The post I was commenting on get into trouble when making absolute statement like "Making a copy will never be theft". I was merely pointing out how that blanket statement was incorrect.
Due to the fact that he new about the authorization page he knew he he didn't ha authorization have the documents but copied them anyway that is theft.
UPDATE: Laurelli ended up admitting in testimony that when he found the documents, he traveled back to the homepage that they stemmed from and found an authentication page. This indicated that the documents were likely supposed to be protected. That admission played a part in his later conviction in the appeals court.
The hung out an "authorized persons only" sign but forgot to lock the door.
Acquittals are regularly appealed. It could be due to many causes including invalid ruling by the judge, incorrect jury instructions, jury tampering, etc. Basically the premise is that the original trial was flawed in some substantial way and they need to do it again.
No, I am arguing that situations where the operator will be incapacitated in five minutes have very different consequences for a pilot and a driver. The driver would have pulled over and been completely safe. The pilot would be 10 minutes from the airport or forced to make a very dangerous off airport landing which may or may not be able to be completed in that 5 minute time.
By the way, engine out is an emergency that is trained for. There is no way to train for being unconscious.
is the FBI making pleas to the public to report snow ball throwers?
I believe the FBI has jurisdiction over aircraft safety not random local snowball throwing.
a snow ball couldn't occlude the windshield of a car? seems pretty likely to me.
Not the whole windshield and it can be cleared by windshield wipers. Laser dazzle is complete and can last quite a while.
by that logic then, pointing a laser at light aircraft shouldn't be reported to the FBI right?
The first two reasons are enough.
you need to consider the overall potential for mayhem and murder. there's a lot more kids throwing snowballs each day
I really hate these "If you can't control everything we should not control anything" statements. Kids throwing snowballs have a much lower injury potential than laser dazzling pilots.
There is a third category. An emerging situation where one would be in control for the next 5 minutes which is plenty of time to pull over but not enough time to fly 15 minutes and land.
It's an emergency. You basically land and hope for the best.
Which puts the lives of everyone on the road at risk. That is not a good solution to a preventable problem. I was talking about landing safely on a road, not making a dangerous landing in traffic.
The point being the whole "if a private pilot gets ill he dies and takes out everyone with him" but "a driver who gets ill can safely pull over" is a false dichotomy--given the serious number of accidents and fatalities that have arisen when a driver got ill or got confused.
Numbers of accidents are not the issue odds are. A pilot has a much smaller chance of surviving medical emergency while in the air than someone with the same emergency on the ground.
It is worth noting that the AOPA and other organizations track the number of fatalities due to different circumstances while flying--and suddenly getting ill and crashing and dying is not very high up on the list
Perhaps there are so few issues with medical emergencies because there is a medical exam required and pilots with medical issues can no longer fly. Who is to say that crashes due to medical problems will not increase dramatically if the medical exam requirement is removed. This is similar to a person with chronic depressing stopping their medications because they feel fine.
Besides, most places where people fly, there is usually an airport maybe 15 or 20 minutes out--and in an emergency situation you are permitted by the regs to land anywhere , including a highway or a strip of grass somewhere.
Even then it takes time to find a place suitable to land. The landing on highways takes time to set up as traffic needs to be stopped. It is extremely dangerous to land in the middle of traffic. That open field may be surrounded by power line you didn't see, be too soft or have hidden irrigation ditches that could cause a fatal crash. Landing anywhere other than an airport, especially while incapacitated by illness, is extremely dangerous.
Those people would just jump the turnstiles anyway. Why go through the complexity of ticket swapping when there is a much simpler way to break the rules?
Haque gives the example of a commuter travelling from Millbrae Station to the south of San Francisco to the downtown station, Embarcadero, a journey that costs $4.50. Another commuter travelling from Glen Park in San Francisco to Berkeley on the other side of the Bay pays $4.20. So together they have to fork out $8.70.
But if these commuters meet and swap tickets, it’s possible for them to pay $5.10 (Millbrae to Berkeley) and $1.85 (Glen Park to Embarcadero) or a total of $6.95. That’s a saving of $1.70 or 20 per cent.
An interesting point is that there is no transfer station between Glen Park and Embarcadero. The person going from Glenn Park to Berkeley would have to go in the other direction to Balboa park or the person going to Embarcadero would have to go to 19th St/Oakland. This would require one of them to reverse direction and I am wondering if it one even has access to trains traveling in both directions at the transfer stations.
In the end, is traveling out of your way, searching for the person to transfer the ticket to and making an extra transfer really worth saving $1.70 a day?
There is a huge difference between "I am not feeling well" and taking a couple of minutes to pull over on a highway and having to fly back to an airport and land an aircraft. While there are some instant disabling issues there are meany more that take time to develop. Even many heart attacks start with chest pain, shortness of breath, light headedness, etc. During that time a driver can pull over. If it takes longer to get back to the airport the illness has longer to develop and the task of landing become much more difficult. Which brings up another point. Pulling over to the side of the road is much easier than landing an aircraft. Impairment due to illness is much more dangerous in the air.
Right of first sale. I can do whatever the hell I want with my little slip of paper (or do they use cards there now?), and to hell with their "rules".
It is not a first sale issue but how BART defines a valid fare payment transaction. There are two parts to that transaction; swiping the card when entering the station and swiping the same card when leaving the station. Attempt to complete that transaction using two different cards is not a valid fare payment.
Perhaps the issue is that I am from Canada where we did and probably still do need medical exams.
Another difference is that many medical conditions like heart attacks often do not come on suddenly. There is usually a warning sign like chest pain, shortness of breath etc. There is a huge difference between taking 30 seconds to pull over and having to fly back to the airport to land. Yes, there will be sudden illnesses in both air and on the surface but non-sudden illnesses, which are much more common, are still much more dangerous in the air.
That is not my goal. Do you think drug companies should be able to make any medical claim they want? They can't now and that infringes on the company owner's freedom of speech.There is a compromise somewhere between total freedom of speech (which you seem to demand) and total censorship (which I do not advocate) that society can function with. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right as it must be tempered with the needs of society. Speech should be as free as it can be without causing harm to others. In the case of copyright the harm is economic.
Like I said, pay for the commercial connection and get commercial access. To my ISP (Shaw Cable) the difference is about $45/month. It is not a show stopper.
Where in there does it say they ISPs have to charge everyone the same?
The requirement is “a definite detractor to business,” Heffernan told the committee. He and several lawmakers noted that the closest individuals come to a medical exam when obtaining a driver’s license is usually a vision test. Meanwhile, most boat operators do not need any medical certifications.
In the case of a car or boat when the operator becomes ill he can pull over and stop. An aircraft is a different matter in that it could kill many more people including the operator if it crashes. There is also the difference that aircraft fly at altitude and the thinner air can exacerbate health issues. One needs to be much more fit to pilot an aircraft than operate a vehicle and boat. By the way, commercial drivers usually require a doctor's exam on license renewal.
The other issue is have these regulations changed recently? I had a glider pilot's license in the '80s. I needed a medical exam and private aviation was pretty healthy then..
Slashdot Mirror
The post I was commenting on get into trouble when making absolute statement like "Making a copy will never be theft". I was merely pointing out how that blanket statement was incorrect.
Due to the fact that he new about the authorization page he knew he he didn't ha authorization have the documents but copied them anyway that is theft.
It's stronger than to original statement.
First, it's not theft. Making a copy will never be theft. Get over it.
Then there is no theft of credit card information or any other personal information stored on servers. Sorry but I don't believe that.
From the article
UPDATE: Laurelli ended up admitting in testimony that when he found the documents, he traveled back to the homepage that they stemmed from and found an authentication page. This indicated that the documents were likely supposed to be protected. That admission played a part in his later conviction in the appeals court.
The hung out an "authorized persons only" sign but forgot to lock the door.
Acquittals are regularly appealed. It could be due to many causes including invalid ruling by the judge, incorrect jury instructions, jury tampering, etc. Basically the premise is that the original trial was flawed in some substantial way and they need to do it again.
i can make up fake medical terms
There are quite a few examples of lasers injuring pilots. Here is one.
A Dallas Police Department incident report says the medic, Michael Pruitt, sustained “a burn to his right eye” and was “unable to see out of it.”
Then there is the issue of the pilot and passengers.
No, I am arguing that situations where the operator will be incapacitated in five minutes have very different consequences for a pilot and a driver. The driver would have pulled over and been completely safe. The pilot would be 10 minutes from the airport or forced to make a very dangerous off airport landing which may or may not be able to be completed in that 5 minute time.
By the way, engine out is an emergency that is trained for. There is no way to train for being unconscious.
is the FBI making pleas to the public to report snow ball throwers?
I believe the FBI has jurisdiction over aircraft safety not random local snowball throwing.
a snow ball couldn't occlude the windshield of a car? seems pretty likely to me.
Not the whole windshield and it can be cleared by windshield wipers. Laser dazzle is complete and can last quite a while.
by that logic then, pointing a laser at light aircraft shouldn't be reported to the FBI right?
The first two reasons are enough.
you need to consider the overall potential for mayhem and murder. there's a lot more kids throwing snowballs each day
I really hate these "If you can't control everything we should not control anything" statements. Kids throwing snowballs have a much lower injury potential than laser dazzling pilots.
There is a third category. An emerging situation where one would be in control for the next 5 minutes which is plenty of time to pull over but not enough time to fly 15 minutes and land.
It's an emergency. You basically land and hope for the best.
Which puts the lives of everyone on the road at risk. That is not a good solution to a preventable problem. I was talking about landing safely on a road, not making a dangerous landing in traffic.
1. Kids that throw snowballs at cars are often reported to the police.
2. Since when has a snowball temporarily or permanently blinded a driver.
3. Since when is a driver hauling around hundreds of passengers?
Not so much.
The point being the whole "if a private pilot gets ill he dies and takes out everyone with him" but "a driver who gets ill can safely pull over" is a false dichotomy--given the serious number of accidents and fatalities that have arisen when a driver got ill or got confused.
Numbers of accidents are not the issue odds are. A pilot has a much smaller chance of surviving medical emergency while in the air than someone with the same emergency on the ground.
It is worth noting that the AOPA and other organizations track the number of fatalities due to different circumstances while flying--and suddenly getting ill and crashing and dying is not very high up on the list
Perhaps there are so few issues with medical emergencies because there is a medical exam required and pilots with medical issues can no longer fly. Who is to say that crashes due to medical problems will not increase dramatically if the medical exam requirement is removed. This is similar to a person with chronic depressing stopping their medications because they feel fine.
Besides, most places where people fly, there is usually an airport maybe 15 or 20 minutes out--and in an emergency situation you are permitted by the regs to land anywhere , including a highway or a strip of grass somewhere.
Even then it takes time to find a place suitable to land. The landing on highways takes time to set up as traffic needs to be stopped. It is extremely dangerous to land in the middle of traffic. That open field may be surrounded by power line you didn't see, be too soft or have hidden irrigation ditches that could cause a fatal crash. Landing anywhere other than an airport, especially while incapacitated by illness, is extremely dangerous.
Those people would just jump the turnstiles anyway. Why go through the complexity of ticket swapping when there is a much simpler way to break the rules?
Haque gives the example of a commuter travelling from Millbrae Station to the south of San Francisco to the downtown station, Embarcadero, a journey that costs $4.50. Another commuter travelling from Glen Park in San Francisco to Berkeley on the other side of the Bay pays $4.20. So together they have to fork out $8.70.
But if these commuters meet and swap tickets, it’s possible for them to pay $5.10 (Millbrae to Berkeley) and $1.85 (Glen Park to Embarcadero) or a total of $6.95. That’s a saving of $1.70 or 20 per cent.
An interesting point is that there is no transfer station between Glen Park and Embarcadero. The person going from Glenn Park to Berkeley would have to go in the other direction to Balboa park or the person going to Embarcadero would have to go to 19th St/Oakland. This would require one of them to reverse direction and I am wondering if it one even has access to trains traveling in both directions at the transfer stations.
In the end, is traveling out of your way, searching for the person to transfer the ticket to and making an extra transfer really worth saving $1.70 a day?
There is a huge difference between "I am not feeling well" and taking a couple of minutes to pull over on a highway and having to fly back to an airport and land an aircraft. While there are some instant disabling issues there are meany more that take time to develop. Even many heart attacks start with chest pain, shortness of breath, light headedness, etc. During that time a driver can pull over. If it takes longer to get back to the airport the illness has longer to develop and the task of landing become much more difficult. Which brings up another point. Pulling over to the side of the road is much easier than landing an aircraft. Impairment due to illness is much more dangerous in the air.
Try to build a society based on total free speech and watch it fail.
Right of first sale. I can do whatever the hell I want with my little slip of paper (or do they use cards there now?), and to hell with their "rules".
It is not a first sale issue but how BART defines a valid fare payment transaction. There are two parts to that transaction; swiping the card when entering the station and swiping the same card when leaving the station. Attempt to complete that transaction using two different cards is not a valid fare payment.
Perhaps the issue is that I am from Canada where we did and probably still do need medical exams.
Another difference is that many medical conditions like heart attacks often do not come on suddenly. There is usually a warning sign like chest pain, shortness of breath etc. There is a huge difference between taking 30 seconds to pull over and having to fly back to the airport to land. Yes, there will be sudden illnesses in both air and on the surface but non-sudden illnesses, which are much more common, are still much more dangerous in the air.
You will never make me despise freedom.
That is not my goal. Do you think drug companies should be able to make any medical claim they want? They can't now and that infringes on the company owner's freedom of speech.There is a compromise somewhere between total freedom of speech (which you seem to demand) and total censorship (which I do not advocate) that society can function with. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right as it must be tempered with the needs of society. Speech should be as free as it can be without causing harm to others. In the case of copyright the harm is economic.
From the Bart website;
When you enter BART, insert your ticket into the fare gate and it will be returned to you. Use the same ticket when you exit
By using one ticket when you enter and another when you exit you are breaking the rules.
Like I said, pay for the commercial connection and get commercial access. To my ISP (Shaw Cable) the difference is about $45/month. It is not a show stopper.
Where in there does it say they ISPs have to charge everyone the same?
The requirement is “a definite detractor to business,” Heffernan told the committee. He and several lawmakers noted that the closest individuals come to a medical exam when obtaining a driver’s license is usually a vision test. Meanwhile, most boat operators do not need any medical certifications.
In the case of a car or boat when the operator becomes ill he can pull over and stop. An aircraft is a different matter in that it could kill many more people including the operator if it crashes. There is also the difference that aircraft fly at altitude and the thinner air can exacerbate health issues. One needs to be much more fit to pilot an aircraft than operate a vehicle and boat. By the way, commercial drivers usually require a doctor's exam on license renewal.
The other issue is have these regulations changed recently? I had a glider pilot's license in the '80s. I needed a medical exam and private aviation was pretty healthy then..