According to http://www.utdallas.edu/utdgeneral/utdmaps/watervi ew.html, "U.T. Dallas has no University owned and operated housing facilities"
My posting will probably get modded redundant (because I posted the same response above), but lest anyone think it is really "insightful":
You left out the rest of the citation, which indicates that UTD has effective control over the apartments:
However, the Waterview Park Apartments are located on the U.T. Dallas campus within easy walking distance to all campus facilities. U.T. Dallas students have priority for available units.
According to http://www.utdallas.edu/utdgeneral/utdmaps/watervi ew.html, U.T. Dallas has no University owned and operated housing facilities. However, the Waterview Park Apartments are located on the U.T. Dallas campus within easy walking distance to all campus facilities.
You left out the next sentence, which indicates that the apartments are effectively controlled by UTD:
U.T. Dallas students have priority for available units.
OTOH, another poster pointed at a computer world article that states the FCC has ruled explicitly on the rights of property owners prohibiting tennants (in this case, airlines in airports) from installing their own WLAN. This would appear to make our discussion moot, and place the University squarely in the wrong, legally speaking.
I've read the article, and finally the FCC ruling (which was slashdotted for while). And, I would agree with you except for one problem: UTD appears to be enforcing this policy under their student/university agreement (i.e. code of conduct), rather than any landlord/tenant agreement.
Since the basis for the original act (and clarifying ruling) was the landlord/tenant relationship, I'm not sure that it's a slam-dunk against UTD. Stir in a little ambiguity because UTD isn't absolutely prohibiting WiFi (just excluding all B/G and some A channels), and I'm not sure how it will turn out.
UTD may not own the structures themselves, but effectively control the use of them through the lease agreement with the builder of the structures.
I didn't remember this until after I submitted:
I used to work in an office building on the edge of the UTD campus. Like the apartments, the owner of the building had a long term land lease from UTD. The apartments in question are very convenient to where I worked, as you could walk the distance between them in a matter of minutes.
The apartments were also built relatively recently, and for a while were the nicest ones available in the area. But, they weren't available except to UTD students, per agreement between the builder of the apartments and UTD.
I don't remember the exact circumstances, but a new employee of my company had to move from her on-campus apartment once she either graduated from UTD or didn't enroll for a subsequent semester.
Again, UTD may not own the structures, but they do effectively control the use of them, including the ability to dictate the terms of lease agreements with the tenants.
Actually, the apartments do not belong to the university.
As another poster (that lives there) points out, it's a strange situation. UTD owns the land on which the apartments lie and leases the land to the builder of the apartments for a small fee.
UTD may not own the structures themselves, but effectively control the use of them through the lease agreement with the builder of the structures.
The wireless APs being used by the University connect to their network--and not to the local cable network, which is what the users in question want. My reading of the above says this trumps the centralized antenna.
I see your point. I didn't read it that way as first -- I was thinking along the lines of a specific service (like HBO or 'Net access), rather than the conduit (Comcast, Direct TV). But, I can see how it could be interpreted either way.
However, see my posting to another replier. The Q/A specifically exclude protection of a "hub" antenna (which describes a WiFi access point).
You got that right, there's existing case law that says tenants are allowed to setup of WiFi networks that aren't attached to the property owner's network, even if the tenant's netowkr is disruptive to the property owner's network. See the Denver International Airport vs. the airlines case.
The problem with your argument is that these residents aren't just tenants -- they are students at the university.
The original article submission says that violators are "subject to disciplinary action". If the resident was just a tenant, there would be no "disciplinary action" -- the landlord would simply start the proceedings for eviction.
The FCC might choose to extend their argument to cover agreements and codes of conduct between a student and a university. But, at the moment, the case law only addresses a landlord/tenant relationship.
Depending on your point of view, the university may have either undermined their position or provided an "out" to the student: they haven't completely prohibited WiFi. The policy explicitly allows use of most of the "A" channels.
There's an ammendment to the order updating it so that it applies to antennas designed for receiving and transmiting fixed wireless signals, not just TV services.
That's correct, but again it is intended for services provided by another party (i.e. a wireless ISP), not for services provided by the resident/consumer:
Q: What are "fixed wireless signals"?
A: "Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS") signals.
The purpose of this act is to give the resident the necessary access to the exterior of the residence to install an antenna. Trying to stretch it to customer-provided WiFi service is a torturous interpretation that doesn't hold up under examination.
Still don't believe it? Here's another example:
Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas?
A: The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations.
The UTD Technology Store (BK1.3 or extension 6500) is working to offer 802.11a wireless access points to use in place of the 802.11b/g. The possibility even exists that they may offer a discount of some sort for newer 802.11b/g access points that are traded in on an 802.11a.
[....]
There are 12 channels available defined by the 802.11a standard in the 5GHz range. The four (4) lowest channels and the two (2) highest channels are available for students to use with their own access points.
Lower U-NII band (5.15-5.25GHz): 36, 40, 44, 48
Middle U-NII band (5.25-5.35GHz):(52, 56, 60, 64 - NOT AVAILABLE)(149, 153 - NOT AVAILABLE)
Upper U-NII band (5.725-5.825GHz): 157, 161
[Some editing made to list of channels from original, due to what appeared to be formatting errors]
The FCC has exclusive rights to resolve matters such as these under the Communications Act of 1934, including those regarding unlicensed devices such as wifi. FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices rules (OTARD) specifically prohibit landlords, state and local governments and third parties from placing restrictions upon users of these unlicensed devices.
Read it again. The cited act addresses services provided to the consumer/resident, not services provided by the consumer/resident.
You might be able to parse it to apply to services provided by the resident, until you get to this:
Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?
A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, than the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.
Since the problem is actually interference with that central antenna/service provided by the landlord, this provision would circumvent a tortured interpretation.
I do have to say that in the last few weeks while meta-moderating I've been annoyed at the number of posts that were obviously moderated "off-topic" or "flamebait" just because the moderator didn't agree with the political slant.
I've noticed it, too. And I've been meta-moderating those "unfair".
Re:Sounds perfect for Florida...
on
Space-Age Houses
·
· Score: 1
Wow, I must be really unlucky. I've survived three of the seven on this list:
Hurricane Carla: This hurricane hit on September 10, 1961. It struck the Texas coast.
I in Corpus Christi, but was too young to remember it. The rest of my family remembers that we were without power for a couple of weeks.
Hurricane Celia: This hurricane hit Texas on August 3, 1970 and caused $1.6 billion in damage (in 1990 dollars).
Still living in Corpus Christi, I was a teenager. We were without power for 10 days. No substantial damage to house, but gravel roof (popular at the time) had to be redone. Gravel on our and neighboring roofs pelted cars parked between house with such force that they needed new paint jobs (travel trailer and third car were in garage).
Hurricane Floyd: This hurricane, which struck in September 1999, brought so much rain that 13 states were issued federal disaster declarations.
I still live in Texas, but was working at a job that required me to commute to Princeton, NJ, every week -- putting me in the path of this storm. The flooding was significant, but not catastrophic.
Would you like to back that up with some evidence? I don't think anyone outside of members of the armed forces has been shot by a machine gun for years.
It's not non-existent, but it is rare. Despite the hype over "cosmetically fearful but otherwise functionally identical" semi-automatic refiles (i.e. "assault weapons), fully-automatic weapons are quite rare in this country.
I don't have detailed information about illegally-owned automatic weapons, but there is only one documented instance of a legally-owned automatic weapon being used in a crime. In 1988, a Dayton, OH, police officer used one to murder an informant, and was subsequently sentenced to 18 years in prison. It isn't clear if he owned it personally or he had access to it through his employer (the police department).
"In two weeks the Blonde returns with the $10,000, plus the $5.00 interest on the loan. As the manager returns the keys to her car, he asks, 'I did some checking while you were away. It seems you're loaded with money! Why did you need a loan for two weeks?' To which the Blonde replies, 'Where else in New York can I park my car for two weeks and only pay $5.00!'"
Banks generally don't take possession of cars as collateral, unless it's a re-possession because you aren't making payments as agreed. On the other hand, pawn shops DO take possession of the collateral until repayment of the loan.
And, I remember reading an article long ago about some unconventional uses of pawn shops by people that needed cash in a hurry (a contractor pawned his truck for cash to meet a weekend payroll, until he got paid by a customer the next week).
But, the unusual one was the guy that pawned his Rolls Royce. The pawn shop operator took possession of the car and put it in secure storage. A week or so later, the owner shows up and pays off the loan and a (relatively small) amount of interest. It turned out that he was away from his usual home and had to go out of the country on short notice. The interest he paid was far less than he would have paid for parking the car in a safe place.
The parent posting makes a lot of interesting points, but I wanted to respond to this particular one:
Now look at Gun control from the liberal perspective - people are influenced by the environment and the situation they're. Since no one is inherently good or bad, gun control simply decreases the probablity that a given individual will be in possesion of a firearm. This is good because if you have a firearm, you're probably more likely to shoot someone with it. Perhaps if you're angry you wouldn't normally hurt someone, but having a gun in your hand changes your mindset and makes you more likely to do something bad. Gun control legislation is an attempt to remove the external stimulus that can cause people to be bad - so most liberals support it.
This is a good description of the attitude exhibited by most anti-gun zealots. I'm not using "liberal" as a descriptor, because "liberal" should be associated with anti-authoritarian views, and "gun control" is definitely authoritarian.
I've pressed quite a few of them on this particular point, trying to understand why they believe this. Research has repeatedly shown that a perpetrator considering or planning to commit a violent crime has no problem obtaining a firearm. What's left is commonly known as a "crime of passion" -- i.e. someone shooting their spouse after finding him/her in bed with another person. But, these events are extraordinarily rare, despite high rates of gun ownership in the US.
After pressing an anti-gun zealot about why he/she believes this to be a real problem, it invariably comes down to a single issue -- usually blurted out or revealed after I've pushed some sort of "hot button": they don't trust themselves to be responsible with a firearm. They are afraid that when encountered with a situation where they must exercise some self-restraint to avoid committing a violent act, they won't be able to do so.
At this point, I usually recommend that they need to seek treatment from a mental health professional, rather than projecting their self-doubt onto everyone else around them.
Looking at those photos on the site I am reminded of that 70's movie ( or mebee early 80's- I was young) with Andy Griffith as a junk yard proprietor who makes a rocket and- no shit- uses a cement mixing truck hopper as the "capsule".
Used when flying in low visibility conditions like night and weather.
Technically, IFR is required in IMC, or Instrument Meteorological Conditions. It is also required in Class A airspace (above 18,000 feet).
By itself, "night" does not constitute IMC. Under some conditions, nighttime actually increases visibility of illuminated objects. However, the same weather conditions might constitute IMC at night, but be marginally VMC during daylight hours.
Call me dense, but I don't get the joke.
A road map is sometimes called a "Student IFR" map, because it is the last resort when a pilot gets lost because they cannot (or never learned) to navigate properly by dead reckoning or with radio-navigation aids.
Depending on the purpose of the flight (screwing around or actually going somewhere), and where you were going, it was generally easier to follow the 401 (4 lane highway) than it was to figure out a bearing/heading.
Yup, that's what "IFR" means: I Follow Roads.
(Pilots will get the joke. Non-pilots may or may not).
I know this is finally behind you, but I have a suggestion for anyone that finds themselves being harassed by a collection agency:
Federal law requires the collection agency to cease attempting to communicate with you except for a limited number of circumstances, if you request them to do so.
Get the address of the debt collection agency (they are required to tell you, if asked). Send a certified, return-receipt-requested letter to the agency stating the facts of the case (that you paid the debt, that it is still under dispute, etc.) and demand they no longer attempt to contact you except under the provisions of the applicable federal law.
I had the same name as the (ex-?)husband of a deadbeat in my area and got persistent calls from an out-of-state collection agency. When I tried to set the record straight during one of those calls, they copped the same kind of obnoxious attitude.
Since I wasn't the creditor, I don't think I had the protection of the the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. But, I sent a letter informing them that I would consider any further calls concerning the matter to be harassment and cited the applicable state law. And, I copied the Attorney General in their state and my state.
True, that may not have been the best example. I think the point still holds, though, that given an accident, cars have a higher survival rate. (How about a car rear-ending another car vs. a plane rear-ending another plane?)
Mid-air collisions are very rare and are difficult to evaluate. But, I think the point you are trying to make is that the higher speeds associated with airborne vehicles result in a higher kinetic energy. Even ground vehicle accidents exhibit the same phenomena: higher speeds result in higher fatality rates.
Altitude (and the higher potential energy) is also a factor, but aside from unavoidable catastrophic failures, altitude is usually your friend (as it gives you more choices).
I wish I had mod points, as your post is one of the most deserving ones in this threads.
When I read Slashdot, I try to remember this quote that is frequently misattributed to Winston Churchill:
"If a man is not liberal in his youth, he has no heart. If not conservative when older, he has no brain".
Eventually, most of the people posting to Slashdot will grow up. But they are unlikely to do so until the cold reality of big government slaps them in the face.
One major reason for being concerned about air travel safety is failure modes: if an accident does happen, you're much more likely to be able to walk away (or at least be carried away) from a car accident at 100km/h on the ground than from an exploded engine at 1000km/h several thousand meters up in the air.
Engine failures happen on a regular basis (meaning that it is statistically measureable). In a multi-engine plane, it is an event for which pilots train regularly. By itself, a single engine failure in a multi-engine plane rarely results in an accident or fatality.
Slashdot Mirror
My posting will probably get modded redundant (because I posted the same response above), but lest anyone think it is really "insightful": You left out the rest of the citation, which indicates that UTD has effective control over the apartments:
However, the Waterview Park Apartments are located on the U.T. Dallas campus within easy walking distance to all campus facilities. U.T. Dallas students have priority for available units.
You left out the next sentence, which indicates that the apartments are effectively controlled by UTD:
U.T. Dallas students have priority for available units.
I've read the article, and finally the FCC ruling (which was slashdotted for while). And, I would agree with you except for one problem: UTD appears to be enforcing this policy under their student/university agreement (i.e. code of conduct), rather than any landlord/tenant agreement.
Since the basis for the original act (and clarifying ruling) was the landlord/tenant relationship, I'm not sure that it's a slam-dunk against UTD. Stir in a little ambiguity because UTD isn't absolutely prohibiting WiFi (just excluding all B/G and some A channels), and I'm not sure how it will turn out.
I didn't remember this until after I submitted:
I used to work in an office building on the edge of the UTD campus. Like the apartments, the owner of the building had a long term land lease from UTD. The apartments in question are very convenient to where I worked, as you could walk the distance between them in a matter of minutes.
The apartments were also built relatively recently, and for a while were the nicest ones available in the area. But, they weren't available except to UTD students, per agreement between the builder of the apartments and UTD.
I don't remember the exact circumstances, but a new employee of my company had to move from her on-campus apartment once she either graduated from UTD or didn't enroll for a subsequent semester.
Again, UTD may not own the structures, but they do effectively control the use of them, including the ability to dictate the terms of lease agreements with the tenants.
As another poster (that lives there) points out, it's a strange situation. UTD owns the land on which the apartments lie and leases the land to the builder of the apartments for a small fee.
UTD may not own the structures themselves, but effectively control the use of them through the lease agreement with the builder of the structures.
I see your point. I didn't read it that way as first -- I was thinking along the lines of a specific service (like HBO or 'Net access), rather than the conduit (Comcast, Direct TV). But, I can see how it could be interpreted either way.
However, see my posting to another replier. The Q/A specifically exclude protection of a "hub" antenna (which describes a WiFi access point).
The problem with your argument is that these residents aren't just tenants -- they are students at the university.
The original article submission says that violators are "subject to disciplinary action". If the resident was just a tenant, there would be no "disciplinary action" -- the landlord would simply start the proceedings for eviction.
The FCC might choose to extend their argument to cover agreements and codes of conduct between a student and a university. But, at the moment, the case law only addresses a landlord/tenant relationship.
Depending on your point of view, the university may have either undermined their position or provided an "out" to the student: they haven't completely prohibited WiFi. The policy explicitly allows use of most of the "A" channels.
That's correct, but again it is intended for services provided by another party (i.e. a wireless ISP), not for services provided by the resident/consumer:
Q: What are "fixed wireless signals"?
A: "Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS") signals.
The purpose of this act is to give the resident the necessary access to the exterior of the residence to install an antenna. Trying to stretch it to customer-provided WiFi service is a torturous interpretation that doesn't hold up under examination.
Still don't believe it? Here's another example:
Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas?
A: The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations.
The UTD Technology Store (BK1.3 or extension 6500) is working to offer 802.11a wireless access points to use in place of the 802.11b/g. The possibility even exists that they may offer a discount of some sort for newer 802.11b/g access points that are traded in on an 802.11a.
[....]
There are 12 channels available defined by the 802.11a standard in the 5GHz range. The four (4) lowest channels and the two (2) highest channels are available for students to use with their own access points.
Lower U-NII band (5.15-5.25GHz): 36, 40, 44, 48
Middle U-NII band (5.25-5.35GHz):(52, 56, 60, 64 - NOT AVAILABLE)(149, 153 - NOT AVAILABLE)
Upper U-NII band (5.725-5.825GHz): 157, 161
[Some editing made to list of channels from original, due to what appeared to be formatting errors]
Read it again. The cited act addresses services provided to the consumer/resident, not services provided by the consumer/resident.
You might be able to parse it to apply to services provided by the resident, until you get to this:
Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?
A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, than the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.
Since the problem is actually interference with that central antenna/service provided by the landlord, this provision would circumvent a tortured interpretation.
There's no problem here, other than a whiny Slashdot editor.
I've noticed it, too. And I've been meta-moderating those "unfair".
Hurricane Carla: This hurricane hit on September 10, 1961. It struck the Texas coast.
I in Corpus Christi, but was too young to remember it. The rest of my family remembers that we were without power for a couple of weeks.
Hurricane Celia: This hurricane hit Texas on August 3, 1970 and caused $1.6 billion in damage (in 1990 dollars).
Still living in Corpus Christi, I was a teenager. We were without power for 10 days. No substantial damage to house, but gravel roof (popular at the time) had to be redone. Gravel on our and neighboring roofs pelted cars parked between house with such force that they needed new paint jobs (travel trailer and third car were in garage).
Hurricane Floyd: This hurricane, which struck in September 1999, brought so much rain that 13 states were issued federal disaster declarations.
I still live in Texas, but was working at a job that required me to commute to Princeton, NJ, every week -- putting me in the path of this storm. The flooding was significant, but not catastrophic.
It's not non-existent, but it is rare. Despite the hype over "cosmetically fearful but otherwise functionally identical" semi-automatic refiles (i.e. "assault weapons), fully-automatic weapons are quite rare in this country.
I don't have detailed information about illegally-owned automatic weapons, but there is only one documented instance of a legally-owned automatic weapon being used in a crime. In 1988, a Dayton, OH, police officer used one to murder an informant, and was subsequently sentenced to 18 years in prison. It isn't clear if he owned it personally or he had access to it through his employer (the police department).
Banks generally don't take possession of cars as collateral, unless it's a re-possession because you aren't making payments as agreed. On the other hand, pawn shops DO take possession of the collateral until repayment of the loan.
And, I remember reading an article long ago about some unconventional uses of pawn shops by people that needed cash in a hurry (a contractor pawned his truck for cash to meet a weekend payroll, until he got paid by a customer the next week).
But, the unusual one was the guy that pawned his Rolls Royce. The pawn shop operator took possession of the car and put it in secure storage. A week or so later, the owner shows up and pays off the loan and a (relatively small) amount of interest. It turned out that he was away from his usual home and had to go out of the country on short notice. The interest he paid was far less than he would have paid for parking the car in a safe place.
While this quote has been frequently attributed to Churchill, I haven't been able to find any evidence that he actually said it.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cf m?pageid=112
Now look at Gun control from the liberal perspective - people are influenced by the environment and the situation they're. Since no one is inherently good or bad, gun control simply decreases the probablity that a given individual will be in possesion of a firearm. This is good because if you have a firearm, you're probably more likely to shoot someone with it. Perhaps if you're angry you wouldn't normally hurt someone, but having a gun in your hand changes your mindset and makes you more likely to do something bad. Gun control legislation is an attempt to remove the external stimulus that can cause people to be bad - so most liberals support it.
This is a good description of the attitude exhibited by most anti-gun zealots. I'm not using "liberal" as a descriptor, because "liberal" should be associated with anti-authoritarian views, and "gun control" is definitely authoritarian.
I've pressed quite a few of them on this particular point, trying to understand why they believe this. Research has repeatedly shown that a perpetrator considering or planning to commit a violent crime has no problem obtaining a firearm. What's left is commonly known as a "crime of passion" -- i.e. someone shooting their spouse after finding him/her in bed with another person. But, these events are extraordinarily rare, despite high rates of gun ownership in the US.
After pressing an anti-gun zealot about why he/she believes this to be a real problem, it invariably comes down to a single issue -- usually blurted out or revealed after I've pushed some sort of "hot button": they don't trust themselves to be responsible with a firearm. They are afraid that when encountered with a situation where they must exercise some self-restraint to avoid committing a violent act, they won't be able to do so.
At this point, I usually recommend that they need to seek treatment from a mental health professional, rather than projecting their self-doubt onto everyone else around them.
http://www.webdav.org/
Salvage 1. It was 1979.
Technically, IFR is required in IMC, or Instrument Meteorological Conditions. It is also required in Class A airspace (above 18,000 feet).
By itself, "night" does not constitute IMC. Under some conditions, nighttime actually increases visibility of illuminated objects. However, the same weather conditions might constitute IMC at night, but be marginally VMC during daylight hours.
Call me dense, but I don't get the joke.
A road map is sometimes called a "Student IFR" map, because it is the last resort when a pilot gets lost because they cannot (or never learned) to navigate properly by dead reckoning or with radio-navigation aids.
Yup, that's what "IFR" means: I Follow Roads.
(Pilots will get the joke. Non-pilots may or may not).
Federal law requires the collection agency to cease attempting to communicate with you except for a limited number of circumstances, if you request them to do so.
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
See 805 (c).
Get the address of the debt collection agency (they are required to tell you, if asked). Send a certified, return-receipt-requested letter to the agency stating the facts of the case (that you paid the debt, that it is still under dispute, etc.) and demand they no longer attempt to contact you except under the provisions of the applicable federal law.
I had the same name as the (ex-?)husband of a deadbeat in my area and got persistent calls from an out-of-state collection agency. When I tried to set the record straight during one of those calls, they copped the same kind of obnoxious attitude.
Since I wasn't the creditor, I don't think I had the protection of the the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. But, I sent a letter informing them that I would consider any further calls concerning the matter to be harassment and cited the applicable state law. And, I copied the Attorney General in their state and my state.
I haven't heard from them since then.
Mid-air collisions are very rare and are difficult to evaluate. But, I think the point you are trying to make is that the higher speeds associated with airborne vehicles result in a higher kinetic energy. Even ground vehicle accidents exhibit the same phenomena: higher speeds result in higher fatality rates.
Altitude (and the higher potential energy) is also a factor, but aside from unavoidable catastrophic failures, altitude is usually your friend (as it gives you more choices).
When I read Slashdot, I try to remember this quote that is frequently misattributed to Winston Churchill:
"If a man is not liberal in his youth, he has no heart. If not conservative when older, he has no brain".
Eventually, most of the people posting to Slashdot will grow up. But they are unlikely to do so until the cold reality of big government slaps them in the face.
Engine failures happen on a regular basis (meaning that it is statistically measureable). In a multi-engine plane, it is an event for which pilots train regularly. By itself, a single engine failure in a multi-engine plane rarely results in an accident or fatality.