Yes, but you also accepted their terms and conditions, which includes this paragraph:
"With respect to items sold by Amazon, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If the correct price of an item sold by Amazon is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation. Other merchants may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item."
The actual wording, since I looked it up for you, is:
"With respect to items sold by Amazon, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If the correct price of an item sold by Amazon is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation. Other merchants may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item."
The contact on the order checkout page that says, By placing an order, you agree to the privacy policy and conditions of use."
If you bother to read those, you'll see there is a long contact that says they have the right to cancel for many different reasons, including price errors.
No, of course not... but I also know people who don't have a concealed carry permit and carry anyway...
A lot of Texans think that we shouldn't need a permit to exercise our rights, imagine if we needed a permit to exercise our freedom of religion or speech?
Right now there is a push to get the laws changed and allow open carry, possibly without any permit at all.
The first one happened a long time ago, before we had concealed carry laws...
The second one is about school shootings, we can't carry our guns anywhere near a school, but we're working on fixing that problem...
The last one was not a random coffee shop shooting, that was a targeted killing by someone who took the time to dress up as a FedEx employee, force his way into the front door, and executed people who otherwise were not ready for it.
------
If someone walks into a coffee shop to kill, and I'm their first target, my gun won't help me, I'm likely going to die.
The value in the gun is that if I'm *not* the first target, I can response after he kills someone and kill him. Yes, someone might still die, but the next 10 people won't.
The same problem of facing likely armed opponents also applies in places like Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan The terrorists just use a big car bomb instead.
Then at least they won't take any hostages, and frankly once car bombs get involved, the military tends to get involved. Once we surged and sent in enough forces to do the job, we started winning in Iraq, not that the media would have told you that. Now that we've left, look what happened.
They aren't going to help fulfil your Wild West fantasies by standing in the coffee shop entrance and calling you out in a fast draw competition.
No, of course not... but not all criminals are terrorists, the guy might be coming in to rob the place... if all he takes is money, I might let him go, a shootout is risky and not worth it over a few hundred dollars in the cash drawer, let the police go after him.
If he walks in and shoots someone, then I'd shoot him.
If you don't think that actually happens (and it does), consider one of the cases that helped get our concealed carry laws to pass. Guy drove his truck through the front window of a restaurant and started randomly shooting people. That is exactly the time when you need a gun, because the police are too far away and the guy clearly wants to kill people.
Presumably if you were a serious terrorist, you'd be using an illegal automatic weapon of some sort anyway?
Yes, that was my thinking... if this was a real terrorist with an organization behind him, I would imagine he would have better weapons, or could anyway...
That being said, don't over rate the value of fully automatic weapons, they have their value, but if I were in this situation, I'd likely have mine set to single shot or three round burst at most.
Full auto is a waste of ammo in most cases outside of a real battlefield. And I've owned (legally) fully automatic weapons, in truth they are a good way to turn money into noise, which is why I sold them and now own only semi automatic weapons. Ammo gets expensive!
Fair enough... my only point is that better shotguns exist, and can be obtained legally and illegally in most of the world. Anyone willing to take hostages and kill people surely doesn't care about gun laws.:(
Well we know it wasn't the US or everyone would have whipped out a 44 magnum and the running gun battle consuming the entire suburb would still be going on.
You jest... but in Texas, we have over 800,000 concealed carry permit holders... and gun battles don't break out, well, ever between them...
And I notice that they don't try this stuff here either...
You would be hard pressed to walk into a busy Starbucks here without a dozen people carrying guns, the terrorists wouldn't have hostages, they'd have a fight on their hands, and frankly they are cowards anyway, so they won't do that here.
Then I stuck the thing in a drawer for a couple of years, after which the battery would no longer hold a charge. Why don't you just get a smart phone?
I think a lot of people did that...
In 2005, Microsoft sold a total of 2.2 million Pocket PC devices of all types.
Today, Apple sells that on launch day of the iPhone each year...
The Pocket PC was a nice idea, but it was ahead of its time and had issues with the vision, many people make fun of Steve Jobs, but clearly he knew something that everyone else didn't.
The comment about the recent "deal" with China is so true... we agree to cut our emmissions sooner and they agree to slow down the increase of theirs, at a later date, when different people will be in power, and they self-certify to boot.
This is just Obama pandering to the US public, no more or less, I would hope that even he knows it is complete BS.
You, dear sir, deserve a medal... and maybe a talk show on TV... if anyone would bother watching it...
You're correct, but sadly I suspect your message will be lost on those who are unable to consider more than one side to any situation, their point of view is the only possible correct one...
Yes, but when there were 10 gas stations, they were not competing with other fuel stations, other than perhaps horse feeding and care stations...
And frankly, over time, the car replaced the horse, for many reasons...
Changing fuel in a car doesn't change that it is still a car, there was a reason to put in gas stations, cars are improvements over horses. Another fuel type? Not so much...
Obama is just as bad... that doesn't excuse Bush from his errors, and he had many...
But frankly, if Obama doesn't Veto this, then he is the same scum of the Earth and frankly both sides need to be tossed out on their bums...
Voting third party may not bring in "better", but it will at least do SOMETHING different than the Repubs and Dems who are different sides of the same coin...
But regardless of the legislative history, the pending court decisions, and the FAA's often contradictory and foot-dragging responses to congressional requirements... I want to hear you explain, in simple specific terms, why the same guy using the same equipment is suddenly more dangerous when doing exactly the same thing minutes later. Really.
The motivations of the two people are different, and that often produces very different outcomes.
I highly doubt that anything I type here would make a difference, you see what you want to see, and that's fine.
What I can tell you is that those rules exist for a reason, and your failure to understand the reason doesn't invalidate it. Your failure to understand it might be your existing bias... or it might be a lack of information and knowledge and experience...
But I do know from first hand experience, both working in the industry and being on the management side, that those rules are needed.
Except the FAA's most recent published position on this is that ALL radio controlled flying machines are the same.
The FAA can say anything they want, it is what they can enforce in the courts that counts.
And it isn't civil or criminal court, it is administrative court where they usually win, however they recently lost a case against a RC aircraft pilot they thought they would have won, so they have held off filing other cases until they get that cleared up.
The FAA has an old Advisory Circular (advice, not law) about the operation of RC aircraft. For a very long time that was fine because most RC hobbyists were good about it and flew them out in the middle of nowhere where the FAA doesn't really care what happens, so long as it isn't bothering anyone.
Now we have more of them flying around cities and now the FAA does care.
The FAA's current position would prevent any hobby store from testing a 1-pound palm-sized quad in their parking lot
I would disagree with your view of their position on that one... I don't see the FAA going that far...
Because like you, they can't draw any sort of rational distinction between that sort of "commerce" and FedEx flying an RC 747 at 30,000 feet.
The rules for commercial operations were set for piloted aircraft, the FAA has not yet drawn up rules for the operation of commercial pilotless aircraft, nor what actually constitutes a pilotless aircraft.
Those rules will come, this will get sorted, just like all such situations in the past.
Clearly all would agree (even the FAA) that kids flying drones for charity is a different beast than FedEx flying 747s via remote control. There just are no rules for either at the moment.
It is easier for the FAA to say "don't do that until we have rules", because otherwise someone is going to die and then everyone blames the FAA "why didn't they do something". They are just covering their butts until it gets sorted...
No, the FAA says that if you're a farmer, you can't do that - it's commerce.
A farmer most certainly can fly their own aircraft over their own land, that is a private operation, no one is being paid, there is no third party. A private pilot certificate is all that is required and it is a Part 91 operation.
As far as "drones" go, that is another issue. I said it wasn't a commercial operation, which it isn't. I didn't say that drones were legal or illegal in that case.
It is worth making sure that we're talking about the same thing.;)
So, if two guys who OWN THEIR OWN DEVICES are flying right next to each other in exactly the same way, with exactly the same risks to their identical devices as they fly with exactly the same level of experience, you're saying that the guy who happens to be helping out the farmer for a small fee is the more dangerous one, and the hobbyist is by definition safer?
History has many examples of why they are not the same in terms of safety. You clearly don't want to hear that, and that's fine.
When I was a full time flight instructor, I had many students ask questions about things like that, it was common to ask "so can I do this or that with a private, or do I need a commercial pilot certificate?"
Often the answer was, "even a commercial pilot certificate won't be enough, you also need a Part 135 operators certificate".
You seem to believe these rules are put into place to protect big business, but that simply isn't the case. I had a Part 135 certificate once, operated a Robinson R-44 helicopter on it for a few years, and we only had about 15 total employees, from the front desk girl to the mechanics to the pilots.
If you really want to understand, go sit down in personal with a certified flight instructor who can open a FAR/AIM and go over the rules with you.
Like it or not, those rules were put there for good reasons, many people died from stupid stuff before the industry got cleaned up.
And my neighborhood kids run lemonade stands in front of their homes without cowering in fear that they'll be shut down by health inspectors, fined for their failure to display a business license, audited for tax evasion, and arrested for exploiting child labor. "The law is very clear." All those rules technically apply.
Yes they do, and they exist for a reason.
A kid with a lemonaid stand in front of their house technically is breaking several laws, but generally no one cares, even law enforcement.
A reasonable person would not expect such a "business" to be following all the health codes and have a business licence, so anyone buying lemonaid from such a stand should be aware of the risks of doing so.
What about a kid's lemonaid stand setup at the state fair in a booth? What about at a local car race or hot air balloon event?
Should that be enforced?
There is some line, between "kid with a stand in front yard" and "kid with commercial stand in commercial location".
--------------
Back to operating aircraft "for hire", the FAA's primary concern is for the safely of the general public.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Does the FAA care about all of it? Not really. They don't... until they do...
I don't think the GP is nitpicking the use of "navigable" but the use of "restricted". See the below link, restricted airspace means an area where general aviation is not allowed to enter (ex flying over the white house is permanent restricted airspace).
Yep, that is it... "restricted airspace" generally won't allow you in it for any reason whatsoever, such as over the White House.
The airspace around LAX is not restricted, it is controlled airspace, Class B to be specific.
Within a few miles of the airport, that controlled airspace goes all the way to the ground. You can't fly an aircraft at 100ft there without talking to ATC.
Slashdot Mirror
Those laws generally apply to retail stores with displayed price signs.
They generally do not apply to online sales.
If you know of a court case where they do, please post, i would be interested in seeing it.
Yes, but you also accepted their terms and conditions, which includes this paragraph:
"With respect to items sold by Amazon, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If the correct price of an item sold by Amazon is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation. Other merchants may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item."
The actual wording, since I looked it up for you, is:
"With respect to items sold by Amazon, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If the correct price of an item sold by Amazon is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation. Other merchants may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item."
The contact on the order checkout page that says, By placing an order, you agree to the privacy policy and conditions of use."
If you bother to read those, you'll see there is a long contact that says they have the right to cancel for many different reasons, including price errors.
That same contract gives Amazon the right to cancel orders for pricing mistakes.
No, of course not... but I also know people who don't have a concealed carry permit and carry anyway...
A lot of Texans think that we shouldn't need a permit to exercise our rights, imagine if we needed a permit to exercise our freedom of religion or speech?
Right now there is a push to get the laws changed and allow open carry, possibly without any permit at all.
Yes, really...
The first one happened a long time ago, before we had concealed carry laws...
The second one is about school shootings, we can't carry our guns anywhere near a school, but we're working on fixing that problem...
The last one was not a random coffee shop shooting, that was a targeted killing by someone who took the time to dress up as a FedEx employee, force his way into the front door, and executed people who otherwise were not ready for it.
------
If someone walks into a coffee shop to kill, and I'm their first target, my gun won't help me, I'm likely going to die.
The value in the gun is that if I'm *not* the first target, I can response after he kills someone and kill him. Yes, someone might still die, but the next 10 people won't.
The same problem of facing likely armed opponents also applies in places like Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan The terrorists just use a big car bomb instead.
Then at least they won't take any hostages, and frankly once car bombs get involved, the military tends to get involved. Once we surged and sent in enough forces to do the job, we started winning in Iraq, not that the media would have told you that. Now that we've left, look what happened.
They aren't going to help fulfil your Wild West fantasies by standing in the coffee shop entrance and calling you out in a fast draw competition.
No, of course not... but not all criminals are terrorists, the guy might be coming in to rob the place... if all he takes is money, I might let him go, a shootout is risky and not worth it over a few hundred dollars in the cash drawer, let the police go after him.
If he walks in and shoots someone, then I'd shoot him.
If you don't think that actually happens (and it does), consider one of the cases that helped get our concealed carry laws to pass. Guy drove his truck through the front window of a restaurant and started randomly shooting people. That is exactly the time when you need a gun, because the police are too far away and the guy clearly wants to kill people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Presumably if you were a serious terrorist, you'd be using an illegal automatic weapon of some sort anyway?
Yes, that was my thinking... if this was a real terrorist with an organization behind him, I would imagine he would have better weapons, or could anyway...
That being said, don't over rate the value of fully automatic weapons, they have their value, but if I were in this situation, I'd likely have mine set to single shot or three round burst at most.
Full auto is a waste of ammo in most cases outside of a real battlefield. And I've owned (legally) fully automatic weapons, in truth they are a good way to turn money into noise, which is why I sold them and now own only semi automatic weapons. Ammo gets expensive!
Fair enough... my only point is that better shotguns exist, and can be obtained legally and illegally in most of the world. Anyone willing to take hostages and kill people surely doesn't care about gun laws. :(
I thought that the "cowards" were the ones that felt that they NEEDED to carry guns everywhere that they went ?
So the hostages in Australia are brave and the police outside with guns are cowards?
Funny how when something like this happens, the first thing everyone does is call the guys with the guns.
I carry a gun so I don't have to call anyone, I'm already there.
The guy is armed with a shotgun, so thats two shots at best.
Depends on the shotgun... A decent one will hold 7 in the tube and 1 in the chamber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
A really good one will up to 32 in a drum magazine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Well we know it wasn't the US or everyone would have whipped out a 44 magnum and the running gun battle consuming the entire suburb would still be going on.
You jest... but in Texas, we have over 800,000 concealed carry permit holders... and gun battles don't break out, well, ever between them...
And I notice that they don't try this stuff here either...
You would be hard pressed to walk into a busy Starbucks here without a dozen people carrying guns, the terrorists wouldn't have hostages, they'd have a fight on their hands, and frankly they are cowards anyway, so they won't do that here.
Then I stuck the thing in a drawer for a couple of years, after which the battery would no longer hold a charge. Why don't you just get a smart phone?
I think a lot of people did that...
In 2005, Microsoft sold a total of 2.2 million Pocket PC devices of all types.
Today, Apple sells that on launch day of the iPhone each year...
The Pocket PC was a nice idea, but it was ahead of its time and had issues with the vision, many people make fun of Steve Jobs, but clearly he knew something that everyone else didn't.
This is the truth...
The comment about the recent "deal" with China is so true... we agree to cut our emmissions sooner and they agree to slow down the increase of theirs, at a later date, when different people will be in power, and they self-certify to boot.
This is just Obama pandering to the US public, no more or less, I would hope that even he knows it is complete BS.
You, dear sir, deserve a medal... and maybe a talk show on TV... if anyone would bother watching it...
You're correct, but sadly I suspect your message will be lost on those who are unable to consider more than one side to any situation, their point of view is the only possible correct one...
There are already a hundred thousand LNG vehicles in the US alone.
Yes, over many years... and there are over 250,000 plug in electric cars in the US already, just since 2008...
LNG is simply not going to happen, for many reasons... it probably should have, 20 years ago, but it just didn't...
Yes, but when there were 10 gas stations, they were not competing with other fuel stations, other than perhaps horse feeding and care stations...
And frankly, over time, the car replaced the horse, for many reasons...
Changing fuel in a car doesn't change that it is still a car, there was a reason to put in gas stations, cars are improvements over horses. Another fuel type? Not so much...
How about the people getting in the sight seeing helicopters? How should they judge if it is safe or not?
That is why the rules are in place, to protect those passengers who have no way, as lay people, to judge the risks.
Obama is just as bad... that doesn't excuse Bush from his errors, and he had many...
But frankly, if Obama doesn't Veto this, then he is the same scum of the Earth and frankly both sides need to be tossed out on their bums...
Voting third party may not bring in "better", but it will at least do SOMETHING different than the Repubs and Dems who are different sides of the same coin...
But regardless of the legislative history, the pending court decisions, and the FAA's often contradictory and foot-dragging responses to congressional requirements ... I want to hear you explain, in simple specific terms, why the same guy using the same equipment is suddenly more dangerous when doing exactly the same thing minutes later. Really.
The motivations of the two people are different, and that often produces very different outcomes.
I highly doubt that anything I type here would make a difference, you see what you want to see, and that's fine.
What I can tell you is that those rules exist for a reason, and your failure to understand the reason doesn't invalidate it. Your failure to understand it might be your existing bias... or it might be a lack of information and knowledge and experience...
But I do know from first hand experience, both working in the industry and being on the management side, that those rules are needed.
Regardless if you think so or not...
Except the FAA's most recent published position on this is that ALL radio controlled flying machines are the same.
The FAA can say anything they want, it is what they can enforce in the courts that counts.
And it isn't civil or criminal court, it is administrative court where they usually win, however they recently lost a case against a RC aircraft pilot they thought they would have won, so they have held off filing other cases until they get that cleared up.
The FAA has an old Advisory Circular (advice, not law) about the operation of RC aircraft. For a very long time that was fine because most RC hobbyists were good about it and flew them out in the middle of nowhere where the FAA doesn't really care what happens, so long as it isn't bothering anyone.
Now we have more of them flying around cities and now the FAA does care.
The FAA's current position would prevent any hobby store from testing a 1-pound palm-sized quad in their parking lot
I would disagree with your view of their position on that one... I don't see the FAA going that far...
Because like you, they can't draw any sort of rational distinction between that sort of "commerce" and FedEx flying an RC 747 at 30,000 feet.
The rules for commercial operations were set for piloted aircraft, the FAA has not yet drawn up rules for the operation of commercial pilotless aircraft, nor what actually constitutes a pilotless aircraft.
Those rules will come, this will get sorted, just like all such situations in the past.
Clearly all would agree (even the FAA) that kids flying drones for charity is a different beast than FedEx flying 747s via remote control. There just are no rules for either at the moment.
It is easier for the FAA to say "don't do that until we have rules", because otherwise someone is going to die and then everyone blames the FAA "why didn't they do something". They are just covering their butts until it gets sorted...
No, the FAA says that if you're a farmer, you can't do that - it's commerce.
A farmer most certainly can fly their own aircraft over their own land, that is a private operation, no one is being paid, there is no third party. A private pilot certificate is all that is required and it is a Part 91 operation.
As far as "drones" go, that is another issue. I said it wasn't a commercial operation, which it isn't. I didn't say that drones were legal or illegal in that case.
It is worth making sure that we're talking about the same thing. ;)
So, if two guys who OWN THEIR OWN DEVICES are flying right next to each other in exactly the same way, with exactly the same risks to their identical devices as they fly with exactly the same level of experience, you're saying that the guy who happens to be helping out the farmer for a small fee is the more dangerous one, and the hobbyist is by definition safer?
History has many examples of why they are not the same in terms of safety. You clearly don't want to hear that, and that's fine.
When I was a full time flight instructor, I had many students ask questions about things like that, it was common to ask "so can I do this or that with a private, or do I need a commercial pilot certificate?"
Often the answer was, "even a commercial pilot certificate won't be enough, you also need a Part 135 operators certificate".
You seem to believe these rules are put into place to protect big business, but that simply isn't the case. I had a Part 135 certificate once, operated a Robinson R-44 helicopter on it for a few years, and we only had about 15 total employees, from the front desk girl to the mechanics to the pilots.
If you really want to understand, go sit down in personal with a certified flight instructor who can open a FAR/AIM and go over the rules with you.
Like it or not, those rules were put there for good reasons, many people died from stupid stuff before the industry got cleaned up.
And my neighborhood kids run lemonade stands in front of their homes without cowering in fear that they'll be shut down by health inspectors, fined for their failure to display a business license, audited for tax evasion, and arrested for exploiting child labor. "The law is very clear." All those rules technically apply.
Yes they do, and they exist for a reason.
A kid with a lemonaid stand in front of their house technically is breaking several laws, but generally no one cares, even law enforcement.
A reasonable person would not expect such a "business" to be following all the health codes and have a business licence, so anyone buying lemonaid from such a stand should be aware of the risks of doing so.
What about a kid's lemonaid stand setup at the state fair in a booth? What about at a local car race or hot air balloon event?
Should that be enforced?
There is some line, between "kid with a stand in front yard" and "kid with commercial stand in commercial location".
--------------
Back to operating aircraft "for hire", the FAA's primary concern is for the safely of the general public.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Does the FAA care about all of it? Not really. They don't... until they do...
I don't think the GP is nitpicking the use of "navigable" but the use of "restricted". See the below link, restricted airspace means an area where general aviation is not allowed to enter (ex flying over the white house is permanent restricted airspace).
Yep, that is it... "restricted airspace" generally won't allow you in it for any reason whatsoever, such as over the White House.
The airspace around LAX is not restricted, it is controlled airspace, Class B to be specific.
Within a few miles of the airport, that controlled airspace goes all the way to the ground. You can't fly an aircraft at 100ft there without talking to ATC.
When dealing with the law, it is rarely as simple as a one sentence post on Slashdot will ever provide.
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic...
There are two categories of airspace... regulatory and non-regulatory...
Within those, are 4 types:
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Special Use
Other
---------------
This is why there is pilot training and pilot certification, and why commercial pilots need more training than private pilots who only fly for fun.
It is more complex than the average layman probably suspects it is.