Are you saying that attention deficit disorders are an "imaginary illness"? And that cocaine and marijuana don't have legitimate medical uses? I'll give you over-diagnosed, maybe, but certainly not imaginary.
I have met millennial's who were proud of the fact that they have never ever read a book from cover to cover.
That person was an outlier. The median 18-29 year old reads more books than any other demographic. The mean 18-29 year old reads the same or more than all but the over-65s. (source: Pew book reading survey appendix A).
yes, $possessions are needed, but not $arbitraryDollarAmount $possesions! there's absolutely nothing ESSENTIAL on this $possession that you simply must have.
Is a phone different from a car, computer, TV, etc.? Is it really such a shock to you that sometimes people spend more on a commodity than you think is worth it? People value things differently. That's not a new concept.
Is it worse than student loans which can't be discharged under bankruptcy? At least with an income share agreement, the university doesn't get paid if they don't give the skills needed to get a paying job.
Apple has sold 14 models of iPhone, ever. Southwest currently operates 3 varieties of 737. Is it so inconceivable that Apple and Southwest team up, as a marketing gimmick, to get those 42 combinations approved and then advertise that you can now use any iPhone on any Southwest flight to call your ride before you land? (actually, now that I've written it, I think it is inconceivable, but not for any reason to do with the FAA: who wants to deal with other passengers talking loudly on the phone in-flight?). The fact that such a (admittedly hypothetical) scenario exists says to me that there isn't an FAA ban on cellphones on airplanes.
I agree that a regulation can become so onerous that it effectively becomes a ban, but I don't think we're quite at that point with cellphones on airplanes.
The first source you linked does state that the FAA had a "long-standing ban" on cellphones, but it cites no source for that claim. I've never heard of Monroe Aerospace so I'm not inclined to take them at their word, especially when it contradicts a more reputable source - the other one that you linked to. Quote from that source -
What I do want to emphasize is that the FAA is not changing its rules....If an air carrier elects to permit cell phone usage (or other PED) onboard during flight, they must determine that the use of that particular model phone won’t interfere with the navigation or communication systems onboard the specific type of aircraft on which the phone will be used.
The Wikipedia article I linked calls out something similar and includes a source in its second sentence
I'm not arguing with you in bad faith. I think we're getting caught up on a difference in opinions on whether "only allowed under certain conditions" constitutes a ban.
Or someone who knew that with a provocative headline, he could attract clicks from both the readers thinking "Yeah! Screw the billionaires!" and the readers thinking "Who is this moron who thinks airlines have exclusive right to airspace?"
The smartphone isn't the weak link here - it's car manufacturer's "existing trusted system." I suspect it'll be much easier for a bad actor to trick the manufacturer into sending a key to their smartphone than it would be for them to walk into a dealership and convince them to make a copy of a key that isn't already in their possession.
When you pull out the bad rack/row and replace it with a new one, do you throw it straight into the dumpster? Or, do you pay OP's $30/hr warm body to repair it so that it can be slotted in as the replacement for the next rack/row that fails?
"Rack as the unit-of-replacement" necessarily implies that you're just throwing away the hardware after it's replaced. That only makes sense if abandoning repairability gives some other desirable trait (lower initial cost, better performance, lower cost of operation, smaller physical footprint). This is an extreme case where Microsoft has totally abandoned repairability in exchange for lower cooling costs.
I can't believe I had to scroll through dozens of up-modded comments before finding someone making this point. I don't have mod points, but thank you for the thoughtful post.
Source for the above claim. Obama falls pretty much right in the middle of the pack, with Trump a few places higher.
The question is really whether "number of executive orders per year" is a good metric for executive overreach. Surely not all executive measures are created equal. Hypothetically, Trump/Obama (35 and 55 executive orders per year respectively) could have issued much more over-reaching executive orders than FDR (308 per year). The problem lies not in the number, but in the content. You'd have to do a much more in-depth analysis to say whether or not Obama and Trump's EOs are "out of hand."
If you honestly feel like you're getting "shafted" when you take an Uber, don't. Ride a bicycle, walk, take the bus, drive your own car, or call a taxi.
"But those aren't convenient!" Well, duh. That's why Uber is popular and why they charge the fare they do.
This isn't like dating, where you can hold a grudge and totally ignore someone who jilted you.
Don't forget that other countries have politics, too. It's in the economic interest of the TPP members to let the US back in, but it was also in the economic/geopolitical interest of the US to stay in the TPP, and look at how that turned out...
This isn't accidental breakage, this is by design from Apple.
Have some kind of information to back that up? Yesterday's Slashdot story on the topic had no information about what exactly caused third party displays to stop working with the latest software update. For all we know, it was a security patch with an unintended side effect.
What is changing is that the highly unrealistic target of 50 mpg for fleet average requirements in 2025 are going to be scaled down
How are those two statements compatible? "Scaling down the requirements" is the exact definition of weakening the standard, regardless of whether that standard was achievable.
What do you have on your phone that someone would literally be willing to kill you to access it? Unless you work for a three-lettered government agency and for some reason have sensitive, un-encrypted data on your personal device, is that a real risk for the average person?
I suppose it's a shitty life, enabled and approved by the EU.
Sounds like it's more of a failure by Scandinavian authorities to enforce labor laws, safe transportation practices, and basic sanitation requirements. What do you want the EU to do - send in the non-existent international police to stop people shitting in the bushes?
And who's hiring these truckers anyways? The EU, or Scandinavian businesses that don't want to pay eye-watering Scandinavian wages to have their goods shipped around?
"A citizen of your country did something that is illegal in both of our countries which affected institutions in our country. Send him here so that we can prosecute him for the crimes he committed." Bullying?
Unless you can also point to some evidence that the US tried to lean on the UK in other areas to persuade them to extradite the indicted individual, you'll have a hard time selling this as "bullying."
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying that attention deficit disorders are an "imaginary illness"? And that cocaine and marijuana don't have legitimate medical uses? I'll give you over-diagnosed, maybe, but certainly not imaginary.
I have met millennial's who were proud of the fact that they have never ever read a book from cover to cover.
That person was an outlier. The median 18-29 year old reads more books than any other demographic. The mean 18-29 year old reads the same or more than all but the over-65s. (source: Pew book reading survey appendix A).
yes, $possessions are needed, but not $arbitraryDollarAmount $possesions! there's absolutely nothing ESSENTIAL on this $possession that you simply must have.
Is a phone different from a car, computer, TV, etc.? Is it really such a shock to you that sometimes people spend more on a commodity than you think is worth it? People value things differently. That's not a new concept.
Is it worse than student loans which can't be discharged under bankruptcy? At least with an income share agreement, the university doesn't get paid if they don't give the skills needed to get a paying job.
Apple has sold 14 models of iPhone, ever. Southwest currently operates 3 varieties of 737. Is it so inconceivable that Apple and Southwest team up, as a marketing gimmick, to get those 42 combinations approved and then advertise that you can now use any iPhone on any Southwest flight to call your ride before you land? (actually, now that I've written it, I think it is inconceivable, but not for any reason to do with the FAA: who wants to deal with other passengers talking loudly on the phone in-flight?). The fact that such a (admittedly hypothetical) scenario exists says to me that there isn't an FAA ban on cellphones on airplanes.
I agree that a regulation can become so onerous that it effectively becomes a ban, but I don't think we're quite at that point with cellphones on airplanes.
The first source you linked does state that the FAA had a "long-standing ban" on cellphones, but it cites no source for that claim. I've never heard of Monroe Aerospace so I'm not inclined to take them at their word, especially when it contradicts a more reputable source - the other one that you linked to. Quote from that source -
What I do want to emphasize is that the FAA is not changing its rules....If an air carrier elects to permit cell phone usage (or other PED) onboard during flight, they must determine that the use of that particular model phone won’t interfere with the navigation or communication systems onboard the specific type of aircraft on which the phone will be used.
The Wikipedia article I linked calls out something similar and includes a source in its second sentence
I'm not arguing with you in bad faith. I think we're getting caught up on a difference in opinions on whether "only allowed under certain conditions" constitutes a ban.
Quote from the article you linked - "For years, cell calls were banned on commercial flights—not from the FAA, but from the FCC."
The FCC bans use of cellphones on aircraft, not the FAA. The Wikipedia article on the topic links out to a few other good sources.
Or someone who knew that with a provocative headline, he could attract clicks from both the readers thinking "Yeah! Screw the billionaires!" and the readers thinking "Who is this moron who thinks airlines have exclusive right to airspace?"
The smartphone isn't the weak link here - it's car manufacturer's "existing trusted system." I suspect it'll be much easier for a bad actor to trick the manufacturer into sending a key to their smartphone than it would be for them to walk into a dealership and convince them to make a copy of a key that isn't already in their possession.
When you pull out the bad rack/row and replace it with a new one, do you throw it straight into the dumpster? Or, do you pay OP's $30/hr warm body to repair it so that it can be slotted in as the replacement for the next rack/row that fails?
"Rack as the unit-of-replacement" necessarily implies that you're just throwing away the hardware after it's replaced. That only makes sense if abandoning repairability gives some other desirable trait (lower initial cost, better performance, lower cost of operation, smaller physical footprint). This is an extreme case where Microsoft has totally abandoned repairability in exchange for lower cooling costs.
Fortunately I didn't need them, because his comment was already modded to +5. Thanks for your feedback!
I can't believe I had to scroll through dozens of up-modded comments before finding someone making this point. I don't have mod points, but thank you for the thoughtful post.
Is this a problem people have? The iPhone X is the first phone I've used in quite a while that doesn't need to be charged every day.
Relevant Wikipedia article, for the curious.
Source for the above claim. Obama falls pretty much right in the middle of the pack, with Trump a few places higher.
The question is really whether "number of executive orders per year" is a good metric for executive overreach. Surely not all executive measures are created equal. Hypothetically, Trump/Obama (35 and 55 executive orders per year respectively) could have issued much more over-reaching executive orders than FDR (308 per year). The problem lies not in the number, but in the content. You'd have to do a much more in-depth analysis to say whether or not Obama and Trump's EOs are "out of hand."
people complaining about it
Advocating for lascivious and antisocial behavior. -10 points.
If you honestly feel like you're getting "shafted" when you take an Uber, don't. Ride a bicycle, walk, take the bus, drive your own car, or call a taxi.
"But those aren't convenient!" Well, duh. That's why Uber is popular and why they charge the fare they do.
This isn't like dating, where you can hold a grudge and totally ignore someone who jilted you.
Don't forget that other countries have politics, too. It's in the economic interest of the TPP members to let the US back in, but it was also in the economic/geopolitical interest of the US to stay in the TPP, and look at how that turned out...
Vinyl obviously can only be used in stationary systems.
I beg to differ!
This isn't accidental breakage, this is by design from Apple.
Have some kind of information to back that up? Yesterday's Slashdot story on the topic had no information about what exactly caused third party displays to stop working with the latest software update. For all we know, it was a security patch with an unintended side effect.
Standards are not going to be weakened.
What is changing is that the highly unrealistic target of 50 mpg for fleet average requirements in 2025 are going to be scaled down
How are those two statements compatible? "Scaling down the requirements" is the exact definition of weakening the standard, regardless of whether that standard was achievable.
What do you have on your phone that someone would literally be willing to kill you to access it? Unless you work for a three-lettered government agency and for some reason have sensitive, un-encrypted data on your personal device, is that a real risk for the average person?
I suppose it's a shitty life, enabled and approved by the EU.
Sounds like it's more of a failure by Scandinavian authorities to enforce labor laws, safe transportation practices, and basic sanitation requirements. What do you want the EU to do - send in the non-existent international police to stop people shitting in the bushes?
And who's hiring these truckers anyways? The EU, or Scandinavian businesses that don't want to pay eye-watering Scandinavian wages to have their goods shipped around?
"A citizen of your country did something that is illegal in both of our countries which affected institutions in our country. Send him here so that we can prosecute him for the crimes he committed." Bullying?
Unless you can also point to some evidence that the US tried to lean on the UK in other areas to persuade them to extradite the indicted individual, you'll have a hard time selling this as "bullying."