The FAA has jurisidction over military airspace. This includes military operating areas (MOAs), Restricted airspace, and any other Special Use Airspace (SUAs).
The FAA has jurisdiction over all airspace in the US including that below 500 ft above ground level (AGL). https://www.faa.gov/news/updat... Specifically *ALL* airspace within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the US coastline is subject to FAA jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (you can read the boring primary source if you follow links at http://macklow.com/airspace/)
Federal law comes before and above local and state law, so local and state politicians can growse and complain, but they passed laws about airspace... and they have no jurisdiction over that airspace. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) makes sure of that. http://litigation.findlaw.com/...
Finally, these are not drones, and the FAA has not promulgated regulation about drones. These are unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This is what the FAA registration is for, and it DOES cover model aircraft above a certain weight. https://www.faa.gov/uas/
First, the original poster describes that aren't quite there. - It's not a turbine. There are 36 ducted electric fans. - It can lift 430lbs, but a large portion of that is batteries, followed by motors and the unit itself. Don't expect your fat cousin to soar to new heights - Specifically the video only shows it hovering in ground effect (IGE). That means it BARELY makes enough thrust to lift the 180lb guy just high enough to hover. The restriction that "it can't hover over water" reinforces that it only hovers IGE.. - If you watch the video it's clear there is no effective stabilization.
The Arca thing has 272 horsepower. A Robinson R-44 helicopter has 225 horsepower at maximum takeoff power. The Arca thing can lift 430lbs. The same Robinson helicopter can lift 2500lbs. Yes, there's a huge difference between energy density and weight penalty of heavy electric batteries vs 100 octane low-lead aviation gasoline, but this just shows how absurd the concept that you need 272hp to achieve *only* 430lbs of lift, most of which is spent to lift the batteries and the enclosure.
UPSs save lives. If you insist on not backing up your data, not having your equipment on a UPS, and not following standard authentication and encryption standards recommended by industry, have the decency to resign and go home and fall on your blade.
In my house even my AMOLED TV is on a UPS. Power spikes happen all the time. A $100 UPS will prevent a $200 visit to replace a $100 part in a TV power supply. How is that a bad idea?
You're confusing "uncontrolled" with "under nobody's control."
Uncontrolled airspace (class G) means that it is not under ATC operations. See 14 CFR 91.126 (not 91.119 "Minimum safe altitudes").
Further note explicitly 91.126(a) "Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section." That's "must comply" not "optionally can choose to comply" or whatever. The use of this airspace is subject to FAA regulation and control.
The FAA and its regulations are in full control of flight above ground in these United States. Uncontrolled airspace is airspace without direct Air-Traffic-Control facility control, not "outside FAA regulations, purvey, domain, nor control."
That's from the ground up, not 400ft AGL, not 500ftAGL, not some small amount unless you lease them your airspace right of way...
I guess I'm just not used to the attitude of "we can pretend the FAA has no power and do what we want because it pisses us off we have to register our UASs". Ultimately if you don't want to abide by the laws, that's your right. Making up ideas of why the FAA has no jurisdiction is just as nutty as those Sovereign Citizen people claiming the IRS is a hoax and that money they print is real.
There are many smartphones with WiFi that cannot be "rooted" let alone remotely.
Then there are many of us who run permission-checking programs that alert us if something is touching something it shouldn't.
Finally the claims are too broad to be taken seriously. It's a simple application of Okham's Razor along with a little bit of "If it sounds too good to be true... it probably is."
I suspect their device allows them local WiFi access to a subset of smartphones (as they say "older") that have known vulnerabilities in the OS (e.g. previous Android or IOS). There's no known remote root for BlackBerry (remember them?) or current Android (CM12.x).
Marketing people do what they do and LOOK THEY'VE SUCCEEDED because their original ad has now transformed into a discussion on/.:)
I can be searched on the FCC's pages. I can be searched on the FAA's pages.
TL;DR version - it's your choice to exercise this privilege and that privilege includes the cost of registration.
I'm not an apologist for the government. I rail against things that cut into my rights. However, I recognize the difference between my rights that cops who stop me want to violate, and privileges I choose to exercise.
These certificates I hold (amateur radio operator and commercial pilot) are not RIGHTS in the United States, but rather PRIVILEGES which I've chosen to attain. In the process of CHOOSING to attain both those certifications I could have chosen not to give out private information (and not get the certificate) or, as I did, choose to give it out in return for the privilege of using the airwaves and flying in the air.
When you choose to drive a vehicle on private property in this country you are not required to hold a driver's license, be of a certain age, acquire and maintain liability insurance, nor even have your vehicle registered. HOWEVER to use that same vehicle and driver on the public roads all the laws and registrations must be followed. (Don't get me started on how this is abused by governments...)
The national airspace system (NAS) is one such resource. If you intend to fly in it, you must do so in a manner which is legal. Until this year that meant "Have a good time and stay out of trouble." As of tomorrow that also means "get a tail number [not an N-number] for your UAS[not drone]."
If you have made the choice to continue flying your UAS then if you wish to do so as per the law you must register it, display the tail number, and have your information available at the FAA -- and probably subject to search.
Merry Christmas,
Ehud Gavron N5NEQ CPL-H (Commercial Pilot - Helicopter)
I'd rather take security advice from the seventeen year old kid next door. He is probably more up to date, in better shape mentally and physically, less corrupt, hasn't let any terrorists cross the border, armed them, or allowed them into airports. And finally, I KNOW he's actually made it through high-school.
The Zumwalt being in it is part of the eye-candy of a brilliantly researched futuristic setting where China attacks the US and our high-tech stuff turns against us.
Awesome writing, good facts, great insight, and a well-developed plot make it a must-read.
Another way to make money is to make excessive bail requirements in possible collusion with bail bondsmen.
TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.
Now the "I'm sorry but it got long" part:
Bail from the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "Excessive bail shall not be required"
Excessive is when it's greater than the amount necessary to bring the offender to trial. From Wikipidia: "In Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), the Court found that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The US DoJ ought to take a long hard look at how our nation's Courts are handing out large bail requirements --unconstitutionally-- to make it look like they're "tough on crime."
In fact, the people being granted bail are innocent until proven guilty, AND the amount of the bail is only supposed to ensure they show up for trial.
We need a lot of reform in the criminal justice system. Hopefully the DoJ won't whitewash bail while they look at the other methods that "the justice system" screws the people.
Full disclosure: I've never been arrested, offered bail, denied bail, nor am personally part of the legal / "justice" system.
Britain's ministry of justice is second only to the US department of justice in doing
NOTHING FOR JUSTICE WHATSOEVER
but being a pissant wanker in ensuring that people in the system have no access to reality, life, the Internet, and the ability to be part of even an online society, research their case, case law, or learn..... Britain's Ministry of "justice"..... the US department of "justice".
Apple is going to do in 2018 what others have done in 2013, 2014, and 2015.
What is news is this:
Apple is no longer a trendsetter, an innovator, a company that others seek to follow. Apple is a follower, a duplicator, the ass on the donkey of innovation.
I love Arstechnica and read it all the time but that article's headline is misleading. BROADBAND CARRIERS [who also provide Internet access] are classified as common carriers.
To rephrase if the carrier provides the broadband service then they are now considered a common carrier.
That is NOT an ISP. That is a broadband service provider. (Layer 1/Layer 2 but not Layer 3).
ISPs are layer 3 (IP) providers.
CABLE COMPANIES that provide Internet access are now common carriers. DSL PROVIDERS that provide Internet access are now common carriers. MOBILE companies that provide Internet access are now common carriers.
ISPs that do not provide the physical-layer access are NOT common carriers.
ISPs aren't common carriers and have never been common carriers. The FCC doesn't classify them as common carriers either. Really that's of no relevance though.
The DMCA allows that the ISP (if it is not the creator of the content) has a safe-harbor... which unfortunately has meant dick. See for example Viacom v. YouTube where Viacom sued Youtube and it took YEARS and MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for Youtube to prevail using that "safe harbor". That's not a safe harbor.
The DMCA is a piece of crap, written by idiots trying to compromise with an MPAA/RIAA hellbent on destroying rights to protect their "intellectual" property. The safe-harbor provisions including nothing for early termination of a lawsuit (like SLAPP laws) or fee shifting to make the loser pay the winner. Instead it's all about the "IP rights".
The MPAA and the RIAA and the BSA and... (MAFIAA for short) bastardized property law and trademark law and copyright law in an attempt to get the best of all worlds in one. As a result ALL OF US lose.
Please don't make your argument about child porn. It's like bringing up Nazis and ending the discussion. if you can't make your point without "think of the children" or "the Nazis win" you didn't have one to make to begin with.
Mark Cuban once started off rich. Then he invested in RealPlayer and ended up super rich. Good for him - that's what how the Land of Opportunity is supposed to be. You start out with loads of money, and make even more from that. Awesome.
Lately though, he's been involved in failure. HDnet (anyone remember that?), the Dallas Mavericks (anyone remember them), etc.
To be known for being foul-mouthed and poor-sportsmanship is not a golden chalice of virtue.
If Mr. Cuban wanted to contribute to charity he could easily do so -- and a lot more than a measly $30K -- without resorting to foul-mouthed expressions.
He's a kid who never grew up, and there's nothing Peter Pan or cutesy about it.
As used by the Corporation Commissions of the various US states and the FCC, telecommunication carriers *must* publish a tariff, generally it must be approved [or if not specifically then it must be in line with previously approved guidelines], and only then charge consumers what it says.
Using the "uber model" of dynamic pricing -- whether a good idea or not -- is contrary to current US law and FCC regulations. Really.
That brings up two questions: 1. SHOULD it happen? 2. What would be the result?
I'll get to #1 in a sec. first, what would be the result: In a free market, letting supply and demand control price and quantity makes sense. However, absent a notification method to let people know when they pick up the handset HOW MUCH THE CALL WILL COST people will be reluctant to make that call. Regulations forbid charging a number without informing people. If you let people know 'the cost is high" most of them will wait it out. Supply will stabilize but demand will reduce. Overall use will reduce. "Surge" pricing will lead to less demand, less calls, and lower overall product sold.
Given that, SHOULD it happen? No. A reasonably stable commodity price is what leads to consumer confidence to buy, buy now, buy later, and keep on buying. A fluid price leads to a lack of consumer confidence, which with things you can't "store up for later when they're more expensive" leads to less spending. Less spending = downturn economy.
Stupid idea. Regulatorily forbidden in the US. Glad it's dead on the vine.
1 12 - any number that ends on a multiple of 2 is an even number and hence can't be prime 123 - any number whose sum of digits is divisible by 3 is not a prime 1234 - covered in 12 above 12345 - any number whose last digit is a 5 (or 0) is evenly divisible by and hence can't be a prime 123456 - covered in 12 and 123 above 1234567 - the first possible candidate not immediately eliminatable based on consistuent digits 12345678 - covered in 12 123456789 - covered in 123 above 1234567890 - covered in 12 and 12345 above Now we start adding the same sequence back 12345678901 - second possible candidate same rules eliminate all of these up to 12345678901234567
Which means out of each ten digits there are only two candidates for primes - a number ending in 1 or a number ending in 7.
Except that every 3 1-0s they can be eliminated as a multiple of 3 Every 5 1-0s they can be eliminated as a multiple of 5 Every 6 1-0s they can be eliminated as per 3 1-0s above Every 9 1-0s they can be eliminated as per 3 1-0s above
So while ostensibly there are potentially 20% primes in the 1-0 sequence, 40% of those are eliminated in the up-to 10 such sequences, and so on and so on. In fact as you get larger numbers, the predictive nature of the sum of the digits at any juncture allows eliminating more and more numbers asymptotically reaching zero.
I once went on a date where the girl said "I am going to set everything up. It will be a surprise. You'll like it! Don't try to guess what's going to happen!"
It was a great time!
The TTP is almost like that. We don't know what's coming until it does; we all get fucked; big pharma and big media have a great time.
The Internet has been alive and well. I don't know what YOU think of it TODAY so that's not really a definition. It was working just great for those of us in universities, at government labs, at companies supporting the Internet, etc. I'm sorry you weren't aware of it, and some confusion about internet=html hadn't occurred yet either. gopher was pretty good! (for its time)
As for #2... BOTH the creator of Minix AND the creator of Linux have both stated quite clearly (in response to the Samizdat book that never got published but was covered on Groklaw) that Linux did NOT in any way come from MInix.
Andy was upset at Linus because Andy believes in a microkernel architecture and Linus believes in a monolithic kernel. The two disagree, which is allowed and functional. There's room for both. Right now, though, if the minix developers (chortle) are emailing each other, they're doing it on linux boxes.
I'm no troll. Do you know how you can tell? It's because EVERYTHING I said above is easily proven fact by a simple google search. No need to be convoluted, try to obfuscate the truth, use bing or siri, etc. Just google it. It's all true.
One more thing, Sir, I use my real name. That doesn't in and of itself make me a non-troll.. but it does give you the ability to (omg google that too) see that I know these facts. I was there. When the Internet "as we know it today" (whatever) was there. Long before Minix. As it will be long after Minix.
Ehud Gavron Tucson AZ P.S. I'm not a linux fanboi. I whet my teeth on VAX/VMS. However, the market has spoken (and HP and Compaq are great at turning diamonds into coal) and Linux is the market leader for server OSs and desktops for people too stupid to know when not to click "open this attachment".
Minix the book came out in 1987. The Internet was developed in 1973, was connecting universities and research centers and companies as the NSFnet in 1985. 1985 and 1973 are both before 1987 so no, there WAS TOO an Internet when Minix came out.
Secondly Linux did NOT come out from Minix. Both Andrew Tenenbaum and Linus Torvalds said that.
I've giving you ZERO out of two possible points for telling the truth and not being a stupid troll.
"The idea is to exchange ideas and experiences among MINIX 3 developers and users..."
I wish all seven of them have a good time exchanging ideas and experiences. Perhaps they could use email. You know. Like through a linux server. Because. That's how it works.
"If the OSI developers are emailing each other, it's over TCP/IP" -- Steven Belovin, before you were born "If the Minix developers[sic] are emailing each other, it's on Linux systems" -- me
Slashdot Mirror
The FAA has jurisidction over military airspace. This includes military operating areas (MOAs), Restricted airspace, and any other Special Use Airspace (SUAs).
See: https://www.faasafety.gov/gsla...
Ehud
The FAA has jurisdiction over all airspace in the US including that below 500 ft above ground level (AGL). https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...
Specifically *ALL* airspace within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the US coastline is subject to FAA jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (you can read the boring primary source if you follow links at http://macklow.com/airspace/)
Federal law comes before and above local and state law, so local and state politicians can growse and complain, but they passed laws about airspace... and they have no jurisdiction over that airspace. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) makes sure of that. http://litigation.findlaw.com/...
Finally, these are not drones, and the FAA has not promulgated regulation about drones. These are unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This is what the FAA registration is for, and it DOES cover model aircraft above a certain weight. https://www.faa.gov/uas/
Ehud
P.S. The following articles all APPEAR to be different... until you read the comments, and realize that every time this topic comes up the same people come out of the woodwork to make up the same stories. Please help spread the facts. (See links above).
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
and even on a California legislature story: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
That's how open-source projects handle differences in philosophy, transparency, coding direction, etc.
Reserving billions of dollars worth of digital coin for yourself isn't.
let's see if they do a better job than Bitcoin in this regard.
*or dogecoin or the various other derivatives*
E
First, the original poster describes that aren't quite there.
- It's not a turbine. There are 36 ducted electric fans.
- It can lift 430lbs, but a large portion of that is batteries, followed by motors and the unit itself. Don't expect your fat cousin to soar to new heights
- Specifically the video only shows it hovering in ground effect (IGE). That means it BARELY makes enough thrust to lift the 180lb guy just high enough to hover. The restriction that "it can't hover over water" reinforces that it only hovers IGE..
- If you watch the video it's clear there is no effective stabilization.
The Arca thing has 272 horsepower. A Robinson R-44 helicopter has 225 horsepower at maximum takeoff power.
The Arca thing can lift 430lbs. The same Robinson helicopter can lift 2500lbs.
Yes, there's a huge difference between energy density and weight penalty of heavy electric batteries vs 100 octane low-lead aviation gasoline, but this just shows how absurd the concept that you need 272hp to achieve *only* 430lbs of lift, most of which is spent to lift the batteries and the enclosure.
Finally, to add insult to injury, most observers believe it to be vaporware:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/1...
http://uncovermichigan.com/con...
http://financialjuneteenth.com...
Happy holidays to all!
E
(not in that order tho ;)
UPSs save lives. If you insist on not backing up your data, not having your equipment on a UPS, and not following standard authentication and encryption standards recommended by industry, have the decency to resign and go home and fall on your blade.
In my house even my AMOLED TV is on a UPS. Power spikes happen all the time. A $100 UPS will prevent a $200 visit to replace a $100 part in a TV power supply. How is that a bad idea?
*shees*
E
You're confusing "uncontrolled" with "under nobody's control."
Uncontrolled airspace (class G) means that it is not under ATC operations. See 14 CFR 91.126 (not 91.119 "Minimum safe altitudes").
Further note explicitly 91.126(a)
"Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section." That's "must comply" not "optionally can choose to comply" or whatever. The use of this airspace is subject to FAA regulation and control.
The FAA and its regulations are in full control of flight above ground in these United States. Uncontrolled airspace is airspace without direct Air-Traffic-Control facility control, not "outside FAA regulations, purvey, domain, nor control."
That's from the ground up, not 400ft AGL, not 500ftAGL, not some small amount unless you lease them your airspace right of way...
I guess I'm just not used to the attitude of "we can pretend the FAA has no power and do what we want because it pisses us off we have to register our UASs". Ultimately if you don't want to abide by the laws, that's your right. Making up ideas of why the FAA has no jurisdiction is just as nutty as those Sovereign Citizen people claiming the IRS is a hoax and that money they print is real.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Ehud
FAA controls from the ground up. Sorry you were so eager to use a racial slur you didn't look it up.
https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...
Ehud
FAA controls from the ground up. Sorry you were misled by crowdsource encyclopedia.
https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...
Ehud
There are many smartphones with WiFi that cannot be "rooted" let alone remotely.
Then there are many of us who run permission-checking programs that alert us if something is touching something it shouldn't.
Finally the claims are too broad to be taken seriously. It's a simple application of Okham's Razor
along with a little bit of "If it sounds too good to be true... it probably is."
I suspect their device allows them local WiFi access to a subset of smartphones (as they say "older")
that have known vulnerabilities in the OS (e.g. previous Android or IOS). There's no known remote root
for BlackBerry (remember them?) or current Android (CM12.x).
Marketing people do what they do and LOOK THEY'VE SUCCEEDED because their original ad has /. :)
now transformed into a discussion on
Best holiday wishes,
Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ
I can be searched on the FCC's pages.
I can be searched on the FAA's pages.
TL;DR version - it's your choice to exercise this privilege and that privilege includes the cost of registration.
I'm not an apologist for the government. I rail against things that cut into my rights.
However, I recognize the difference between my rights that cops who stop me want to violate, and
privileges I choose to exercise.
These certificates I hold (amateur radio operator and commercial pilot)
are not RIGHTS in the United States, but rather PRIVILEGES which I've chosen to attain.
In the process of CHOOSING to attain both those certifications I could have chosen not
to give out private information (and not get the certificate) or, as I did, choose to give it out
in return for the privilege of using the airwaves and flying in the air.
When you choose to drive a vehicle on private property in this country you are not required
to hold a driver's license, be of a certain age, acquire and maintain liability insurance, nor
even have your vehicle registered. HOWEVER to use that same vehicle and driver on the
public roads all the laws and registrations must be followed. (Don't get me started on how
this is abused by governments...)
The national airspace system (NAS) is one such resource. If you intend to fly in it, you
must do so in a manner which is legal. Until this year that meant "Have a good time and
stay out of trouble." As of tomorrow that also means "get a tail number [not an N-number]
for your UAS[not drone]."
If you have made the choice to continue flying your UAS then if you wish to do so as per
the law you must register it, display the tail number, and have your information available
at the FAA -- and probably subject to search.
Merry Christmas,
Ehud Gavron
N5NEQ
CPL-H (Commercial Pilot - Helicopter)
not done.
Yes, the US Department of Homeland Security, famous for having given guns to drug smugglers that kill US people http://www.washingtontimes.com... and have been leering at naked pictures of US airport travelers http://www.wired.com/2012/05/b... can't even stop weapons from going onboard http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/... now want to give us advice on cyber[sic]-security.
I'd rather take security advice from the seventeen year old kid next door. He is probably more up to date, in better shape mentally and physically, less corrupt, hasn't let any terrorists cross the border, armed them, or allowed them into airports. And finally, I KNOW he's actually made it through high-school.
Ehud
The Zumwalt being in it is part of the eye-candy of a brilliantly researched futuristic
setting where China attacks the US and our high-tech stuff turns against us.
Awesome writing, good facts, great insight, and a well-developed plot make it
a must-read.
I agree with the OP!!!
E
Another way to make money is to make excessive bail requirements in possible
collusion with bail bondsmen.
TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and
the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.
Now the "I'm sorry but it got long" part:
Bail from the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Excessive bail shall not be required"
Excessive is when it's greater than the amount necessary to bring the offender to trial. From Wikipidia:
"In Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), the Court found that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Judges are starting to agree: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2...
But some are still hungry for HUMONGOUS bail to avoid looking soft on crime when BAIL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME.
Man kills cop: 3 million dollars
http://www.philly.com/philly/n...
Man kills man: 2 million dollars
http://www.bellinghamherald.co...
Cop kills man: 1.5 million:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/ja...
The US DoJ ought to take a long hard look at how our nation's Courts are handing out large bail
requirements --unconstitutionally-- to make it look like they're "tough on crime."
In fact, the people being granted bail are innocent until proven guilty, AND
the amount of the bail is only supposed to ensure they show up for trial.
We need a lot of reform in the criminal justice system. Hopefully the DoJ won't whitewash
bail while they look at the other methods that "the justice system" screws the people.
Full disclosure: I've never been arrested, offered bail, denied bail, nor am personally
part of the legal / "justice" system.
E
Britain's ministry of justice is second only to the US department of justice in doing
NOTHING FOR JUSTICE WHATSOEVER
but being a pissant wanker in ensuring that people in the system have no access to reality, life, the Internet, and the ability to be part of even an online society, research their case, case law, or learn. .... Britain's Ministry of "justice". .... the US department of "justice".
These people have no idea what "justice" means.
E
Apple is going to do in 2018 what others have done in 2013, 2014, and 2015.
What is news is this:
Apple is no longer a trendsetter, an innovator, a company that others seek to follow.
Apple is a follower, a duplicator, the ass on the donkey of innovation.
E
I love Arstechnica and read it all the time but that article's headline is misleading.
BROADBAND CARRIERS [who also provide Internet access] are classified as
common carriers.
To rephrase if the carrier provides the broadband service then they are now considered
a common carrier.
That is NOT an ISP. That is a broadband service provider. (Layer 1/Layer 2 but not
Layer 3).
ISPs are layer 3 (IP) providers.
CABLE COMPANIES that provide Internet access are now common carriers.
DSL PROVIDERS that provide Internet access are now common carriers.
MOBILE companies that provide Internet access are now common carriers.
ISPs that do not provide the physical-layer access are NOT common carriers.
Examples:
Cox, Comcast, Verizon Wireless, etc.: carriers
Earthlink, AOL, Net10, etc.: not carriers
Ehud
ISPs aren't common carriers and have never been common carriers. The FCC doesn't classify them as common carriers either. Really that's of no relevance though.
The DMCA allows that the ISP (if it is not the creator of the content) has a safe-harbor... which unfortunately has meant dick. See for example Viacom v. YouTube where Viacom sued Youtube and it took YEARS and MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for Youtube to prevail using that "safe harbor". That's not a safe harbor.
The DMCA is a piece of crap, written by idiots trying to compromise with an MPAA/RIAA hellbent on destroying rights to protect their "intellectual" property. The safe-harbor provisions including nothing for early termination of a lawsuit (like SLAPP laws) or fee shifting to make the loser pay the winner. Instead it's all about the "IP rights".
The MPAA and the RIAA and the BSA and... (MAFIAA for short) bastardized property law and trademark law and copyright law in an attempt to get the best of all worlds in one. As a result ALL OF US lose.
Please don't make your argument about child porn. It's like bringing up Nazis and ending the discussion. if you can't make your point without "think of the children" or "the Nazis win" you didn't have one to make to begin with.
E
Mark Cuban once started off rich. Then he invested in RealPlayer and ended up super rich.
Good for him - that's what how the Land of Opportunity is supposed to be. You start out
with loads of money, and make even more from that. Awesome.
Lately though, he's been involved in failure. HDnet (anyone remember that?), the Dallas
Mavericks (anyone remember them), etc.
To be known for being foul-mouthed and poor-sportsmanship is not a golden chalice of
virtue.
If Mr. Cuban wanted to contribute to charity he could easily do so -- and a lot more than
a measly $30K -- without resorting to foul-mouthed expressions.
He's a kid who never grew up, and there's nothing Peter Pan or cutesy about it.
Ehud
Tucson AZ
As used by the Corporation Commissions of the various US states and the FCC, telecommunication carriers *must* publish a tariff, generally it must be approved [or if not specifically then it must be in line with previously approved guidelines], and only then charge consumers what it says.
Using the "uber model" of dynamic pricing -- whether a good idea or not -- is contrary to current US law and FCC regulations.
Really.
That brings up two questions:
1. SHOULD it happen?
2. What would be the result?
I'll get to #1 in a sec. first, what would be the result: In a free market, letting supply and demand control price and quantity makes sense. However, absent a notification method to let people know when they pick up the handset HOW MUCH THE CALL WILL COST people will be reluctant to make that call. Regulations forbid charging a number without informing people. If you let people know 'the cost is high" most of them will wait it out. Supply will stabilize but demand will reduce. Overall use will reduce. "Surge" pricing will lead to less demand, less calls, and lower overall product sold.
Given that, SHOULD it happen? No. A reasonably stable commodity price is what leads to consumer confidence to buy, buy now, buy later, and keep on buying. A fluid price leads to a lack of consumer confidence, which with things you can't "store up for later when they're more expensive" leads to less spending. Less spending = downturn economy.
Stupid idea. Regulatorily forbidden in the US.
Glad it's dead on the vine.
E
1
12 - any number that ends on a multiple of 2 is an even number and hence can't be prime
123 - any number whose sum of digits is divisible by 3 is not a prime
1234 - covered in 12 above
12345 - any number whose last digit is a 5 (or 0) is evenly divisible by and hence can't be a prime
123456 - covered in 12 and 123 above
1234567 - the first possible candidate not immediately eliminatable based on consistuent digits
12345678 - covered in 12
123456789 - covered in 123 above
1234567890 - covered in 12 and 12345 above
Now we start adding the same sequence back
12345678901 - second possible candidate
same rules eliminate all of these up to
12345678901234567
Which means out of each ten digits there are only two candidates for primes - a number ending in 1 or a number ending in 7.
Except that every 3 1-0s they can be eliminated as a multiple of 3
Every 5 1-0s they can be eliminated as a multiple of 5
Every 6 1-0s they can be eliminated as per 3 1-0s above
Every 9 1-0s they can be eliminated as per 3 1-0s above
So while ostensibly there are potentially 20% primes in the 1-0 sequence, 40% of those are eliminated in the up-to 10 such sequences, and so on and so on. In fact as you get larger numbers, the predictive nature of the sum of the digits at any juncture allows eliminating more and more numbers asymptotically reaching zero.
E
I once went on a date where the girl said "I am going to set everything up. It will be a surprise. You'll like it! Don't try to guess what's going to happen!"
It was a great time!
The TTP is almost like that. We don't know what's coming until it does; we all get fucked; big pharma and big media have a great time.
E
LoL! I'm no troll. Allow me to expound.
The Internet has been alive and well. I don't know what YOU think of it TODAY so that's not really a definition.
It was working just great for those of us in universities, at government labs, at companies supporting the Internet, etc.
I'm sorry you weren't aware of it, and some confusion about internet=html hadn't occurred yet either. gopher was pretty good! (for its time)
As for #2... BOTH the creator of Minix AND the creator of Linux have both stated quite clearly (in response to the Samizdat book that never got published but was covered on Groklaw) that Linux did NOT in any way come from MInix.
Andy was upset at Linus because Andy believes in a microkernel architecture and Linus believes in a monolithic kernel. The two disagree, which is allowed and functional. There's room for both. Right now, though, if the minix developers (chortle) are emailing each other, they're doing it on linux boxes.
I'm no troll. Do you know how you can tell? It's because EVERYTHING I said above is easily proven fact by a simple google search. No need to be convoluted, try to obfuscate the truth, use bing or siri, etc. Just google it. It's all true.
One more thing, Sir, I use my real name. That doesn't in and of itself make me a non-troll.. but it does give you the ability to (omg google that too) see that I know these facts. I was there. When the Internet "as we know it today" (whatever) was there. Long before Minix. As it will be long after Minix.
Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ
P.S. I'm not a linux fanboi. I whet my teeth on VAX/VMS. However, the market has spoken (and HP and Compaq are great at turning diamonds into coal) and Linux is the market leader for server OSs and desktops for people too stupid to know when not to click "open this attachment".
Minix the book came out in 1987. The Internet was developed in 1973, was connecting universities and research centers and companies as the NSFnet in 1985.
1985 and 1973 are both before 1987 so no, there WAS TOO an Internet when Minix came out.
Secondly Linux did NOT come out from Minix. Both Andrew Tenenbaum and Linus Torvalds said that.
I've giving you ZERO out of two possible points for telling the truth and not being a stupid troll.
E
"The idea is to exchange ideas and experiences among MINIX 3 developers and users..."
I wish all seven of them have a good time exchanging ideas and experiences.
Perhaps they could use email.
You know.
Like through a linux server.
Because.
That's how it works.
"If the OSI developers are emailing each other, it's over TCP/IP" -- Steven Belovin, before you were born
"If the Minix developers[sic] are emailing each other, it's on Linux systems" -- me
Ehud
No, it hasn't.
Stop making up stuff. Just because you post it on slashdot doesn't make it true.
This is 100% NON-REPLICATED NON-PUBLISHED NON-PEER-REVIEWED NON-SCIENCE.
I used block letters so there could be no doubt. You know?