I'm familiar with those rules. However, they are written in a foreign language that I have great difficulty understanding so I don't trust my own interpretation, and the interpretations I've heard from other people have varied quite a bit.
I'm not sure I understand. If it falls under the Light Sport rules, why not allow it to be flown under the same restrictions as other Light Sport aircraft? Those can be flown even into class B airspace with the proper endorsements. Relatively large and high performance touring motorgliders can as well, and don't even have the requirement to be healthy enough to obtain a driver's license.
Yes but if you know in advance that you'll fail, and instead simply don't get a new medical, you can continue to fly in a category which does not require one.
Now, the rule that says that you can fly Light Sport without a medical but you can't fly if you've been denied a medical truly makes no sense. But if you can get out ahead of time so that your medical simply lapses instead of failing it, you're still in fine shape. And my understanding is that you can continue to fly gliders (including motorgliders with performance comparable to some Light Sport planes) even if you have actually failed a medical.
The thing is, with aircraft, if you graze anything or your aircraft is grazed by anything else, much less dented, the aircraft is instantly grounded until inspected by an A&P ( Airframe and Power Plant mechanic) and certified as being once again airworthy. So parking will be a pit of a problem.
Got cite? IAAP and I've never so much as heard of such a thing. My fellow pilots frequently shrug off such minor damage if it's obvious it hasn't damaged the structure. Maybe they're all just violating the regs (wouldn't be the first time) but it seems unlikely.
Hell yes. I know a guy who needs to go through a bunch of crap every single year because he once had hepatitis C. What does once having had hepatitis C (he is now cured) have to do with your ability to fly an airplane? Jack diddly squat, that's what.
The FAA has different medical requirements for different types of aircraft for a reason. There's no point in holding yourself to a higher standard than what the FAA requires. If you still feel good enough to fly but would fail a higher-class medical on a technicality, why not fly?
Because while being covered with dimples may work well for a golf ball, they do considerably less aerodynamic good when applied to an airplane by a passing hail storm.
I'm not wrong. 13 hijackings in a year is not "raining out of the sky". It's good that it doesn't happen anymore, but the lack of planes "raining out of the sky" is not proof that the TSA is useful.
You know what's also illegal? Refusing to honor a warranty if the owner of the product in question didn't actually break it.
Get this straight: it is legal to mod products you purchase and your original warranty still applies. Obviously it does not apply if the breakage is due to the modding. But if you have a problem that is unrelated to the modding, then the manufacturer is legally obligated to honor the warranty.
If you jailbreak and hose your phone while doing it and then try to cover your tracks and get service, that is indeed fraud. But if you jailbreak and then discover an unrelated defect, and then restore your phone to try to get around Apple's illegal refusal to service jailbroken phones, there's nothing wrong with that.
It is a lie. It is illegal to void a warranty for any reason other than actual damage being done.
To put it more simply: if you jailbreak your phone, and jailbreaking breaks the phone, then you have voided your warranty. If you jailbreak your phone and this does not break the warranty, then your warranty is still in full effect.
Your position is the exact same kind of bullshit that PC manufacturers have tried to use to deny, for example, replacing broken LCD screens because a laptop has Linux installed. That is illegal and just because companies try to get away with it doesn't change that fact.
Is this a trick question? You certainly sound like you've trapped me in some sort of logical corner. But you haven't. Because my answer, that it's due to basic security screening, doesn't contradict anything I've already said.
Basic screening to keep nutcases off planes is useful and effective. That does not contradict anything I've said so far. That the TSA's system stops these people is a good thing but largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the TSA is a gigantic waste of money. Basic nutcase-stopping screening could be accomplished for probably around 5% of the cost that we currently pay to run the TSA.
Also, it does say "the get a...schedule" instead of "to get a...schedule".
I read right past that! Funny.
As for "will be", maybe this is just a regional thing, because I find absolutely nothing strange about it at all. Of course that certainly doesn't mean that you don't.
Makes sense to me. To automatically record programs using PVRs, the PVR needs to know when the programs are actually being shown. These schedules are difficult to obtain in machine-readable format. Someone who has used a PVR which doesn't come with such a schedule will have experienced this. Which part didn't you get?
Reductio ad absurdum is a highly logical and respected technique for making an argument. Given the context in which you used the phrase, I assume you meant it as a logical fallacy, but it's not a fallacy. Perhaps you meant that it is an oversimplification?
Yes, I am too young to remember the 70s. 13 hijackings in a year does not seem like a particularly large number. Certainly nowhere near "raining down" numbers.
I'm pretty sure that depicting Jesus as "throwing up the horns" is far worse than disparagingly quoting the bible. That's why I didn't go looking for examples of heretical bible verse usage: the American media does things that are vastly worse regularly.
As for legitimate death threats, I have no statistics, because I have not studied the problem that extensively. However, just off the top of my head I can name two people who have been killed by Muslims for disparaging their religion, and a third who has received a death threat not just from a random person but from the supreme leader of a fairly powerful middle eastern country, who has subsequently survived an assassination attempt, and who has had several people associated with him killed.
I know of nobody who has even received death threats from Christians for going against their religion (although I do not doubt that it has happened) and nobody who has actually been killed as a result. Perhaps this is simply my bias filtering the world. If so, please inform me of some people who have been seriously threatened or assassinated (again, in modern times) by Christians because of something said against their religion.
Lastly, you seem to fall for the classic programmer's fallacy that if something is not absolutely objectively possible to determine, then it cannot be determined at all. While there are many gray areas, it is possible to at least somewhat verify the seriousness of a death threat. If it comes from some person you've never heard of, who has no known ties to any groups known to carry out killings, it is very probably not serious. If it comes, for example, from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, then you should legitimately fear for your life.
I'm not aware of any way to enlighten people who feel that murder is an acceptable, nay desired, response to another person's perceived blasphemy. Being snide is at least entertaining, and no less effective than anything else. Do you know of some way to influence such people?
Just off the top of my head, you have Homer Simpson meeting God at least once, a somewhat well-known science fiction writer doing a parody of Inferno with the hero as a science fiction writer who tries to rationalize Hell as an alien amusement park, and Penny Arcade frequently features Jesus who "throws up the horns" and "is fucking metal". LucasArts wrote a game in the 90s which put the player in charge of Heaven and Hell. The movies Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty depict God for the purposes of comedy, and they're hardly the only place that's been done. I've never heard of any of these places getting death threats.
Maybe it happens though, and they just disregard them because those threats are empty. Perhaps I should tighten my standards. It only counts if you receive real death threats, i.e. threats that have a good potential for being carried out. That's a big difference between pissing off Christians and Muslims. The Christian death threats are nearly always just a level beyond "may you rot in Hell forever", a curse. Muslim death threats frequently result in a (sometimes successful) attempt on the target's life.
This is total bullshit. You're making the common mistake of examining their current budget, their current results, and assuming that achieving more results would require either more money or less speed.
This is simply false. It is false because it overlooks a simple fact: the current use of the budget is horrendously inefficient. In other words, better results can be achieved without making things slower (and indeed, while making things faster) on the same budget.
Most of what the TSA does is useless. Eliminate that, and suddenly you have a bunch of free money sitting around and people going through security faster. Take that money and put it into things that are actually useful. Now you have faster, better security for the same amount of money.
Why doesn't this happen? Mainly because this better security would be a lot less visible. This makes moron travelers feel less safe (even though they are actually more safe) and opens bureaucrats up to blame in the event that someone gets through it. All rationality flies out the window in the ceaseless finger-pointing that follows any failure, and the vast majority of bureaucrats are far more concerned with protecting their own asses than protecting the country.
How is that any sort of argument? Planes weren't raining out of the sky before the TSA was around, or even before any security measures were being taken.
I will sell you this rock, it keeps tigers away....
You sure? Big media companies do that stuff all the time and I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe it happens but they just ignore it, it's possible, but you'd think such things would be made known.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm familiar with those rules. However, they are written in a foreign language that I have great difficulty understanding so I don't trust my own interpretation, and the interpretations I've heard from other people have varied quite a bit.
I'm not sure I understand. If it falls under the Light Sport rules, why not allow it to be flown under the same restrictions as other Light Sport aircraft? Those can be flown even into class B airspace with the proper endorsements. Relatively large and high performance touring motorgliders can as well, and don't even have the requirement to be healthy enough to obtain a driver's license.
Which hepatitis C medications create a substantial chance of sudden incapacitation for five years after you stop taking them?
Yes but if you know in advance that you'll fail, and instead simply don't get a new medical, you can continue to fly in a category which does not require one.
Now, the rule that says that you can fly Light Sport without a medical but you can't fly if you've been denied a medical truly makes no sense. But if you can get out ahead of time so that your medical simply lapses instead of failing it, you're still in fine shape. And my understanding is that you can continue to fly gliders (including motorgliders with performance comparable to some Light Sport planes) even if you have actually failed a medical.
The thing is, with aircraft, if you graze anything or your aircraft is grazed by anything else, much less dented, the aircraft is instantly grounded until inspected by an A&P ( Airframe and Power Plant mechanic) and certified as being once again airworthy. So parking will be a pit of a problem.
Got cite? IAAP and I've never so much as heard of such a thing. My fellow pilots frequently shrug off such minor damage if it's obvious it hasn't damaged the structure. Maybe they're all just violating the regs (wouldn't be the first time) but it seems unlikely.
Hell yes. I know a guy who needs to go through a bunch of crap every single year because he once had hepatitis C. What does once having had hepatitis C (he is now cured) have to do with your ability to fly an airplane? Jack diddly squat, that's what.
The FAA has different medical requirements for different types of aircraft for a reason. There's no point in holding yourself to a higher standard than what the FAA requires. If you still feel good enough to fly but would fail a higher-class medical on a technicality, why not fly?
Because while being covered with dimples may work well for a golf ball, they do considerably less aerodynamic good when applied to an airplane by a passing hail storm.
I'm not wrong. 13 hijackings in a year is not "raining out of the sky". It's good that it doesn't happen anymore, but the lack of planes "raining out of the sky" is not proof that the TSA is useful.
You know what's also illegal? Refusing to honor a warranty if the owner of the product in question didn't actually break it.
Get this straight: it is legal to mod products you purchase and your original warranty still applies. Obviously it does not apply if the breakage is due to the modding. But if you have a problem that is unrelated to the modding, then the manufacturer is legally obligated to honor the warranty.
If you jailbreak and hose your phone while doing it and then try to cover your tracks and get service, that is indeed fraud. But if you jailbreak and then discover an unrelated defect, and then restore your phone to try to get around Apple's illegal refusal to service jailbroken phones, there's nothing wrong with that.
It is a lie. It is illegal to void a warranty for any reason other than actual damage being done.
To put it more simply: if you jailbreak your phone, and jailbreaking breaks the phone, then you have voided your warranty. If you jailbreak your phone and this does not break the warranty, then your warranty is still in full effect.
Your position is the exact same kind of bullshit that PC manufacturers have tried to use to deny, for example, replacing broken LCD screens because a laptop has Linux installed. That is illegal and just because companies try to get away with it doesn't change that fact.
Exactly so. The two kill switches are identical.
On a completely unrelated note, Google lets you install software directly, without going through them.
This article somehow thinks that the second fact has some bearing on the first. But it doesn't.
Is this a trick question? You certainly sound like you've trapped me in some sort of logical corner. But you haven't. Because my answer, that it's due to basic security screening, doesn't contradict anything I've already said.
Basic screening to keep nutcases off planes is useful and effective. That does not contradict anything I've said so far. That the TSA's system stops these people is a good thing but largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the TSA is a gigantic waste of money. Basic nutcase-stopping screening could be accomplished for probably around 5% of the cost that we currently pay to run the TSA.
Also, it does say "the get a...schedule" instead of "to get a...schedule".
I read right past that! Funny.
As for "will be", maybe this is just a regional thing, because I find absolutely nothing strange about it at all. Of course that certainly doesn't mean that you don't.
Makes sense to me. To automatically record programs using PVRs, the PVR needs to know when the programs are actually being shown. These schedules are difficult to obtain in machine-readable format. Someone who has used a PVR which doesn't come with such a schedule will have experienced this. Which part didn't you get?
Reductio ad absurdum is a highly logical and respected technique for making an argument. Given the context in which you used the phrase, I assume you meant it as a logical fallacy, but it's not a fallacy. Perhaps you meant that it is an oversimplification?
Yes, I am too young to remember the 70s. 13 hijackings in a year does not seem like a particularly large number. Certainly nowhere near "raining down" numbers.
That's a bad way to put it, because most people will answer "the TSA".
Much better to put it like, "Which would you rather have, the current useless TSA security system, or a tax cut and a working system?"
Got cite? Wikipedia only lists 6 hijackings in the 1970s. Perhaps all these other ones weren't notable enough to list?
I'm pretty sure that depicting Jesus as "throwing up the horns" is far worse than disparagingly quoting the bible. That's why I didn't go looking for examples of heretical bible verse usage: the American media does things that are vastly worse regularly.
As for legitimate death threats, I have no statistics, because I have not studied the problem that extensively. However, just off the top of my head I can name two people who have been killed by Muslims for disparaging their religion, and a third who has received a death threat not just from a random person but from the supreme leader of a fairly powerful middle eastern country, who has subsequently survived an assassination attempt, and who has had several people associated with him killed.
I know of nobody who has even received death threats from Christians for going against their religion (although I do not doubt that it has happened) and nobody who has actually been killed as a result. Perhaps this is simply my bias filtering the world. If so, please inform me of some people who have been seriously threatened or assassinated (again, in modern times) by Christians because of something said against their religion.
Lastly, you seem to fall for the classic programmer's fallacy that if something is not absolutely objectively possible to determine, then it cannot be determined at all. While there are many gray areas, it is possible to at least somewhat verify the seriousness of a death threat. If it comes from some person you've never heard of, who has no known ties to any groups known to carry out killings, it is very probably not serious. If it comes, for example, from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, then you should legitimately fear for your life.
I'm not aware of any way to enlighten people who feel that murder is an acceptable, nay desired, response to another person's perceived blasphemy. Being snide is at least entertaining, and no less effective than anything else. Do you know of some way to influence such people?
Just off the top of my head, you have Homer Simpson meeting God at least once, a somewhat well-known science fiction writer doing a parody of Inferno with the hero as a science fiction writer who tries to rationalize Hell as an alien amusement park, and Penny Arcade frequently features Jesus who "throws up the horns" and "is fucking metal". LucasArts wrote a game in the 90s which put the player in charge of Heaven and Hell. The movies Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty depict God for the purposes of comedy, and they're hardly the only place that's been done. I've never heard of any of these places getting death threats.
Maybe it happens though, and they just disregard them because those threats are empty. Perhaps I should tighten my standards. It only counts if you receive real death threats, i.e. threats that have a good potential for being carried out. That's a big difference between pissing off Christians and Muslims. The Christian death threats are nearly always just a level beyond "may you rot in Hell forever", a curse. Muslim death threats frequently result in a (sometimes successful) attempt on the target's life.
This is total bullshit. You're making the common mistake of examining their current budget, their current results, and assuming that achieving more results would require either more money or less speed.
This is simply false. It is false because it overlooks a simple fact: the current use of the budget is horrendously inefficient. In other words, better results can be achieved without making things slower (and indeed, while making things faster) on the same budget.
Most of what the TSA does is useless. Eliminate that, and suddenly you have a bunch of free money sitting around and people going through security faster. Take that money and put it into things that are actually useful. Now you have faster, better security for the same amount of money.
Why doesn't this happen? Mainly because this better security would be a lot less visible. This makes moron travelers feel less safe (even though they are actually more safe) and opens bureaucrats up to blame in the event that someone gets through it. All rationality flies out the window in the ceaseless finger-pointing that follows any failure, and the vast majority of bureaucrats are far more concerned with protecting their own asses than protecting the country.
How is that any sort of argument? Planes weren't raining out of the sky before the TSA was around, or even before any security measures were being taken.
I will sell you this rock, it keeps tigers away....
I've never so much as heard of anyone receiving a death threat for publishing an anti-Christian cartoon or depicting Jesus. Got cite?
You sure? Big media companies do that stuff all the time and I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe it happens but they just ignore it, it's possible, but you'd think such things would be made known.