I live in the Dallas, TX area, Toyota is moving a big chunk of their headquarters here, several thousand employees. The local real estate market is already humming. They got big tax breaks to move here, but what has business owners excited is the creation of thousands of well paid jobs, those people become customers in local businesses, they buy homes, spend money, pay taxes.
What if we had 1 week warning of the dinosaur-killer?
The implied point is that perhaps we should be putting some effort into getting more warning and finding all the dino killers (and frankly, stuff a lot small than that rock was).
The classes you are referring to are regulations for pilots; they restrict where you can fly, they don't restrict where people can build. And even if you can fly to 0 ft according to the zone, as a pilot, you are still obligated to stay away from man-made obstacles.
It is true that the various classes of airspace are intended for pilots...
That being said, the FAA is mandated with the regulation of all airspace in the United States, that airspace starts at the ground and goes up from there.
Of course I can't fly at 0 ft, but I could fly at 200 ft.
Your "property rights" have nothing to do with it. What really comes into play is that a helicopter pilot is required to fly an an altitude that "doesn't cause hazard to persons or property on the surface", which is what the federal regulation actually says.
Which is why I used to point out to students that not having a "minimum altitude" doesn't mean they can do ANYTHING, it just means they can go lower than airplanes can. But they should always ask themselves, "if the FAA, insurance company, and their boss were on the ground watching, would they still do it?"
I actually had a FAA inspector put it to me this way once:
"If I get one call from one person complaining that you're out flying too low and scaring them, I might make a phone call. If I get 20 calls from people saying the same thing, I'll be getting in my car and coming to see you and it will not be a social visit."
There is the letter of the law, then there is the real world. I had a good working relationship with the FAA when I had my 135 certificate, I'm fully aware of the many hats they must wear and their need to protect the public while promoting aviation. A challenging dual role to be sure.
But the FAA has no direct legal authority to regulate property owners.
No, it doesn't... But that means little... Much of the government has little direct authority to do lots of things, but they can still achieve the required effect.
For example, the FAA can't tell the local city council what the zoning laws should be on building heights, but they DO have the ability to say, "ok, you can build anything you want, but if you build over X height, we'll revoke the ability of the airlines to fly to that airport".
It works in the same way that the Dept of Education has no legal way to FORCE local schools to adopt various text books or policies, but when they say, "we won't give you a dime if you don't", then they really do have that ability, like it or not.
----------------
I have found that many people in general see the world as black and while, "the FAA doesn't have direct legal authority, thus they can kiss off".
In general Apple does hate judges and companies and people and things that don't go its way.
Like all petulant children it will eventually be spanked enough to quit being a little crybaby bully.
Maybe, or perhaps it will kick up campaign spending 10 fold...
Apple could afford to spend a billion dollars a year on politicians without really noticing...
That would have... an effect... many of them actually... Frankly, I'm surprised at how little some of these companies spend on lobbing and other government... payments...
How about making 50 percent of their stock options or paychecks for the period they were working at these companies go towards offsetting the costs the companies punitive damages turn out to be.
Ok, so now we're not suing the companies, we're suing the CEO and executives?
Are they are party to this lawsuit? Did they personally do any of this? How much did they know?
In any case, any "judgement" you place on them would just be paid by the companies anyway, so what difference does it make?
The thing we really need here is public justice. If the world does not know how these ultra rich are conspiring against them, then there is no justice. They need to unseal all of the evidence, no exceptions.
The world already knows, it just doesn't care...
Look at Snowden... frankly, many of us already suspected some of it, but he put it out there for all to see.
You know what? The vast majority of people just don't care. Some even support it.
The 60,000 people that were impacted by this particular crime will see maybe 1,000.00, so the punishment is not severe enough. The judge should cap the attorney fees on this and quadruple the fine to ensure fair compensation for the people harmed by these criminal acts.
If this sounds harsh, consider that some of the executives responsible are making 100 times the wage of the employees harmed by their crimes. Perhaps they should get fired and face personal liability to their previous employers for their criminal activities.
Your feelings are understandable, but what you're suggesting wouldn't be legal.
Even if the Judge ordered any of it, it would all get turned over on appeal.
What you're really saying is that you don't like the law and our government. Get less angry at the companies and more angry at your government.
This is a civil case, you need it to be a criminal case with some teeth, and perhaps a few laws changed, to get what you want. Since you can't change laws after the fact (nor should you be able to), it would only effect cases going forward.
The law is whatever the courts rule. It really is that simple and that capricious.
Yes, but to take that to its logical conclusion, we can take those judges in that court outside to the nearest tree and hang them.
Then get ourselves some new judges who I'm sure will be much more willing to issue rules that we like more.
Our government today doesn't look much like it did 200 years ago, and it sure doesn't fit very well with what the founders of this country had in mind.
Maybe that is ok, maybe it isn't... but I think you'd be hard pressed to say that it hasn't changed to something completely different. Reconstruction and the Civil War had a lot to do with that, but other events in the early 20th century did as well.
Actually it is. The legal principle is that rights to your airspace are balanced against the use of airspace for air navigation. Since air navigation over populated areas generally is not considered safe by the FAA below 500-1000ft, you don't have to do any balancing below that if you live in such an area (in less populated areas, pilots must accommodate humans and structures by keeping a distance, not the other way around).
For airplanes, it is higher, generally 2,000ft in "congested areas", as they call it, 1,000ft everywhere else...
For helicopters, that does not exist... We can fly at 250ft if we feel that we're being safe. Now, are we? The question I always put to my students was this:
"If the FAA, the insurance company, and your boss were standing on the ground watching you, would they all think you're being smart or stupid?"
Usually that obtained the correct answer.
That doesn't mean that you don't own the airspace, it simply means that you need to alert the FAA to this particular use and wait for them to acknowledge. If the need for permits were an indication that something isn't private property, we wouldn't have private property at all, because almost every use of private property requires some permit or another these days.
You won't always get such a permit. In some areas it matters more than others.
That's irrelevant. Class B airspace, for example, extends to the ground at the airport. It does not (generally) extend to the ground on other private property. Therefore, it doesn't limit the rights people have to the airspace over their property.
Sorry, that is not correct. Class B airspace extends to the ground for many miles from an airport.
You probably can't understand that unless you have had some training, but you'll see that there is an inner ring that extends around the airport and out from it for about 10 miles in most directions. I said it extended up to 10,000ft MSL, I was mistaken... I hadn't looked at this in awhile, it is 11,000ft MSL.
The SFC/110 right next to the airport runway markings means Surface to 11,000ft MSL.
I hope you fly better than you reason.
Rest assured, I know far more about this than you do.
Right now, you're well protected from drone flights over your private land because the airspace over your land is yours, up to the lower limit of flight space, generally 500-1000ft above the tallest structures.
That actually isn't true...
Few properties actually own any "air rights". They exist, but are less common than you think. Also, most "air rights" have more to do with the blocking of the view from other properties, than they have to do with aviation or flying.
There is no "lower limit" of flight space, Class B, C, D, E or G airspace goes all the way to the ground, everywhere in the USA.
Where I live, we're in the DFW Class B airspace, starting from 1 foot going up to 10,000 feet MSL (above Mean Sea Level).
Now, that being said, that doesn't mean you're breaking the law standing on your roof, or putting up a TV antenna... such things are understood by the law to be reasonable uses of your home and property.
You cannot generally put up anything taller than 200ft without a permit (and if you do, they'll make you take it down if it can't be permitted). It also has to be lit with a flashing red light at night and marked on the various aviation charts.
This is why Cinderella's Castle at Walt Disney World is just under 200ft tall, so they didn't have to put a big red light on the top.
- more than 10 years of professional aviation experience speaking, certified flight instructor in both airplanes and helicopters, more than 4,000 hours flown, more than 1,000 hours of instruction given
TL,DR - In short, most people think they have more rights than they really do when it comes to their properties, above and below them...
But taking it at face value, you should have shown that same image on a 1080 screen of similar size, that would have been more useful.
I have a very nice Sony 70" 3D 1080p TV at home, I also have 2 other smaller 1080p TVs. My main work computer has 3 Dell 30" 1600p monitors on it and as soon as the 32" 4K screens come down in price, I'll have three of those.
The difference is night and day, if you can't see it, fair enough, not everyone can.
But there is a difference, and to me, it is obvious. Just looking at my current monitors, which are half way between 1080p and 4k shows a large difference in quality. 1080p has 2 million pixels, my current screens have 4 million, 4k has 8 million.
I never said anything about Best Buy, now did I? I haven't bought anything there in many, many years...
It is quite possible, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about, heaven forbid...
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off
on
Dell Demos 5K Display
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
^ This, thank you...
I see comment after comment from people who are talking out of their back ends, or perhaps their eyes suck...
We saw the exact same comments about 720p vs. 1080p almost 10 years ago, that you couldn't tell the difference.
Stupid is as stupid does I suppose...
True 4k is amazing, it blows 1080p out of the water. I've seen a similar display as you did, but this was on a 70" 1080p next to a 70" 4k display, from about 8 feet away, in a store.
Wow, once you've seen the difference, it is smack dab obvious how much of an improvement 4k really is. You don't have to look at the signs, just watch the video playing.
Now the issue is content... Since we've all now replaced much of our VHS and DVD content for 1080p Blu-Ray, I think few fewer people are going to be willing to do that again.
As much as I like it, I won't spend all that money yet again.
So... If they REALLY want 4k to take off, they need to offer a reasonable upgrade option, perhaps $2 per movie, to get the 4k version.
If I could take my stack of Blu-Ray discs into Walmart or Best Buy and trade them all in for $2 each for 4K versions, I'd probably go buy a 4K TV this Christmas.
$5 each? Meh, that is pushing it, maybe make it $5 each, but $2-3 each if you do 50 or 100 or more or something.
As far as digital copies, such as my now extensive library with Vudu and Amazon, those need upgrade options as well, also for a low price.
Take care of the customer and we'll throw money at you. Try to charge stupid high prices and we'll just not bother.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they can...
Boeing left after all...
I live in the Dallas, TX area, Toyota is moving a big chunk of their headquarters here, several thousand employees. The local real estate market is already humming. They got big tax breaks to move here, but what has business owners excited is the creation of thousands of well paid jobs, those people become customers in local businesses, they buy homes, spend money, pay taxes.
You're missing the point...
What if we had 1 week warning of the dinosaur-killer?
The implied point is that perhaps we should be putting some effort into getting more warning and finding all the dino killers (and frankly, stuff a lot small than that rock was).
The classes you are referring to are regulations for pilots; they restrict where you can fly, they don't restrict where people can build. And even if you can fly to 0 ft according to the zone, as a pilot, you are still obligated to stay away from man-made obstacles.
It is true that the various classes of airspace are intended for pilots...
That being said, the FAA is mandated with the regulation of all airspace in the United States, that airspace starts at the ground and goes up from there.
Of course I can't fly at 0 ft, but I could fly at 200 ft.
Your "property rights" have nothing to do with it. What really comes into play is that a helicopter pilot is required to fly an an altitude that "doesn't cause hazard to persons or property on the surface", which is what the federal regulation actually says.
Which is why I used to point out to students that not having a "minimum altitude" doesn't mean they can do ANYTHING, it just means they can go lower than airplanes can. But they should always ask themselves, "if the FAA, insurance company, and their boss were on the ground watching, would they still do it?"
I actually had a FAA inspector put it to me this way once:
"If I get one call from one person complaining that you're out flying too low and scaring them, I might make a phone call. If I get 20 calls from people saying the same thing, I'll be getting in my car and coming to see you and it will not be a social visit."
There is the letter of the law, then there is the real world. I had a good working relationship with the FAA when I had my 135 certificate, I'm fully aware of the many hats they must wear and their need to protect the public while promoting aviation. A challenging dual role to be sure.
But the FAA has no direct legal authority to regulate property owners.
No, it doesn't... But that means little... Much of the government has little direct authority to do lots of things, but they can still achieve the required effect.
For example, the FAA can't tell the local city council what the zoning laws should be on building heights, but they DO have the ability to say, "ok, you can build anything you want, but if you build over X height, we'll revoke the ability of the airlines to fly to that airport".
It works in the same way that the Dept of Education has no legal way to FORCE local schools to adopt various text books or policies, but when they say, "we won't give you a dime if you don't", then they really do have that ability, like it or not.
----------------
I have found that many people in general see the world as black and while, "the FAA doesn't have direct legal authority, thus they can kiss off".
Yea, it isn't quite that simple...
They have plenty of indirect authority...
I think 3 Billion Dollars or 10X what they are currently offering might be a reasonable starting point for discussions
Apple alone makes that in a few weeks, spread across those companies, even that amount wouldn't make a dent.
If it was 30 billion, you might get their attention, but that amount would be absurd.
In general Apple does hate judges and companies and people and things that don't go its way.
Like all petulant children it will eventually be spanked enough to quit being a little crybaby bully.
Maybe, or perhaps it will kick up campaign spending 10 fold...
Apple could afford to spend a billion dollars a year on politicians without really noticing...
That would have... an effect... many of them actually... Frankly, I'm surprised at how little some of these companies spend on lobbing and other government... payments...
^ This, times ten...
This doesn't exist in a bubble... the outcome of this and the effect on wages will have an effect far beyond this one situation...
If the price of labor rises 25% here, it becomes just that much more reasonable to move some of it overseas...
Do these people want to have no jobs at all?
How about making 50 percent of their stock options or paychecks for the period they were working at these companies go towards offsetting the costs the companies punitive damages turn out to be.
Ok, so now we're not suing the companies, we're suing the CEO and executives?
Are they are party to this lawsuit? Did they personally do any of this? How much did they know?
In any case, any "judgement" you place on them would just be paid by the companies anyway, so what difference does it make?
forbidding them to pursue work outside their current company for a period of two years
Nice idea, but you can't do that... that is slavery or indentured servitude, we outlawed that a long time ago...
You can't tell someone where they must work.
You do not have the right to start a cabal.
1. I have the right to do anything I want.
2. You have the right to try and stop me.
Those are the only two truths in the world, everything else is just feel good nonsense...
Companies are made up of people, people in general tend to do what is in their own best interest.
Nothing new here...
Put them in jail. The upper management. The Middle Management. All of the individuals who participated. End of Story.
You can't put people in jail who haven't be convicted of a crime...
And they aren't even being charged with one, this is a civil lawsuit...
The thing we really need here is public justice. If the world does not know how these ultra rich are conspiring against them, then there is no justice. They need to unseal all of the evidence, no exceptions.
The world already knows, it just doesn't care...
Look at Snowden... frankly, many of us already suspected some of it, but he put it out there for all to see.
You know what? The vast majority of people just don't care. Some even support it.
The 60,000 people that were impacted by this particular crime will see maybe 1,000.00, so the punishment is not severe enough. The judge should cap the attorney fees on this and quadruple the fine to ensure fair compensation for the people harmed by these criminal acts.
If this sounds harsh, consider that some of the executives responsible are making 100 times the wage of the employees harmed by their crimes. Perhaps they should get fired and face personal liability to their previous employers for their criminal activities.
Your feelings are understandable, but what you're suggesting wouldn't be legal.
Even if the Judge ordered any of it, it would all get turned over on appeal.
What you're really saying is that you don't like the law and our government. Get less angry at the companies and more angry at your government.
This is a civil case, you need it to be a criminal case with some teeth, and perhaps a few laws changed, to get what you want. Since you can't change laws after the fact (nor should you be able to), it would only effect cases going forward.
The law is whatever the courts rule. It really is that simple and that capricious.
Yes, but to take that to its logical conclusion, we can take those judges in that court outside to the nearest tree and hang them.
Then get ourselves some new judges who I'm sure will be much more willing to issue rules that we like more.
Our government today doesn't look much like it did 200 years ago, and it sure doesn't fit very well with what the founders of this country had in mind.
Maybe that is ok, maybe it isn't... but I think you'd be hard pressed to say that it hasn't changed to something completely different. Reconstruction and the Civil War had a lot to do with that, but other events in the early 20th century did as well.
Microsoft employs >40K employees in the Seattle Metro area, while the other 3.6M residents (literally the 99%) get screwed.
So tell me, if Microsoft left and took the 40k jobs with them, they would then NOT get tax breaks in Seattle.
How would the other 99% of the Seattle residents be better off?
Would they somehow be less screwed?
Actually it is. The legal principle is that rights to your airspace are balanced against the use of airspace for air navigation. Since air navigation over populated areas generally is not considered safe by the FAA below 500-1000ft, you don't have to do any balancing below that if you live in such an area (in less populated areas, pilots must accommodate humans and structures by keeping a distance, not the other way around).
For airplanes, it is higher, generally 2,000ft in "congested areas", as they call it, 1,000ft everywhere else...
For helicopters, that does not exist... We can fly at 250ft if we feel that we're being safe. Now, are we? The question I always put to my students was this:
"If the FAA, the insurance company, and your boss were standing on the ground watching you, would they all think you're being smart or stupid?"
Usually that obtained the correct answer.
That doesn't mean that you don't own the airspace, it simply means that you need to alert the FAA to this particular use and wait for them to acknowledge. If the need for permits were an indication that something isn't private property, we wouldn't have private property at all, because almost every use of private property requires some permit or another these days.
You won't always get such a permit. In some areas it matters more than others.
That's irrelevant. Class B airspace, for example, extends to the ground at the airport. It does not (generally) extend to the ground on other private property. Therefore, it doesn't limit the rights people have to the airspace over their property.
Sorry, that is not correct. Class B airspace extends to the ground for many miles from an airport.
http://airfactsjournal.com/fil...
You probably can't understand that unless you have had some training, but you'll see that there is an inner ring that extends around the airport and out from it for about 10 miles in most directions. I said it extended up to 10,000ft MSL, I was mistaken... I hadn't looked at this in awhile, it is 11,000ft MSL.
The SFC/110 right next to the airport runway markings means Surface to 11,000ft MSL.
I hope you fly better than you reason.
Rest assured, I know far more about this than you do.
Agreed, I'm not convinced they have any legal authority here. But it costs time and money to fight them.
It is very rare for the administrative courts to rule against the FAA. It now goes up the food chain, it will be interesting to see where it goes.
While that sounds nice and might feel good to say, you actually wouldn't want that to happen.
The law of unintended consequences would kick in here.
Ahh, I suspect you are confusing video encoding with the technology of LCDs.
My 70" TV has about 6 million LCD elements, 2 million each of red, green, and blue.
My Dell 30" Monitors have about 12 million LCD elements, 4 million each of red, green, and blue.
Video can be encoded many ways, but the LCD technology is largely the same between the above two screens.
Actually, most material is mastered at 4k, which is about the limit of 35mm film, the gold standard for a very long time.
When the studios switched to Blu-Ray, they largely scanned their older 35mm films in at 4k to give them a super master to work from.
When 4k comes along to consumers, they only need to master new copies from those scans.
Some digital content was shot at 2k, but they quickly went to 4k for future proofing.
Right now, you're well protected from drone flights over your private land because the airspace over your land is yours, up to the lower limit of flight space, generally 500-1000ft above the tallest structures.
That actually isn't true...
Few properties actually own any "air rights". They exist, but are less common than you think. Also, most "air rights" have more to do with the blocking of the view from other properties, than they have to do with aviation or flying.
There is no "lower limit" of flight space, Class B, C, D, E or G airspace goes all the way to the ground, everywhere in the USA.
Where I live, we're in the DFW Class B airspace, starting from 1 foot going up to 10,000 feet MSL (above Mean Sea Level).
Now, that being said, that doesn't mean you're breaking the law standing on your roof, or putting up a TV antenna... such things are understood by the law to be reasonable uses of your home and property.
You cannot generally put up anything taller than 200ft without a permit (and if you do, they'll make you take it down if it can't be permitted). It also has to be lit with a flashing red light at night and marked on the various aviation charts.
This is why Cinderella's Castle at Walt Disney World is just under 200ft tall, so they didn't have to put a big red light on the top.
- more than 10 years of professional aviation experience speaking, certified flight instructor in both airplanes and helicopters, more than 4,000 hours flown, more than 1,000 hours of instruction given
TL,DR - In short, most people think they have more rights than they really do when it comes to their properties, above and below them...
Making money, and there isn't any money to be made in curing Ebola...
Which is rather sad...
With all due respect
Yea, that rarely means that... :)
But taking it at face value, you should have shown that same image on a 1080 screen of similar size, that would have been more useful.
I have a very nice Sony 70" 3D 1080p TV at home, I also have 2 other smaller 1080p TVs. My main work computer has 3 Dell 30" 1600p monitors on it and as soon as the 32" 4K screens come down in price, I'll have three of those.
The difference is night and day, if you can't see it, fair enough, not everyone can.
But there is a difference, and to me, it is obvious. Just looking at my current monitors, which are half way between 1080p and 4k shows a large difference in quality. 1080p has 2 million pixels, my current screens have 4 million, 4k has 8 million.
4k can't get here fast enough IMHO...
Perfectly find may be good enough for you.
That is ok, nothing wrong with that.
Just don't confuse what YOU find to be perfectly fine with actual improvements.
My Father got off the bandwagon with cassette tapes. Doesn't make CDs bad, just means that cassettes were "perfectly fine" for him.
A CD is still better than a cassette tape.
I never said anything about Best Buy, now did I? I haven't bought anything there in many, many years...
It is quite possible, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about, heaven forbid...
^ This, thank you...
I see comment after comment from people who are talking out of their back ends, or perhaps their eyes suck...
We saw the exact same comments about 720p vs. 1080p almost 10 years ago, that you couldn't tell the difference.
Stupid is as stupid does I suppose...
True 4k is amazing, it blows 1080p out of the water. I've seen a similar display as you did, but this was on a 70" 1080p next to a 70" 4k display, from about 8 feet away, in a store.
Wow, once you've seen the difference, it is smack dab obvious how much of an improvement 4k really is. You don't have to look at the signs, just watch the video playing.
Now the issue is content... Since we've all now replaced much of our VHS and DVD content for 1080p Blu-Ray, I think few fewer people are going to be willing to do that again.
As much as I like it, I won't spend all that money yet again.
So... If they REALLY want 4k to take off, they need to offer a reasonable upgrade option, perhaps $2 per movie, to get the 4k version.
If I could take my stack of Blu-Ray discs into Walmart or Best Buy and trade them all in for $2 each for 4K versions, I'd probably go buy a 4K TV this Christmas.
$5 each? Meh, that is pushing it, maybe make it $5 each, but $2-3 each if you do 50 or 100 or more or something.
As far as digital copies, such as my now extensive library with Vudu and Amazon, those need upgrade options as well, also for a low price.
Take care of the customer and we'll throw money at you. Try to charge stupid high prices and we'll just not bother.