Of course, none of the above addresses your claim that he would have lost his house - essentially claiming that couldn't afford coverage sufficient to cover his assets. In fact, such coverage has practically always been available, but at a price. And a "well off" family man (my dad fit that category) was in the class of those who either received it as an employment benefit or were able to afford it. (By the way, uncapped emergency care was a common benefit.)
Of course, this is your story, not mine. Perhaps you can provide a bit more info on what his coverage in the US would have been, and why he would have lost his house - my original question.
I think you may sit. As I read the article, TCAS and the Auto-Pilot/Flight-Director (AP/FD) do remain separate; the airbus advance is in allowing the AP/FD to react directly to the TCAS advisories instead of requiring action from the pilot. (The article also mentioned that it would be retrofitted to fly-by-wire aircraft; no mention of 'traditionally' controlled aircraft).
Not that matters - the salient point is that aircraft are capable of taking autonomous evasive action, regardless of how they accomplish it. (I guess Teslas can do that, too.)
Another equally valid answer is that the package may be lost in the mail, or mis-delivered - possibilities that rank right up there with Customs interference. But in the Real World (TM), none of these potential issues prevent a person from buying on the world market - which was the original question. In all cases, a delayed re-shipment is about the worst possible outcome.
He was a pretty well off person so he wouldn't have been bankrupted if this happened in the USA. But he wouldn't have his house anymore either.
Why wouldn't he? If he was 'pretty well off', he'd have been paying monthly health insurance premiums instead of higher taxes. He would be providing for his family, not for others. You may find this to be selfish - that's your right. But if he lost his house over it, he just wasn't planning ahead.
Does he carry fire insurance? Or would the government replace his house if it burned down?
In which case, they'll confiscate the shipment and do nothing more (unless you're importing 'recreational' drugs - but you still need a prescription and a phone interview with a Canadian doctor). Some of the Canadian providers will reship (for free) if you don't get your order.
Do you really think customs gives a tinker's damn if you're importing blood pressure meds? (That was my own particular 'crime', till it went generic).
HAH! This is one of my favorite hypocrisies of the Libertarian. So, do you want the government to ensure your drugs are safe, or do you want to let anyone make and sell any drugs as cheaply as possible?
Actually, I want both. I'm willing to fund the FDA as an advisory agency, but not a regulatory one. Let me make the decision of whether to use only FDA approved drugs or not. In fact, a few years ago, when I was buying prescription meds from Canada, I once faced a shortage of the Canadian approved version and was given the option of getting it sourced from Europe - which I did.
So where's the hypocrisy? In fact, we (Libertarians) are generally opposed to having the government in charge of what we do.
I've bought syringes (intended for insulin) over the counter several times at my local pharmacy - I toss the needles out, but the 100 cc size is perfect for measuring out and administrating my dogs' home-brew heart worm medicine.
[And there is another absurdity - in the US you can buy the active ingredient (ivermectin) over the counter for horses or swine, but not for pets. A $50 investment in a 50cc bottle of 1% solution + pharmaceutical grade propylene will provide on the order of one to three thousand doses.]
They do have a window where you can monitor the drug's condition, and they caution you that there will be some left after the injection. Apparently, partial doses are not an issue if they are used correctly - which means holding them in for ten seconds.
I joined the 'libertard' party around 40 years ago, when I was 20. Thank you for highlighting the fact that our belief in legalizing drugs extends across the entire spectrum of drugs, both 'recreational' and therapeutic.
And I completely agree - the FDA would be far more useful if there conclusions were along the line of a UL approval, not regulatory.
Because you don't shift the canister around when you move the wand back and forth - the hose is long enough to clean a respectable area arount the base unit before shifting it - once - to the next general area. And you only deal with the weight of the hose and wand, not the entire machine. Can you picture designing a shop vac as an upright?
Type C can be used to pass an analog signal by way of two configurable sideband channels (SBUs) in Audio Adapter Accessory Mode. Whether anyone is doing so yet is another question.
It perfectly matches up with what I (and others) have been saying about partial autonomous driving: if the car drives perfectly for 50 minutes, and then requires the human to take over, the human may not be in a position to do so.
No, Autopilot didn't drive perfectly for 50 minutes - it was used periodically for 50 minutes. Meaning that the driver had been turning it on and off, and was thus could be reasonably presumed to 'be in a position' to do so again.
It is indeed hard to imagine a tire retention system which would allow the tire to rotate as shown but which would still resist the huge side forces encountered in cornering.
General aviation aircraft (think light aircraft) already are being equipped with parachute systems which are deployed if the aircraft is unrecoverable. And they are used. And they save lives. But general aviation is a *lot* more accident prone than commercial aviation, so there is no reason to foist this on commercial aviation.
More than that, they do not scale upwards very well. The founder of BSR (the leading company in the whole plane parachute business) believes we'll some sort of airline parachute system in the future, but it will probably require shedding weight as the pod system effectively does. He's quoted in a pretty good BBC article on the subject:
To safely bring down a big commercial airliner such as a Boeing 747 with about 500 people on board, there would have to be 21 parachutes each the size of a football field, says Popov. “It takes about a square foot (0.1sq m) of material to bring down one pound (0.5kg) of aircraft.”
BTW, an oddity about Cirrus airplanes (which pioneered the use of ballistic chutes) is that their safety record isn't much different from non-equipped, similar planes. This appears to be due to pilots not being willing to essentially destroy their plane by pulling the handle; and they fly into fatal crashes instead. The survival rate of those who do choose to pull is excellent, with the only fatalities occurring when the chute was deployed well outside of its rated operating limits (deploying while going too fast or too low).
Slashdot Mirror
(painters tape comes in varying colors to denote the length of time it can safely stay on a surface and still be cleanly removed.)
Damn, I did not know that - all I've noticed is the blue. Thx for the info.
Whoosh.
I hate most hotel rooms for that reason - the LED's on the smoke detectors are a real problem for me,
The LEDs indicate that the concealed cameras are working.
More dis-information. The kerosene for the Full Thrust version is chilled to -7 degrees centigrade , boosting its density by 2.5 - 4.0 percent.
Of course, none of the above addresses your claim that he would have lost his house - essentially claiming that couldn't afford coverage sufficient to cover his assets. In fact, such coverage has practically always been available, but at a price. And a "well off" family man (my dad fit that category) was in the class of those who either received it as an employment benefit or were able to afford it. (By the way, uncapped emergency care was a common benefit.)
Of course, this is your story, not mine. Perhaps you can provide a bit more info on what his coverage in the US would have been, and why he would have lost his house - my original question.
--
Please check your straw men at the entrance.
I think you may sit. As I read the article, TCAS and the Auto-Pilot/Flight-Director (AP/FD) do remain separate; the airbus advance is in allowing the AP/FD to react directly to the TCAS advisories instead of requiring action from the pilot. (The article also mentioned that it would be retrofitted to fly-by-wire aircraft; no mention of 'traditionally' controlled aircraft).
Not that matters - the salient point is that aircraft are capable of taking autonomous evasive action, regardless of how they accomplish it. (I guess Teslas can do that, too.)
Another equally valid answer is that the package may be lost in the mail, or mis-delivered - possibilities that rank right up there with Customs interference. But in the Real World (TM), none of these potential issues prevent a person from buying on the world market - which was the original question. In all cases, a delayed re-shipment is about the worst possible outcome.
He was a pretty well off person so he wouldn't have been bankrupted if this happened in the USA. But he wouldn't have his house anymore either.
Why wouldn't he? If he was 'pretty well off', he'd have been paying monthly health insurance premiums instead of higher taxes. He would be providing for his family, not for others. You may find this to be selfish - that's your right. But if he lost his house over it, he just wasn't planning ahead.
Does he carry fire insurance? Or would the government replace his house if it burned down?
In which case, they'll confiscate the shipment and do nothing more (unless you're importing 'recreational' drugs - but you still need a prescription and a phone interview with a Canadian doctor). Some of the Canadian providers will reship (for free) if you don't get your order.
Do you really think customs gives a tinker's damn if you're importing blood pressure meds? (That was my own particular 'crime', till it went generic).
HAH! This is one of my favorite hypocrisies of the Libertarian. So, do you want the government to ensure your drugs are safe, or do you want to let anyone make and sell any drugs as cheaply as possible?
Actually, I want both. I'm willing to fund the FDA as an advisory agency, but not a regulatory one. Let me make the decision of whether to use only FDA approved drugs or not. In fact, a few years ago, when I was buying prescription meds from Canada, I once faced a shortage of the Canadian approved version and was given the option of getting it sourced from Europe - which I did.
So where's the hypocrisy? In fact, we (Libertarians) are generally opposed to having the government in charge of what we do.
I've bought syringes (intended for insulin) over the counter several times at my local pharmacy - I toss the needles out, but the 100 cc size is perfect for measuring out and administrating my dogs' home-brew heart worm medicine.
[And there is another absurdity - in the US you can buy the active ingredient (ivermectin) over the counter for horses or swine, but not for pets. A $50 investment in a 50cc bottle of 1% solution + pharmaceutical grade propylene will provide on the order of one to three thousand doses.]
They do have a window where you can monitor the drug's condition, and they caution you that there will be some left after the injection. Apparently, partial doses are not an issue if they are used correctly - which means holding them in for ten seconds.
And it's overcrowded as well.
I joined the 'libertard' party around 40 years ago, when I was 20. Thank you for highlighting the fact that our belief in legalizing drugs extends across the entire spectrum of drugs, both 'recreational' and therapeutic.
And I completely agree - the FDA would be far more useful if there conclusions were along the line of a UL approval, not regulatory.
Because you don't shift the canister around when you move the wand back and forth - the hose is long enough to clean a respectable area arount the base unit before shifting it - once - to the next general area. And you only deal with the weight of the hose and wand, not the entire machine. Can you picture designing a shop vac as an upright?
Nice. I read the first page (of three), but the next page wasn't in the archive - however, the link to the article worked.
That's 'limey arsehat', you insensitive clod!
I think that has been superseded.
No, not by around 20 feet in either length or width.
Well, it's different in metric.
Type C can be used to pass an analog signal by way of two configurable sideband channels (SBUs) in Audio Adapter Accessory Mode. Whether anyone is doing so yet is another question.
If USB Type-C can be used to pass an analog signal from the device to the headphone, then why do you need a DAC and amp inside the dongle?
It perfectly matches up with what I (and others) have been saying about partial autonomous driving: if the car drives perfectly for 50 minutes, and then requires the human to take over, the human may not be in a position to do so.
No, Autopilot didn't drive perfectly for 50 minutes - it was used periodically for 50 minutes. Meaning that the driver had been turning it on and off, and was thus could be reasonably presumed to 'be in a position' to do so again.
Meet the Runcible.
It is indeed hard to imagine a tire retention system which would allow the tire to rotate as shown but which would still resist the huge side forces encountered in cornering.
General aviation aircraft (think light aircraft) already are being equipped with parachute systems which are deployed if the aircraft is unrecoverable. And they are used. And they save lives. But general aviation is a *lot* more accident prone than commercial aviation, so there is no reason to foist this on commercial aviation.
More than that, they do not scale upwards very well. The founder of BSR (the leading company in the whole plane parachute business) believes we'll some sort of airline parachute system in the future, but it will probably require shedding weight as the pod system effectively does. He's quoted in a pretty good BBC article on the subject:
To safely bring down a big commercial airliner such as a Boeing 747 with about 500 people on board, there would have to be 21 parachutes each the size of a football field, says Popov. “It takes about a square foot (0.1sq m) of material to bring down one pound (0.5kg) of aircraft.”
BTW, an oddity about Cirrus airplanes (which pioneered the use of ballistic chutes) is that their safety record isn't much different from non-equipped, similar planes. This appears to be due to pilots not being willing to essentially destroy their plane by pulling the handle; and they fly into fatal crashes instead. The survival rate of those who do choose to pull is excellent, with the only fatalities occurring when the chute was deployed well outside of its rated operating limits (deploying while going too fast or too low).