcement of driving rules and vehicle safety inspections is a good thing.
There is a range of "good enough" and personal transportation is allowed to be at the lower end of that range while commercial transportation is required to be higher up the range.
--
JimFive
Not according to FAA Regulations.
According to the FAA a pilot cannot receive any compensation for flying without a Commercial license. They are very strict on their definition of compensation, including the accumulation of flight hours as compensation. They do allow cost sharing, up to even shares, as long as the pilot was going to make the flight anyway.
So, according to the FAA, his "intent" to earn anything is evidence of commercial flight, there is no requirement that he expect to make a profit. It wouldn't surprise me if the FAA declared that the kudos of internet commentators was enough compensation to make it a commercial flight.
--
JimFive
Not as far as FAA regulations are concerned. Without a Commercial license you cannot receive any compensation for flying with, possibly, two exceptions.
1. A passenger can pay up to 50% of the flight costs as long as the pilot was flying there anyway. (That is, the pilot cannot fly his friend somewhere and hang around the airport to bring his friend back, the pilot has to have his own reason for making the trip. The FAA has ruled that even if you aren't paid at all getting "flying time" can be considered compensation)
2. Flight costs can be paid for by an organization as part of a benefit fund raising event.
--
JimFive
I think you are misinterpreting the summary. They aren't saying that increasing greenhouse emissions cause economic growth. They are saying that usually economic growth leads to more buying which leads to more production which leads to more energy use which leads to increased emissions. BUT WAIT...That didn't happen this time. So, in effect, you are agreeing with the summary.
--
JimFive
Another possibility is that the measured growth is a result of selling inventory and new production hasn't actually ramped up as much as the number indicates.
--
JimFive
I'm not sure there is really an absolute correllation between economic growth and greenhouse gas emmissions. An increase in stock value does not increase global emmissions per se.
Well, it's good that economic growth is measured by production per GDP not stock value, isn't it?
--
JimFive
I'm honestly shocked that you think it's normal. Clearly it's not rare. 25% isn't low. But it's nowhere near universal.
I'm honestly shocked that it is anything close to that low. If I had been asked to guess a number I would have thought closer to 75%.
--
JimFive
And how many life insurance companies are "around" to pay out the policy when suicide is the cause of death?
Um, pretty much all of them. Life insurance policies only exclude suicide for the first year or so, then they pay out as normal.
--
JimFive