I don't think a limited internetwork would have helped them even if they started that early. Keep in mind that the internet swallowed FIDO Ryme, UUCP, and others as well even though those were free and often had inter-network gateways.
The internet still would have swallowed them all as soon as it became available. It wasn't just about email, it was also about web pages, and exchanging files (legal and not). It was about content none of them would have ever allowed on their servers. It was about all those small ISPs trouncing them on price.
That's all true, but not exactly what I meant. Consider some of the killer apps out there. AOL would have done better if they had as much varied content as the web, but they couldn't create it themselves. They never even thought of streaming radio, and never would have. Even when they acquired shoutcast, it languished under them. It might have kept them around longer if they had either implemented it within their walled garden or allowed someone else to, but they didn't have the vision required.
Because of that and many more examples, the migration to the internet was inevitable. The walled gardens all died out for that same reason. All of them would have been better served allowing it within their gardens but none could let go of corporate control freakery long enough to survive.
I am well left of the Democrats as they are today and I agree with ShanghaiBill. In what way is an attempted ban on all commercial use (which means employed use) not killing employment? As he said, the very same activity with the very same equipment and observance of safety is banned if it is commercial. If there was some articulable reason that commercial use would present additional hazards, that would be fine, but I have seen none and the FAA has offered none.
Regulation is not intrinsically bad (in fact, it's often essential) but it needs to be justifiable.
Yes. The more often you do it, the more likely you are to be good at it. The more you spent on your gear, the more protective of that gear you will be. The more you stand to lose if your gear is damaged or destroyed, the more careful you will be to avoid incidents (your booked clients aren't going to wait forever while you try to fix your busted up camera and drone).
There is a good argument to include self-employed contractors into the hobby group for the purposes of regulation. It's when you get big enough that decision making, execution, and consequences are separated that you stray into constructive psychopathy.
The best regulations tread lightly and try to avoid regulating things that aren't actually a problem. I am all for good regulations made with appropriate restraint. I oppose regulation that would also encompass things that have been unregulated for years and caused no significant problems.
Whatever new regulation the FAA comes up with needs to exclude the entirety of hobby RC aircraft (which have been safely enjoyed for decades). Most of the devices in question are small and light weight. Even a complete failure wouldn't be likely to seriously injure someone if it fell on them.
You write as if the parks and neighborhoods are littered with chopped off body parts, pools of blood and corpses from RC aircraft accidents.
Quick, without googling, name an RC aircraft related bystander fatality! Now, name more of them than there have been bizarre office supply related accidental deaths.
Not likely. AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, etc were all doing fine until the internet came along. One by one, they reluctantly began offering internet as part of their services. By the late '90s they were nothing more than expensive ISPs with training wheels. Had they linked up and disconnected (or never connected) from the internet, they would have died faster.
Minitel was way ahead of it's time, but eventually lost out to the internet. It simply didn't keep up. No single entity could hope to keep up with a large loosely connected community such as the internet where everything was open enough that you didn't have to play Mother may I with a manager or some committee to deploy interesting new software.
Network effects are powerful. And the internet was the biggest network out there.
Actually, AOL capitulated to the Mom'n'Pops that were already doing flat rate billing. Those 'arcane' clients were fully GUI in the Windows world. This was in the era when you used Trumpet Winsock to dial the internet because Bill Gates was sure it was a passing fad when Win95 was put together.
First time users will likely know more about what they're about to get if it's legal. School health class, PSAs, etc will be more free to give practical advice once it's no longer a matter of 'condoning criminal activity'
One interesting finding is that while alcohol and THC both increase reaction time and lead to distractability, alcohol users tend to be oblivious to that and drive dangerously while THC users tend to remain aware of their impairment and drive more carefully to compensate.
The road blocks just need to go. I doubt they catch more people than just watching traffic for people driving poorly. I'm certainly not advocating for DUI but everything around it has gone to cuckoo-land. Debate over the permissible BAC is purely political at this point. It has no basis in statistics or science. The NTSB has completely skewed the statistics by counting a sober driver with alcohol anywhere in the proximity an alcohol related accident. (Yes, man has heart attack and plows into a restaurant where alcohol is served, it's an alcohol related accident!). Given that, it's hard to know if it's even a problem we have anymore.
Another could be that we have released a lot of chemicals that mimic estrogen and otherwise disrupt the endocrine system into the environment. That could easily encourage weight gain.
I haven't heard much about shootouts over tax-free cigarettes. Not a lot of gang activity there either. Our jails aren't filling up with cigarette smugglers and people caught in possession of untaxed cigarettes.
The government is hardly the enemy of the cartels. The last thing the cartels want is an end to prohibition. It would destroy their obscene profits and ultimately put them out of business.
As far as use goes, it might increase a little, but it's not morals preventing most of the drug use now. If it was, people would be even more upset about the damned coke heads on Wall Street and in the *AA. It's mostly that people don't want to be addicts. I doubt that will change.
We do not have a global free market economy. We have a market where large corporations can obtain resources where they are cheapest but the consumer market is very deliberately segmented (often with the force of law).
My mom gets collection calls for people we have never heard of. She has had the same phone number for 40 years. The collections weasels not only call the numbers associated with the alleged debtor, they call all numbers of anyone with the same or similar last name. Then they refuse to believe that you have never heard of the person they try to reach. Occasionally I have gotten wrong number collectors to stop by daring them to sue.
There are a LOT of variables in metabolism and we clearly don't know all of them yet. For example, a person could consume only adequate calories but they end up preferentially going to fat anyway and the person becomes lethargic from inadequate available calories. Or, if the calories are empty, craving for adequate overall nutrition could cause excessive calorie consumption.
That is a common theory, but there is some confounding evidence. For example, the obesity rate is growing fast in the 3rd world which has far less excess food than the west.
The current trend of declaring fat to be the boogeyman to be avoided at all costs is causing a lot of this. The result is packaged foods with no fat and a load of sugar and pepper to try to give it some sort of taste. Naturally the sugar is a blend of separate ingredients so they don't have to list it first on the ingredients.
Actually yes. Copernicus discarded geocentricism and found that the heliocentric model greatly simplified things, but he retained circular orbits with the planets moving at uniform speeds which still required epicycles to match observation. (in fact, it would have required an infinite number of epicycles to exactly match observation).
Kepler took the next step with elliptical orbits and so was able to predict planetary motion with unprecedented accuracy.
It's alive and well. As strange as some of the ideas are, they DO represent the most simple explanation we have for the given observations.
Consider, the whole idea of epicycles was entirely appropriate until eliptical orbist were mathematically shown to be possible and that they matched observation. Then and only then, Occam's Razor dictated that we adopt the theory that planets were in elliptical orbits.
Slashdot Mirror
What was that about 2000 then?
I don't think a limited internetwork would have helped them even if they started that early. Keep in mind that the internet swallowed FIDO Ryme, UUCP, and others as well even though those were free and often had inter-network gateways.
The internet still would have swallowed them all as soon as it became available. It wasn't just about email, it was also about web pages, and exchanging files (legal and not). It was about content none of them would have ever allowed on their servers. It was about all those small ISPs trouncing them on price.
That's all true, but not exactly what I meant. Consider some of the killer apps out there. AOL would have done better if they had as much varied content as the web, but they couldn't create it themselves. They never even thought of streaming radio, and never would have. Even when they acquired shoutcast, it languished under them. It might have kept them around longer if they had either implemented it within their walled garden or allowed someone else to, but they didn't have the vision required.
Because of that and many more examples, the migration to the internet was inevitable. The walled gardens all died out for that same reason. All of them would have been better served allowing it within their gardens but none could let go of corporate control freakery long enough to survive.
I am well left of the Democrats as they are today and I agree with ShanghaiBill. In what way is an attempted ban on all commercial use (which means employed use) not killing employment? As he said, the very same activity with the very same equipment and observance of safety is banned if it is commercial. If there was some articulable reason that commercial use would present additional hazards, that would be fine, but I have seen none and the FAA has offered none.
Regulation is not intrinsically bad (in fact, it's often essential) but it needs to be justifiable.
Yes. The more often you do it, the more likely you are to be good at it. The more you spent on your gear, the more protective of that gear you will be. The more you stand to lose if your gear is damaged or destroyed, the more careful you will be to avoid incidents (your booked clients aren't going to wait forever while you try to fix your busted up camera and drone).
There is a good argument to include self-employed contractors into the hobby group for the purposes of regulation. It's when you get big enough that decision making, execution, and consequences are separated that you stray into constructive psychopathy.
The best regulations tread lightly and try to avoid regulating things that aren't actually a problem. I am all for good regulations made with appropriate restraint. I oppose regulation that would also encompass things that have been unregulated for years and caused no significant problems.
Whatever new regulation the FAA comes up with needs to exclude the entirety of hobby RC aircraft (which have been safely enjoyed for decades). Most of the devices in question are small and light weight. Even a complete failure wouldn't be likely to seriously injure someone if it fell on them.
You write as if the parks and neighborhoods are littered with chopped off body parts, pools of blood and corpses from RC aircraft accidents.
Quick, without googling, name an RC aircraft related bystander fatality! Now, name more of them than there have been bizarre office supply related accidental deaths.
Not likely. AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, etc were all doing fine until the internet came along. One by one, they reluctantly began offering internet as part of their services. By the late '90s they were nothing more than expensive ISPs with training wheels. Had they linked up and disconnected (or never connected) from the internet, they would have died faster.
Minitel was way ahead of it's time, but eventually lost out to the internet. It simply didn't keep up. No single entity could hope to keep up with a large loosely connected community such as the internet where everything was open enough that you didn't have to play Mother may I with a manager or some committee to deploy interesting new software.
Network effects are powerful. And the internet was the biggest network out there.
Actually, AOL capitulated to the Mom'n'Pops that were already doing flat rate billing. Those 'arcane' clients were fully GUI in the Windows world. This was in the era when you used Trumpet Winsock to dial the internet because Bill Gates was sure it was a passing fad when Win95 was put together.
First time users will likely know more about what they're about to get if it's legal. School health class, PSAs, etc will be more free to give practical advice once it's no longer a matter of 'condoning criminal activity'
One interesting finding is that while alcohol and THC both increase reaction time and lead to distractability, alcohol users tend to be oblivious to that and drive dangerously while THC users tend to remain aware of their impairment and drive more carefully to compensate.
The road blocks just need to go. I doubt they catch more people than just watching traffic for people driving poorly. I'm certainly not advocating for DUI but everything around it has gone to cuckoo-land. Debate over the permissible BAC is purely political at this point. It has no basis in statistics or science. The NTSB has completely skewed the statistics by counting a sober driver with alcohol anywhere in the proximity an alcohol related accident. (Yes, man has heart attack and plows into a restaurant where alcohol is served, it's an alcohol related accident!). Given that, it's hard to know if it's even a problem we have anymore.
That is likely a contributing factor.
Another could be that we have released a lot of chemicals that mimic estrogen and otherwise disrupt the endocrine system into the environment. That could easily encourage weight gain.
You should read again. Where did I say ineffective?
It's expensive because of sin taxes or black market status. Eliminate those and it's not at all expensive.
Excessive use is harmful to health, but so is jogging in the city. Your other arguments were predicated on being expensive.
I don't expect much problem from DUI marijuana. Unless the intoxication is readily apparent, the effect on driving will be minimal or non-existent.
If it is readily apparent, it will be readily apparent in a video tape of the stop shown to jurors.
I haven't heard much about shootouts over tax-free cigarettes. Not a lot of gang activity there either. Our jails aren't filling up with cigarette smugglers and people caught in possession of untaxed cigarettes.
The government is hardly the enemy of the cartels. The last thing the cartels want is an end to prohibition. It would destroy their obscene profits and ultimately put them out of business.
As far as use goes, it might increase a little, but it's not morals preventing most of the drug use now. If it was, people would be even more upset about the damned coke heads on Wall Street and in the *AA. It's mostly that people don't want to be addicts. I doubt that will change.
I thought it already was primarily low income housing. You don't see a lot of 1%ers in there.
We do not have a global free market economy. We have a market where large corporations can obtain resources where they are cheapest but the consumer market is very deliberately segmented (often with the force of law).
My mom gets collection calls for people we have never heard of. She has had the same phone number for 40 years. The collections weasels not only call the numbers associated with the alleged debtor, they call all numbers of anyone with the same or similar last name. Then they refuse to believe that you have never heard of the person they try to reach. Occasionally I have gotten wrong number collectors to stop by daring them to sue.
It does seem overdone there.
There are a LOT of variables in metabolism and we clearly don't know all of them yet. For example, a person could consume only adequate calories but they end up preferentially going to fat anyway and the person becomes lethargic from inadequate available calories. Or, if the calories are empty, craving for adequate overall nutrition could cause excessive calorie consumption.
Only as a last resort. AV software mostly excels at bringing a system to it's knees and making itself impossible to remove.
What is needed is to close the hole that let it in.
Meanwhile, most of the products in that list actually scan for Windows virueses!
That is a common theory, but there is some confounding evidence. For example, the obesity rate is growing fast in the 3rd world which has far less excess food than the west.
It can't be that many calories relative to his expenditure if he has 11% body fat. Or does it just burn you up that you can't fat shame someone?
The current trend of declaring fat to be the boogeyman to be avoided at all costs is causing a lot of this. The result is packaged foods with no fat and a load of sugar and pepper to try to give it some sort of taste. Naturally the sugar is a blend of separate ingredients so they don't have to list it first on the ingredients.
Probably because any righteous indignation the U.S. can raise now would be like a homeless man with a sharting problem ranting about bad hygiene.
Actually yes. Copernicus discarded geocentricism and found that the heliocentric model greatly simplified things, but he retained circular orbits with the planets moving at uniform speeds which still required epicycles to match observation. (in fact, it would have required an infinite number of epicycles to exactly match observation).
Kepler took the next step with elliptical orbits and so was able to predict planetary motion with unprecedented accuracy.
It's alive and well. As strange as some of the ideas are, they DO represent the most simple explanation we have for the given observations.
Consider, the whole idea of epicycles was entirely appropriate until eliptical orbist were mathematically shown to be possible and that they matched observation. Then and only then, Occam's Razor dictated that we adopt the theory that planets were in elliptical orbits.