Agree. Either by design or ineptitude the FAA couldn't put together a workable process for commercial UAS
For farmers (private land owners) below the navigational airspace (500 feet above obstacles) IMO this the land-owner's property and non of the FAA's domain.
i.e. the FAA is blowing smoke to threaten people out of working their own land until they can contort it into a regulatory money pump.
Does this include economic activity lost for the FAA being too shortsighted or too belligerent to have a workable permit system for commercial use of drones in 2014?
Essentially what I'm getting at is, whenever I hear this objection to "central planning", the real issue always seems to boil down to "rich people might not make enough money."
Obviously, that's what you're hearing, because that's what you think. But there's a huge difference between this and the interstate highway system: the interstate highway does not tell you what to do (well, unless you're on it, or you happen to be one of the properties condemned in order to build it...)
Using the freeway is optional. Food, clothing, shelter to the degree required isn't as much. The moment you abstract basic human needs/wants away from the source the more chance there is for misery: since the person most in tune with what they need is the person himself. Someone else in a far away city through malice or negligence sooner or later is going to get it wrong.
IMO, government control should have an exponential scale. Tyranny begins at home, and should taper off from there precipitously.
As an individual I should have exclusive rule over my thoughts, my speech, my body, and my property. (kids you don't get that until your old enough to have some common sense!)
My neighborhood and town has lots to say over how things should be conducted. That's fine: though it should do as little as possible about my property. And next to nothing about my person.
Even less control at the county level.
My state should have even less control.
Finally the national/federal government should have the very least amount of control over my person.
All levels should defend me, the individual. So two major caveats for the federal level: they get to repel foreign invaders, and they may see to it that no level of rule may be enacted at other level that deprives me of my ability to move freely or to defend my own body. (Civil war kind of decided that one: except hello Obama Care! Oh the irony of history...)
Okay, we're a stone's throw from the east side of Jupiter on all of this right now in the United States. But that's the way I think it was suppose to run.
Central planning that has direct control of the individual is courting equal misery for the common man: the author of TFA is promoting a way to achieve it.
First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.
i.e.
We the central planners will determine what you need, because anything you think you need, is just a want -- at least that's what we think -- and since we're in charge, we decide. This is just not something you little citizens think about enough!
Our profits are flat. We need a way to boost our income, but with this economy we can't raise prices much more. We're already getting heat from the state for last year's tuition rates.
BOARD MEMBER 2:
We could lower admissions requirements: you know, expand our market.
BOARD MEMBER 1:
What? And degrade our reputation as an institution of high academic integrity! Impossible.
BOARD MEMBER 3:
What if everyone lowered their admissions standards?
BOARD MEMBER 2:
Everyone?
BOARD MEMBER 3:
All the colleges.
BOARD MEMBER 1:
Impossible!
BOARD MEMBER 3:
We float the idea that colleges are missing creative and talented people, who just aren't good at testing: old standards were just to rigid and old fashioned. Out with the old, in with the new: that sort of thing.
Yeah, but the government would have made zero monies had it prosecuted a hacking charge. This route was way more profitable for them (even if it wasn't technically their purview).
Somebody mod my previous comment out of existence: I was re-stating Strider's informative post... feeling too sick to work, and it looks like I'm too ill to be on/. either
The Marriott was hacking the competing networks, not jamming them.
Hacking is a federal offense in the United States.
However, since there probably wasn't any money to be made by prosecuting some Marriott employees with a felony, they somehow roped the FCC into this so they could collect some sizable fines instead.
What the Marriott was doing was HACKING not JAMMING.
To the end-user it might appear they were effectively jamming: but they were not doing so by drowning out or canceling radio transmissions: instead they created a hostile network that more or less "hacked" the other networks in its range. I can see why the FCC got the call, but technically this is probably more one for the FBI.
I should probably take offense at this a bit, since I did a bit of multicast programming back in the day, but hey, just because I know how to use implementations of UDP and TCP over IP doesn't mean I understand the underlying layers. So I'm sure this must be in your wheelhouse.
And while I can see the advantage of sending more traffic over an already open socket, in the web-world isn't this just another name for a single-threaded browser?
I must concede the NSA doesn't need home-sourced traffic capture when they already control all the gateways.
the real performance gains are expected to come from multiplexing. This is where multiple requests can be share the same TCP connection
Now we can report your activities to the NSA at the same time as the request: all right from your own computer! (pay no attention to those extra binary headers, they're there for your safety!)
Exactly. But this is from the company who though zip-ing Excel files was a good idea (XLSX). You spend more time waiting for the file to decompress than actual loading into memory.
Obfuscation of headers into binary is going to put a lot of AJAX code out of business.
I think the difference here is we aren't just talking about Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, or The Big Purple Elephant in the Sky®, we are talking about an entity responsible for reality vs. some sort of accidental or self-establishing reality.
Personally, I find the latter preposterous, to others the former is unnecessary: therefore that entity need not (or more often) must not exist.
To me, the single largest philosophical proof of intentional design is the fact these ideas can and are considered at all; in a purely consumptive evolution such discourse need never occur.
Really? I thought my argumentum ad absurdum was rather pithy.
On most other subjects when people engage in an activity that contradicts their beliefs they are labeled hypocrites. But I understand from your explanation that environmentalism is a special brand of religion whose dalliances must be overlooked for the greater good, an outlook the mature understand; only a child would dare say the emperor has no clothes.
But data transmission energy is such a small consumption by comparison and since power plant energy production is lost if its not used: 400,000 people watching a youtube video might affect google's bottom-line (if they have one of those), but energy-wise the difference hardly registers at the utility level.
Now if you had 400,000 people charging their Prius to go to an environmentalist convention, that might be a little different.
Sure they'll encrypt your files with a key they don't know just like they said. But to comply with law enforcement all they would have to do is intercept your password when you enter it. And that's done easily : keyboard driver update patch for target users: collects and forwards the password to the feds.
That way they're still encrypted as advertised. And its possible that if you lose your phone or its confiscated that this would still be a plus. But I think this password intercept is how the feds would get access if they're monitoring you specifically.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree. Either by design or ineptitude the FAA couldn't put together a workable process for commercial UAS
For farmers (private land owners) below the navigational airspace (500 feet above obstacles) IMO this the land-owner's property and non of the FAA's domain.
i.e. the FAA is blowing smoke to threaten people out of working their own land until they can contort it into a regulatory money pump.
Does this include economic activity lost for the FAA being too shortsighted or too belligerent to have a workable permit system for commercial use of drones in 2014?
I only highlighted this because of sabri's reply:
I don't know
He doesn't know if you are able to work for him, but he does have the power to permit you to work for him.
My Uncle used to get me and my cousins with this nuance all the time. So it was kind of reflex to highlight it here.
Essentially what I'm getting at is, whenever I hear this objection to "central planning", the real issue always seems to boil down to "rich people might not make enough money."
Obviously, that's what you're hearing, because that's what you think. But there's a huge difference between this and the interstate highway system: the interstate highway does not tell you what to do (well, unless you're on it, or you happen to be one of the properties condemned in order to build it...)
Using the freeway is optional. Food, clothing, shelter to the degree required isn't as much. The moment you abstract basic human needs/wants away from the source the more chance there is for misery: since the person most in tune with what they need is the person himself. Someone else in a far away city through malice or negligence sooner or later is going to get it wrong.
IMO, government control should have an exponential scale. Tyranny begins at home, and should taper off from there precipitously.
All levels should defend me, the individual. So two major caveats for the federal level: they get to repel foreign invaders, and they may see to it that no level of rule may be enacted at other level that deprives me of my ability to move freely or to defend my own body. (Civil war kind of decided that one: except hello Obama Care! Oh the irony of history...)
Okay, we're a stone's throw from the east side of Jupiter on all of this right now in the United States. But that's the way I think it was suppose to run.
Central planning that has direct control of the individual is courting equal misery for the common man: the author of TFA is promoting a way to achieve it.
First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.
i.e.
We the central planners will determine what you need, because anything you think you need, is just a want -- at least that's what we think -- and since we're in charge, we decide. This is just not something you little citizens think about enough!
BOARD MEMBER 1:
Our profits are flat. We need a way to boost our income, but with this economy we can't raise prices much more. We're already getting heat from the state for last year's tuition rates.
BOARD MEMBER 2:
We could lower admissions requirements: you know, expand our market.
BOARD MEMBER 1:
What? And degrade our reputation as an institution of high academic integrity! Impossible.
BOARD MEMBER 3:
What if everyone lowered their admissions standards?
BOARD MEMBER 2:
Everyone?
BOARD MEMBER 3:
All the colleges.
BOARD MEMBER 1:
Impossible!
BOARD MEMBER 3:
We float the idea that colleges are missing creative and talented people, who just aren't good at testing: old standards were just to rigid and old fashioned. Out with the old, in with the new: that sort of thing.
BOARD MEMBER 1:
And then what?
BOARD MEMBER 2
Profit!
BOARD MEMBER 3
Exactly!
Perhaps the recently revealed large and widespread payments made by the CIA to American media
Citation please.
Yeah, but the government would have made zero monies had it prosecuted a hacking charge. This route was way more profitable for them (even if it wasn't technically their purview).
Could they have made more? Probably...
Somebody mod my previous comment out of existence: I was re-stating Strider's informative post... feeling too sick to work, and it looks like I'm too ill to be on /. either
The Marriott was hacking the competing networks, not jamming them.
Hacking is a federal offense in the United States.
However, since there probably wasn't any money to be made by prosecuting some Marriott employees with a felony, they somehow roped the FCC into this so they could collect some sizable fines instead.
What the Marriott was doing was HACKING not JAMMING.
To the end-user it might appear they were effectively jamming: but they were not doing so by drowning out or canceling radio transmissions: instead they created a hostile network that more or less "hacked" the other networks in its range. I can see why the FCC got the call, but technically this is probably more one for the FBI.
I should probably take offense at this a bit, since I did a bit of multicast programming back in the day, but hey, just because I know how to use implementations of UDP and TCP over IP doesn't mean I understand the underlying layers. So I'm sure this must be in your wheelhouse.
And while I can see the advantage of sending more traffic over an already open socket, in the web-world isn't this just another name for a single-threaded browser?
I must concede the NSA doesn't need home-sourced traffic capture when they already control all the gateways.
the real performance gains are expected to come from multiplexing. This is where multiple requests can be share the same TCP connection
Now we can report your activities to the NSA at the same time as the request: all right from your own computer! (pay no attention to those extra binary headers, they're there for your safety!)
Exactly. But this is from the company who though zip-ing Excel files was a good idea (XLSX). You spend more time waiting for the file to decompress than actual loading into memory.
Obfuscation of headers into binary is going to put a lot of AJAX code out of business.
Makes one think none of these programmers ever encountered the adapter pattern.
I think the difference here is we aren't just talking about Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, or The Big Purple Elephant in the Sky®, we are talking about an entity responsible for reality vs. some sort of accidental or self-establishing reality.
Personally, I find the latter preposterous, to others the former is unnecessary: therefore that entity need not (or more often) must not exist.
To me, the single largest philosophical proof of intentional design is the fact these ideas can and are considered at all; in a purely consumptive evolution such discourse need never occur.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
May I work for you, Sabri?
There: fixed it for you!
In the meantime, we can do some pretty universally agreeable things, like shift income and corporate taxes toward carbon taxes.
(If by universal, you mean everyone in the EPA and those who plan to profit from hedges on carbon credits: then I might agree.)
But I digress, you said pretty universal, i.e. partially universal, which is pretty much a contradiction.
Yeah, but its fun!
Really? I thought my argumentum ad absurdum was rather pithy.
On most other subjects when people engage in an activity that contradicts their beliefs they are labeled hypocrites. But I understand from your explanation that environmentalism is a special brand of religion whose dalliances must be overlooked for the greater good, an outlook the mature understand; only a child would dare say the emperor has no clothes.
By this argument you would be justified in killing all the non-environmentalists who disagree with you and thereby save the planet.
Oh, too true
But data transmission energy is such a small consumption by comparison and since power plant energy production is lost if its not used: 400,000 people watching a youtube video might affect google's bottom-line (if they have one of those), but energy-wise the difference hardly registers at the utility level.
Now if you had 400,000 people charging their Prius to go to an environmentalist convention, that might be a little different.
550 buses not including air-travel for speeches that could have been gotten over the internet. How ironic.
They don't need a back-door.
Sure they'll encrypt your files with a key they don't know just like they said. But to comply with law enforcement all they would have to do is intercept your password when you enter it. And that's done easily : keyboard driver update patch for target users: collects and forwards the password to the feds.
That way they're still encrypted as advertised. And its possible that if you lose your phone or its confiscated that this would still be a plus. But I think this password intercept is how the feds would get access if they're monitoring you specifically.