ICBMs contributed to launch vehicle technology which contributed to satellite technology which contributed to a lot of things. Yes there were a lot of money spent on things that are now obsolete due to the end of the cold war. There were also a lot of things that may never have been built without it. GPS is an excellent example of this. It was originally a Defence Department project because the military needed a way to target munitions accurately and to track it's assets. Private companies have tried and failed to put up satellite constellations, think Uridium, but the Government paid for GPS and ensured that it worked. Another major project that was advanced by the military was the US Interstate system. There was a lot of opposition to paying for the system but the defence department chipped in quite a bit because one of the considerations in the placement of these highways was the movement of troops and materials during time of war.
Look at all the things that come out of DARPA. Many DARPA technologies are now in civilian use.
Yes, there has been a lot of money spent on the military in the 20th century. It is also debatable whether or not it was a waste. Is it a waste for a bank to spend millions of dollars on a safe that will never be attacked by thieves because the thieves know they can never get in? I have a saying; any state not sufficiently protected by military assets will soon become the property of another state. Were the Trident submarines a waste? Maybe. Did Trident submarines ever fire a nuke in anger? No. Did they deter the USSR from attacking the US and the countries it protects? Maybe.
Your second point is moot because the ruling clearly states that the tabular data was not copyrightable and focused on the descriptions and pictures which are.
You are confusing the two aspects of the case; breach of contract and copyright infringement. The scraping was a breach of contract as it contravened the web site TOS which the court ruled is a binding contract. The display of copyrightable descriptions and pictures was ruled copyright infringement. These are separate issues in the case.
I was wondering how one defines "passenger"? Are the pilot and co-pilot considered passengers? If they had stated occupants this issue would not exist.
First off, in US law it has (finally) become pretty clear that not obeying TOS is not, in itself, a crime. Ever-higher courts have ruled on that issue and Congress has a pending bill spelling that out in plain English..
Sorry but you missed the point. The bill just means the someone can not be arrested and charged by the state with a crime that will go on their criminal record. They still can be sued in civil court for damages, breach of contract, etc. It becomes a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.
The judge ruled that the presence and subsequent sending of the Terms of service was sufficient to rule that Zoocassa broke a binding contract. Data is not free if it is on the internet; It still belongs to the entity that created it. Al Zoocasa had to do was come up with an agreement with Century 21 and this problem would go away. They didn't do that so they no longer can scrape the site. Be an idiot, get kicked out.
Zoocasa is still in business. They just can not pull the complete listing from Century21. Had they not been such idiots and come to an agreement with Century21 this issue would never have arisen.
As a buyer you are interested in finding a listing in a certain area with certain criteria. Century21 is interested in creating those listings so you can buy them. If Century21 doesn't know you are looking they the don't know to try to get people to sell. You both lose.
So you think it is fine that Zoocasa makes millions of dollars of the hard work of real estate companies who spend millions getting the listings, taking photos, writing descriptions and putting them on the net. As the judge stated:
"[141] I find that Century 21’s Terms of Use constitute a binding contract between the parties, that Zoocasa had actual knowledge of the Terms of Use and in continuing its actions after notice of those Terms of Use, Zoocasa breached those terms."
Information is not "free" once it is on the net if there are terms of use readily available and/or the company is made aware of those terms. You can not violate terms of use just because you wanted to.
The copyright issue was not about the facts about the listing; address, floor space, bedrooms, etc. There were two components that were copyrightable; the pictures and the description. Here are some reveant clauses from the decision.
[185] The property descriptions describe particular real properties. They are created to market the property to potential buyers. It is apparent they are written for each property in a manner to highlight the positive aspects of the properties. There is also the evidence of Bilash and Walton that there is some level of skill involved in writing an effective property description. I am satisfied that the property descriptions are the product of skill and judgment. As a result they meet the threshold for copyright protection.
[204] The continued copying of the entire property description to the Zoocasa server is a violation of copyright. The truncated versions of the property description in my view do not infringe copyright as they do not meet the criteria for substantial copying sufficient for copyright infringement.
[205] With respect to the photographs, Zoocasa was not merely copying a thumbnail image as in the case of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 336 F. 3d 811 (USCA, 9th Circuit, 2003), but rather the entire photograph. This was a clear violation of copyright.
The point you continue to miss is that pirates do not threaten the US; they just steal from citizens of the US. Al-Qaeda's objective is to change US policy through terror tactics. There is a huge difference between a pirate saying "We're going to take your stuff" and al-Qaeda saying "We will continue to kill your citizens around the world until you do what we want". When the issue got big enough, mainly because a state was involved, war was declared and American citizens that fought for the other side were valid war targets. Al-Quada hides in parts of states that the government has no control over so going to war with the "host" country is not an option. You comparison with pirated is not valid.
The other point you continue to miss was that if there was a way of declaring War of al-Quada then the US would have done it long ago. If war could be declared then al-Awlaki's citizenship would have been stripped and the problem would not be there.
There you are on your high horse again; it doesn't matter who's blood or how much is spilled (as long as it is not yours or your loved ones) as long as your high moral standing is upheld (and only for American citizens).
You can do something like that. You just have to comply with the Robot Exclusion Standard so that a site that does not want you to index them can make that call. You also can not copy and save too much of each listing.
The decision was quite specific on this. The issue was not about the facts such as address, number of bedrooms, floor space, etc. It stated quite clearly that those were not copyrightable. The issue was the description of the property which are impressions done on prose and the pictures. Both of these a copyrightable.
Zoocasa is an aggregating site; they take listing information from a number of realtors and provide listings from all of them. The issue is that Zoocasa took too much information to be considered fair use.
By linking directly to each listing users do not see the following; Century 21 home page and all the information/offers there. Other Century 21 listings that may be in a different order than what Zoocasa wants to display them. Zoocasa does not display all the information that Century 21 does which may cause a potential buyer to reject a listing he might have looked into further. Users will also see listings from other companies next to Century21 and may get the impression that they are from the same company. One of the selling point for real estate agents is brand recognition. By mashing all the companies together that brand recognition is diluted.
Century21 is not getting important metrics on who is searching for what kind of property. If they can identify a certain kind of property as being popular Century21 can advise their agents to concentrate on getting listings for those properties.With the full listing available to the user on the Zoocasa site they may never touch the Century21 site thereby denying the information that someone was interested in that kind of property. So no search parameter logging and no listing hit count. . Century21 want people who are looking for or selling real estate to come through their web site from the front page and use their search engine. That will not happen with Zoocasa scraping all the important information.
That is the issue with absolutes like "all encompassing". meaning something that encompasses everything else. It is easy to find a counter example. Perhaps you meant "too broad".
Do you have an example where that kind of stretching has happened? Until then it is just conjecture on you part. One of the main criteria for trademark infringement is the reasonable possibility of confusion between the trademark owner's product and the other product. Facepalm, a youtube like site with specific content and may accept comments, is very difficult to confuse with Facebook. While Facechat could be a product from Facebook. It is all in what the primary product is.
So are you saying the only thing in the world are chat rooms a bulletin boards? What about "faceplant.com" a site about funny accidents? What about "Facepalm.com" a site about stupid things people do? Beautifulface.com, a makeup site? Faceoff.com a site about zombies (or maybe hockey)? FacetoFace; an in person counselling service. None of these would be covered by the trademark. Now Facechat.com would not be allowed if it provided online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards. The trademark covers one type of commercial endeavour and is nowhere near all encompassing..
Sorry but how do "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" apply to the US Military? Those letter only gave private citizens some of the rights of the Navy in very specific situations. Captains under a Letter of Marque and Reprisal were effectively agents of the Government and could not do anything the Government could not do.
Also pirates are very different from al-Qaeda; 1. Al-Qaeda is much more organized than pirates They have chains of command, training camps, etc. 2. Pirates want to make money while al-Qaeda wants to change US policy by killing and terrorizing the US population. If you didn't have something a pirate wanted you were safe. No one is safe from al-Qaeda. 3. Pirates would prefer that ships surrender rather than fight. They may take prisoners to sell for slavery but that still is an economic objective. Al-Qaeda prefers to kill people in the most dramatic fashion.
I would prefer al-Qaeda leaders be captured but in many circumstances the losses in the attempt are unacceptable.
Not because it is "hard and dangerous" but that the writers of the Constitution never conceived the possibility of a non-state entity threatening the United States. If there was a state of war between the US and al-Qaeda this action would not have issues. There is no way to declare war on a non-state entity. I say set aside that Amendment because it was never meant to apply to this situation.
I am pretty sure the people in the area that would be devastated by actions required to apprehend an al-Qaeda would prefer a missile strike to a full scale invasion. I am sure the families of soldiers who died in the capture would also disagree. You high minded ethic would be very different if you were actually effected by the damage done trying uphold a Constitution that never foresaw this situation. Have you volunteered to join the army to help capture these criminals? Have you advised members of your family to do the same? When you require others to uphold your morality but do nothing yourself your words sound empty.
Leaders of al-Qaeda have been warned may times to surrender or they would be killed. The US has carried through on that promise many time so it is no surprise when another leader is eliminated. All members of al-Qaeda has to do is turn themselves in to a valid authority and they will not be killed. Sure they will be imprisoned and maybe even tortured but they would be alive. Al-Awlaki didn't so he is dead.
Every one of those organizations operated from within controlled areas of stable countries. The part of Yemen that al-Awlaki was operating in was not under control of the government of that country. Yemen itself had an arrest warrant out for al-Awlaki but was unable to capture him due to his armed protection.
Drawing parallels between justice in a lawful country and an uncontrolled region is ludicrous. There are no local police who can be presented with an international warrant. There is no conventional way to capture an indicted leader like al-Awlaki. Sure one could send in a brigade of marines, search the area and possibly capture the target. Considering that most of the guards are not afraid of death there would be many casualties on both sides. Some of those casualties would be civilians caught in the middle. That much loss of life to serve an arrest warrant is unreasonable. Do we just let him continue because conventional means do not work?
What is your solution to capture someone like him that would not cause the deaths of hundreds of people?
Note the class that the trademark would cover. "International Class: 038 Class Status: Active Telecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars" Anything outside that class could use the word face.
Considering there are no laws or procedures to actually declare war on a non-state entity the "not a real war" point is moot. The idea of "declared war" just doesn't deal with non-state military organizations. Al-Qaeda acts like a military force but has no state that backs them. Treating them like an enemy army is completely justified.
Sorry but the writers of the US Constitution never envisioned a world spanning organization with military like assets and have the objective of harming the United States. At the time of writing these kinds of organization didn't exist; there were only states. The only reason there is not a legal state of war with Al-Qaeda is there there is no legal method to do that. Al-Qaeda is not a crime family; their objectives are different. Crime families exist to make money. Al-Qaeda exists to harm countries.
Al-Qaeda lives in areas of the world that have little or no control by legitimate governments. Yemen had a arrest warrant out for al-Awlaki but could never catch him as he operated in an area not controlled by the government. Even Pakistan is suspect because their military is riddled with Al-Qaeda sympathizers. How does one serve an arrest warrant on a suspect in another country that is surrounded by armed fighters who are willing to die for the cause? You will lose many people in the attempt and the suspect will probably die anyway. Bin Laden was an interesting exception because he had to hide and could not have the guards as they would be too high profile. I bet he though that his proximity to a Pakistani military facility would protect him from US intervention.
The US Constitution and the Fifth Amendment in particular does not take into account the reality of world terrorism. Should it be changed to allow a declaration of war on an organization? Probably. Until then, we work with what we have.
In July 2010 the Japanese deployed IKROS with a surface area of almost 2200sq.ft. That is almost 5.5 times the size of this sail. Maybe Gizmag should learn to use Google.
Thanks for concentrating on a couple of the statements I have made and ignoring everything else. Taking yourself as the example of how everyone learns is equally bunk. Different people learn differently and moving to web alone will hurt many people.
You may work well with books alone but most people do not. There is an old adage that still hold true; "I see I forget, I hear I remember, I do I understand". It is not an extrovert/introvert issue it is a visual/audio learner. Some people learn things better when they see them. Some people learn better when they hear them. Some people need both. By restricting information to one channel many people will be left behind.
Reading about calculus is boring to me and I bet boring to many other people. I hate the subject but needed it to graduate. I found that if I didn't get it during class or through studying with others I never got it. Visual learning for me is very important.
There are many on-line colleges that cater to people who learn like you do and you can choose to take their courses. If traditional universities move toward on-line courses there is an issue in the people who learn differently that you do will no longer have the option.
Online learning is no substitute for a good teacher. The secret to teaching is pace and emphasis. A good teacher introduces new concepts and explains each step at a pace that can be absorbed by the students. He places emphasis on the important steps and explains them more completely. A teacher can also read the class and will go over concepts that the students are having difficulty with. A good teacher can also say the same thing in different ways as one way is not understandable by everyone. Another secret is to keep the mind awake. Reading is boring. By using volume, inflection, humour, and gestures the teacher keeps the class lively and the students interested. One can only read for so long before the brain shut down and the learning stops.
On line learning is much the same a learning directly from a book. If they were the same as lectures then lectures would already be obsolete.
Volatility; All one needs is a spark at the wrong time and all your work if lost and maybe some body parts too. Permeability; Due to the small size of the H2 molecule it passes through plastic much faster than helium. This will decrease the range of the balloon. Storage;: Sure you can make hydrogen using electrolysis but you need to store it before it is used. Electrolysis is relatively slow and you need to fill each bag and save them until you get enough for the launch. Permeability comes into this as you are losing hydrogen ever minute. Portability; It is much easier to transport a cylinder of helium and some empty bags to a launch site than a number of hydrogen filled bags.
There are ways to get around these issues but helium is so much simpler.
So the first two points are out. The other three are still valid and there are probably more factors than that. Wages and benefits are still just paid directly to the employee. The company incurs other costs per employee.
Slashdot Mirror
ICBMs contributed to launch vehicle technology which contributed to satellite technology which contributed to a lot of things.
Yes there were a lot of money spent on things that are now obsolete due to the end of the cold war. There were also a lot of things that may never have been built without it. GPS is an excellent example of this. It was originally a Defence Department project because the military needed a way to target munitions accurately and to track it's assets. Private companies have tried and failed to put up satellite constellations, think Uridium, but the Government paid for GPS and ensured that it worked. Another major project that was advanced by the military was the US Interstate system. There was a lot of opposition to paying for the system but the defence department chipped in quite a bit because one of the considerations in the placement of these highways was the movement of troops and materials during time of war.
Look at all the things that come out of DARPA. Many DARPA technologies are now in civilian use.
Yes, there has been a lot of money spent on the military in the 20th century. It is also debatable whether or not it was a waste. Is it a waste for a bank to spend millions of dollars on a safe that will never be attacked by thieves because the thieves know they can never get in? I have a saying; any state not sufficiently protected by military assets will soon become the property of another state. Were the Trident submarines a waste? Maybe. Did Trident submarines ever fire a nuke in anger? No. Did they deter the USSR from attacking the US and the countries it protects? Maybe.
You need to take a look at the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). A violation of this act is a criminal matter. There have been a number of criminal cases brought by the government for TOS violations. Take a look at this article. http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/6189-can-terms-of-service-turn-you-into-a-criminal. How about this article http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-media/2011/sep/28/senate-advocates-terms-of-use-reform-computer-fraud/. Note this quote
"Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment to the law that specifically decriminalizes terms of service violations." How do you "decriminalize" something that in not currently criminal? Here is the EFF article about the amendment. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/senate-committee-agrees-violating-terms-service-shouldnt. Here is the amendment. http://judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/JEN11A19-Grassley-Franken.pdf
Your second point is moot because the ruling clearly states that the tabular data was not copyrightable and focused on the descriptions and pictures which are.
You are confusing the two aspects of the case; breach of contract and copyright infringement. The scraping was a breach of contract as it contravened the web site TOS which the court ruled is a binding contract. The display of copyrightable descriptions and pictures was ruled copyright infringement. These are separate issues in the case.
I was wondering how one defines "passenger"? Are the pilot and co-pilot considered passengers? If they had stated occupants this issue would not exist.
As long as robots.txt doesn't reject your crawler.
There is the crux of the situation. Zoocasa would not give Century21 the information that could put into their robots.txt file to stop the scraping.
First off, in US law it has (finally) become pretty clear that not obeying TOS is not, in itself, a crime. Ever-higher courts have ruled on that issue and Congress has a pending bill spelling that out in plain English..
Sorry but you missed the point. The bill just means the someone can not be arrested and charged by the state with a crime that will go on their criminal record. They still can be sued in civil court for damages, breach of contract, etc. It becomes a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.
The judge ruled that the presence and subsequent sending of the Terms of service was sufficient to rule that Zoocassa broke a binding contract. Data is not free if it is on the internet; It still belongs to the entity that created it.
Al Zoocasa had to do was come up with an agreement with Century 21 and this problem would go away. They didn't do that so they no longer can scrape the site. Be an idiot, get kicked out.
Zoocasa is still in business. They just can not pull the complete listing from Century21. Had they not been such idiots and come to an agreement with Century21 this issue would never have arisen.
As a buyer you are interested in finding a listing in a certain area with certain criteria. Century21 is interested in creating those listings so you can buy them. If Century21 doesn't know you are looking they the don't know to try to get people to sell. You both lose.
So you think it is fine that Zoocasa makes millions of dollars of the hard work of real estate companies who spend millions getting the listings, taking photos, writing descriptions and putting them on the net. As the judge stated:
"[141] I find that Century 21’s Terms of Use constitute a binding contract between the parties, that Zoocasa had actual knowledge of the Terms of Use and in continuing its actions after notice of those Terms of Use, Zoocasa breached those terms."
Information is not "free" once it is on the net if there are terms of use readily available and/or the company is made aware of those terms. You can not violate terms of use just because you wanted to.
The copyright issue was not about the facts about the listing; address, floor space, bedrooms, etc. There were two components that were copyrightable; the pictures and the description. Here are some reveant clauses from the decision.
[185] The property descriptions describe particular real properties. They are created to market the property to potential buyers. It is apparent they are written for each property in a manner to highlight the positive aspects of the properties. There is also the evidence of Bilash and Walton that there is some level of skill involved in writing an effective property description. I am satisfied that the property descriptions are the product of skill and judgment. As a result they meet the threshold for copyright protection.
[204] The continued copying of the entire property description to the Zoocasa server is a violation of copyright. The truncated versions of the property description in my view do not infringe copyright as they do not meet the criteria for substantial copying sufficient for copyright infringement.
[205] With respect to the photographs, Zoocasa was not merely copying a thumbnail image as in the case of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 336 F. 3d 811 (USCA, 9th Circuit, 2003), but rather the entire photograph. This was a clear violation of copyright.
The point you continue to miss is that pirates do not threaten the US; they just steal from citizens of the US. Al-Qaeda's objective is to change US policy through terror tactics. There is a huge difference between a pirate saying "We're going to take your stuff" and al-Qaeda saying "We will continue to kill your citizens around the world until you do what we want". When the issue got big enough, mainly because a state was involved, war was declared and American citizens that fought for the other side were valid war targets. Al-Quada hides in parts of states that the government has no control over so going to war with the "host" country is not an option. You comparison with pirated is not valid.
The other point you continue to miss was that if there was a way of declaring War of al-Quada then the US would have done it long ago. If war could be declared then al-Awlaki's citizenship would have been stripped and the problem would not be there.
There you are on your high horse again; it doesn't matter who's blood or how much is spilled (as long as it is not yours or your loved ones) as long as your high moral standing is upheld (and only for American citizens).
You can do something like that. You just have to comply with the Robot Exclusion Standard so that a site that does not want you to index them can make that call. You also can not copy and save too much of each listing.
The decision was quite specific on this. The issue was not about the facts such as address, number of bedrooms, floor space, etc. It stated quite clearly that those were not copyrightable. The issue was the description of the property which are impressions done on prose and the pictures. Both of these a copyrightable.
Zoocasa is an aggregating site; they take listing information from a number of realtors and provide listings from all of them. The issue is that Zoocasa took too much information to be considered fair use.
By linking directly to each listing users do not see the following;
Century 21 home page and all the information/offers there.
Other Century 21 listings that may be in a different order than what Zoocasa wants to display them.
Zoocasa does not display all the information that Century 21 does which may cause a potential buyer to reject a listing he might have looked into further.
Users will also see listings from other companies next to Century21 and may get the impression that they are from the same company. One of the selling point for real estate agents is brand recognition. By mashing all the companies together that brand recognition is diluted.
Century21 is not getting important metrics on who is searching for what kind of property. If they can identify a certain kind of property as being popular Century21 can advise their agents to concentrate on getting listings for those properties.With the full listing available to the user on the Zoocasa site they may never touch the Century21 site thereby denying the information that someone was interested in that kind of property. So no search parameter logging and no listing hit count.
.
Century21 want people who are looking for or selling real estate to come through their web site from the front page and use their search engine. That will not happen with Zoocasa scraping all the important information.
That is the issue with absolutes like "all encompassing". meaning something that encompasses everything else. It is easy to find a counter example. Perhaps you meant "too broad".
Do you have an example where that kind of stretching has happened? Until then it is just conjecture on you part. One of the main criteria for trademark infringement is the reasonable possibility of confusion between the trademark owner's product and the other product. Facepalm, a youtube like site with specific content and may accept comments, is very difficult to confuse with Facebook. While Facechat could be a product from Facebook. It is all in what the primary product is.
So are you saying the only thing in the world are chat rooms a bulletin boards? What about "faceplant.com" a site about funny accidents? What about "Facepalm.com" a site about stupid things people do? Beautifulface.com, a makeup site? Faceoff.com a site about zombies (or maybe hockey)? FacetoFace; an in person counselling service. None of these would be covered by the trademark. Now Facechat.com would not be allowed if it provided online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards. The trademark covers one type of commercial endeavour and is nowhere near all encompassing..
Sorry but how do "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" apply to the US Military? Those letter only gave private citizens some of the rights of the Navy in very specific situations. Captains under a Letter of Marque and Reprisal were effectively agents of the Government and could not do anything the Government could not do.
Also pirates are very different from al-Qaeda;
1. Al-Qaeda is much more organized than pirates They have chains of command, training camps, etc.
2. Pirates want to make money while al-Qaeda wants to change US policy by killing and terrorizing the US population. If you didn't have something a pirate wanted you were safe. No one is safe from al-Qaeda.
3. Pirates would prefer that ships surrender rather than fight. They may take prisoners to sell for slavery but that still is an economic objective. Al-Qaeda prefers to kill people in the most dramatic fashion.
I would prefer al-Qaeda leaders be captured but in many circumstances the losses in the attempt are unacceptable.
Not because it is "hard and dangerous" but that the writers of the Constitution never conceived the possibility of a non-state entity threatening the United States. If there was a state of war between the US and al-Qaeda this action would not have issues. There is no way to declare war on a non-state entity. I say set aside that Amendment because it was never meant to apply to this situation.
I am pretty sure the people in the area that would be devastated by actions required to apprehend an al-Qaeda would prefer a missile strike to a full scale invasion. I am sure the families of soldiers who died in the capture would also disagree. You high minded ethic would be very different if you were actually effected by the damage done trying uphold a Constitution that never foresaw this situation. Have you volunteered to join the army to help capture these criminals? Have you advised members of your family to do the same? When you require others to uphold your morality but do nothing yourself your words sound empty.
Leaders of al-Qaeda have been warned may times to surrender or they would be killed. The US has carried through on that promise many time so it is no surprise when another leader is eliminated. All members of al-Qaeda has to do is turn themselves in to a valid authority and they will not be killed. Sure they will be imprisoned and maybe even tortured but they would be alive. Al-Awlaki didn't so he is dead.
Every one of those organizations operated from within controlled areas of stable countries. The part of Yemen that al-Awlaki was operating in was not under control of the government of that country. Yemen itself had an arrest warrant out for al-Awlaki but was unable to capture him due to his armed protection.
Drawing parallels between justice in a lawful country and an uncontrolled region is ludicrous. There are no local police who can be presented with an international warrant. There is no conventional way to capture an indicted leader like al-Awlaki. Sure one could send in a brigade of marines, search the area and possibly capture the target. Considering that most of the guards are not afraid of death there would be many casualties on both sides. Some of those casualties would be civilians caught in the middle. That much loss of life to serve an arrest warrant is unreasonable. Do we just let him continue because conventional means do not work?
What is your solution to capture someone like him that would not cause the deaths of hundreds of people?
Note the class that the trademark would cover.
"International Class: 038
Class Status: Active
Telecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars"
Anything outside that class could use the word face.
Considering there are no laws or procedures to actually declare war on a non-state entity the "not a real war" point is moot. The idea of "declared war" just doesn't deal with non-state military organizations. Al-Qaeda acts like a military force but has no state that backs them. Treating them like an enemy army is completely justified.
Sorry but the writers of the US Constitution never envisioned a world spanning organization with military like assets and have the objective of harming the United States. At the time of writing these kinds of organization didn't exist; there were only states. The only reason there is not a legal state of war with Al-Qaeda is there there is no legal method to do that. Al-Qaeda is not a crime family; their objectives are different. Crime families exist to make money. Al-Qaeda exists to harm countries.
Al-Qaeda lives in areas of the world that have little or no control by legitimate governments. Yemen had a arrest warrant out for al-Awlaki but could never catch him as he operated in an area not controlled by the government. Even Pakistan is suspect because their military is riddled with Al-Qaeda sympathizers. How does one serve an arrest warrant on a suspect in another country that is surrounded by armed fighters who are willing to die for the cause? You will lose many people in the attempt and the suspect will probably die anyway. Bin Laden was an interesting exception because he had to hide and could not have the guards as they would be too high profile. I bet he though that his proximity to a Pakistani military facility would protect him from US intervention.
The US Constitution and the Fifth Amendment in particular does not take into account the reality of world terrorism. Should it be changed to allow a declaration of war on an organization? Probably. Until then, we work with what we have.
In July 2010 the Japanese deployed IKROS with a surface area of almost 2200sq.ft. That is almost 5.5 times the size of this sail. Maybe Gizmag should learn to use Google.
Thanks for concentrating on a couple of the statements I have made and ignoring everything else. Taking yourself as the example of how everyone learns is equally bunk. Different people learn differently and moving to web alone will hurt many people.
You may work well with books alone but most people do not. There is an old adage that still hold true; "I see I forget, I hear I remember, I do I understand". It is not an extrovert/introvert issue it is a visual/audio learner. Some people learn things better when they see them. Some people learn better when they hear them. Some people need both. By restricting information to one channel many people will be left behind.
Reading about calculus is boring to me and I bet boring to many other people. I hate the subject but needed it to graduate. I found that if I didn't get it during class or through studying with others I never got it. Visual learning for me is very important.
There are many on-line colleges that cater to people who learn like you do and you can choose to take their courses. If traditional universities move toward on-line courses there is an issue in the people who learn differently that you do will no longer have the option.
Online learning is no substitute for a good teacher. The secret to teaching is pace and emphasis. A good teacher introduces new concepts and explains each step at a pace that can be absorbed by the students. He places emphasis on the important steps and explains them more completely. A teacher can also read the class and will go over concepts that the students are having difficulty with. A good teacher can also say the same thing in different ways as one way is not understandable by everyone. Another secret is to keep the mind awake. Reading is boring. By using volume, inflection, humour, and gestures the teacher keeps the class lively and the students interested. One can only read for so long before the brain shut down and the learning stops.
On line learning is much the same a learning directly from a book. If they were the same as lectures then lectures would already be obsolete.
Issues with hydrogen;
Volatility; All one needs is a spark at the wrong time and all your work if lost and maybe some body parts too.
Permeability; Due to the small size of the H2 molecule it passes through plastic much faster than helium. This will decrease the range of the balloon.
Storage;: Sure you can make hydrogen using electrolysis but you need to store it before it is used. Electrolysis is relatively slow and you need to fill each bag and save them until you get enough for the launch. Permeability comes into this as you are losing hydrogen ever minute.
Portability; It is much easier to transport a cylinder of helium and some empty bags to a launch site than a number of hydrogen filled bags.
There are ways to get around these issues but helium is so much simpler.
By the way, it is a balloon not an aircraft.
So the first two points are out. The other three are still valid and there are probably more factors than that. Wages and benefits are still just paid directly to the employee. The company incurs other costs per employee.