At least for the Vegas guy, the answer is that we're not actually all that worried about small planes. If it's not at least the size of a commuter jet, for example, they're actually built so lightly that you could kill more people with a standard car at a farmer's market.
If you have a specific target it might, a big might, enable you to hit it better.
But your 'average' Cessna is actually lighter than a car. There have been cases where they hit things like the 2nd floor of a bank. The only difference is the floor, the damage/mess was actually less than if a car had hit the first floor.
Do you really assert that corporations are going to hire lawyers, fill out depositions, etc. to recover an $80 fee? you are dreaming. There is no way it is worth the effort.
Nope, they send a $10/hour intern down to the local courthouse to file a small claim, and add the intern's hours onto the bill.
You should have recognized this by the words 'small claims court'. They explicitly don't require lawyers or do depositions.
You show up with your receipt or credit card bill for the $80, a copy of the court case(printed off the internet is 'good enough' in small claims), and the judge will likely give you the judgement, especially if the company doesn't send somebody, such as another intern(they frown upon lawyers being sent).
Besides, I figure that this scheme also affected individuals, not just corporations.
Commercial insurance is a thing here in the USA, and I'm sure it's a thing in the UK as well.
Remember that insurance polices attempt to charge based on risk. A commercial driver generally puts in far more miles over much longer times than a private driver. So the risk is higher that they'll be in an accident. So they have to pay a bit more money(they also tend to be professionals and not drive drunk while working, so there's some reduction there).
The problem is that they don't yet have a category to properly insure somebody who drives commercially, but not an extensive amount.
I'm curious if anyone has witnessed this in action, do they block cell signals entirely?
They most likely didn't block cell signals, but had transmitters up in a 'active mode' that would spam disconnect notices to any wifi that wasn't using their SSID. Such are 'readily' commercially available. It was even an option on a system I was involved in the installation of, which for security purposes included pure-monitor stations that did nothing but listen for 'rogue' wifi signals...
FCC doesn't get involved with Faraday cages as they're legal. Lead paint would have many agencies OTHER than the FCC coming, and at that point a $750k fine would be the least of their concerns. OSHA, EPA, FDA if food is served in the building, etc...
If they use the aluminum-iron oxide paint that's available for the stated purpose, it's the same as a Faraday cage, legal.
Nope, if the FCC is involved they were jamming via active broadcast.
One thing I remember from watching court TV shows such as 'Judge Judy' is that a criminal conviction is pretty much a slam dunk in a liability case.
So, since their actions amounted to extortion(We illegally blocked your signal so you had to pay us), this is now ripe for small claims cases and/or a class action lawsuit.
BTW, that $100 fee for a small claims court case? That $80 for the service you were illegally forced to buy just turned into a $180 claim, plus a few other things, most likely.
Then, if they don't send a representative, you're almost certain to automatically win, and that win allows you to do various nasty things to them.
You can actually talk to a person and give them details.
I'm a visual learner though. I consider talking to a person a downside. I can punch an address into the application, verify it on the map, READ the quoted price, SEE the time estimates to be picked up and dropped off, maybe even my ride's current location, etc...
As for being too drunk to use an app, in that case you're likely just trying to get home right? I'm sure your house would be in your 'address book'. Heck, you could have a big red button of an app: 'GET RIDE HOME'.
Although I am sure someone will be along shortly to ruin that for everyone by pretending to be drunk and getting rides home for free (they will only take you home).
Pretending? Why, when actually getting drunk* is so cheap?
Yes, Taxis would be expensive, but they're often 'cheaper' in the sense that a taxi business will insure ALL of it's vehicles under an umbrella policy for a fairly major discount. Still not cheap, but there.
However, remember we're looking at Uber and such. Uber's black car services are professional full time drivers with commercial insurance. They're technically not taxis in most locations, but in the same category as dealer convenience shuttles(Where they'll do things like drop you off at work while your car is being worked on).
The question is for the 'part time' drivers. Now, Uber covers you from the time you have a 'match' to dropping off the customer. It even covers you when you have the app on, though they wait for your primary personal insurance to reject you first in that case(does not apply in all states; in some they're now primary there as well). When the app is off and you're driving for personal stuff, then your personal insurance covers you.
All that said, a uber driver who's NOT black-car shouldn't be paying taxi rates, because he's going to be the only driver of the vehicle and it's not going to be getting taxi miles on it.
They already have. Uber now provides primary insurance from the time the app is 'turned on' until it's turned off. Though you need to be careful of state variations.
If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed.
Or perhaps, that it is you that is ignorant or misinformed.
It's called 'regulatory capture'. Because they're already 'in the business', larger businesses can handle larger amounts of regulation, much like how an experienced weightlifter can lift a heavier weight than a newcomer. And when it comes to regulation, the newcomer is typically expected to comply with all the regulations right from the beginning.
As such, usually the only time you get 'new' businesses in such industries is when somebody experienced splits off from an existing company.
They whine and beg against it publicly, but behind doors?
You'd be covered by your friend's insurance, assuming that he has insurance. Limits are typically $50k or more. I think 'most' states require at least $100k worth per person today.
Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.
Citation, preferably recent? Because there's plenty of news articles that say the opposite. I'm not saying that all drivers are properly covered, but you can find gypsy cabs out there that aren't as well, as well as pizza drivers and such.
I won't dispute that there was some 'shaking out' on who's responsible when on the insurance front.
Personal comprehensive insurance does not. Business comprehensive will.
In the USA, 'comprehensive' is an insurance type that covers more than the minimum required 'liability' insurance.
Liability - you hit somebody else, insurance will pay. Smack into a tree yourself? Nada. Your vehicle is stolen? Nope. Comprehensive covers 'everything' from you hitting somebody else to a windstorm blowing a tree over onto your vehicle parked in your driveway.
The biggest exemption for insurance is indeed that personal insurance doesn't cover you if you're using your vehicle for business - and this means earning money, not driving to/from work, but driving AS work.
I heard that he actually said it, but that it's also taken out of context - he was doing a 'next 5 years' prediction, and the 640k held for the next 4 or so, so he was actually 'close'. (I know, only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades)
Do we know if the TSA has discouraged anyone from attacking a plane? I don't really care. I'm interested in if they have prevented anyone form attacking a plane. How many passengers have they dragged off in cuffs from the screening area [slate.com]? Two?
To be specific, the TSA, not being a law enforcement agency(I know!), doesn't haul anybody away 'in cuffs'. The local police department would do that, maybe the FBI or such in extreme circumstances.
They have, however, led to the arrest of a lot more than two people, but the vast majority of those arrested were arrested in the pursuit of our war on drugs, not terrorism.
However, it seems reasonable that in a population of 320 million, there would be a few hundred who truly are dangerous, for whom there is enough evidence that _I_ wouldn't want to be on a plane with them.
I think that's a lot like firearms though. As something of a philosophical point, if you're unable to trust somebody with a firearm, shouldn't they be in some sort of protective custody/supervision, at the least? I mean, I can probably kill more people with a 5 gallon can of gasoline than I can with a pistol.
That being said, we also can't afford to lock up everybody, so I think we need to take a long hard look at our country and what we're doing to generate dangerous people. The first one that comes to my mind is our very justice system. Studies have shown that the majority of murderers have criminal records, often extensive ones, BEFORE they commit their murder. At least one study found that 54% of defendents had at least 1 felony conviction, and 81% had been arrested before. Alternatively, your best DEFENSE to being murdered, in the USA, is pretty simple: Don't be a criminal or associate with them. The average prior criminal record for a murder victim is only slightly less than the killer.
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed, or don't you have a "real" criminal to catch, or don't you know I pay your salary?!?!
True, most 'newsworthy' incidents happen when an asshole meets another asshole. However, while we can't do much about random assholes on the streets, we can keep the body count down by making sure the police officers sent to corral them up aren't assholes as well.
That, and you still have the incidents where asshole cops do things like break into a sleeping person's house in the middle of the night. And while it's certainly possible, it's much harder to still be an asshole while asleep than awake.
It's still a pretty serious system if he's looking at 20kW. For my house I'd be looking at a 4-6 kW solution, covering the entire south facing side of my roof, and my roof is about as ideal for solar as it gets, shape wise.
20kW would require a much larger house, and probably a barn or two as well.
Well, 10 years later, the contract was not renewed, the vendor probably doesn't even support them anymore, and it's all paid off, so it can be dumped as scrap equipment.
It's stated that the vender has gone out of business, so there's a guarantee of no support from them.
Slashdot Mirror
At least for the Vegas guy, the answer is that we're not actually all that worried about small planes. If it's not at least the size of a commuter jet, for example, they're actually built so lightly that you could kill more people with a standard car at a farmer's market.
If you have a specific target it might, a big might, enable you to hit it better.
But your 'average' Cessna is actually lighter than a car. There have been cases where they hit things like the 2nd floor of a bank. The only difference is the floor, the damage/mess was actually less than if a car had hit the first floor.
Do you really assert that corporations are going to hire lawyers, fill out depositions, etc. to recover an $80 fee? you are dreaming. There is no way it is worth the effort.
Nope, they send a $10/hour intern down to the local courthouse to file a small claim, and add the intern's hours onto the bill.
You should have recognized this by the words 'small claims court'. They explicitly don't require lawyers or do depositions.
You show up with your receipt or credit card bill for the $80, a copy of the court case(printed off the internet is 'good enough' in small claims), and the judge will likely give you the judgement, especially if the company doesn't send somebody, such as another intern(they frown upon lawyers being sent).
Besides, I figure that this scheme also affected individuals, not just corporations.
Commercial insurance is a thing here in the USA, and I'm sure it's a thing in the UK as well.
Remember that insurance polices attempt to charge based on risk. A commercial driver generally puts in far more miles over much longer times than a private driver. So the risk is higher that they'll be in an accident. So they have to pay a bit more money(they also tend to be professionals and not drive drunk while working, so there's some reduction there).
The problem is that they don't yet have a category to properly insure somebody who drives commercially, but not an extensive amount.
I'm curious if anyone has witnessed this in action, do they block cell signals entirely?
They most likely didn't block cell signals, but had transmitters up in a 'active mode' that would spam disconnect notices to any wifi that wasn't using their SSID. Such are 'readily' commercially available. It was even an option on a system I was involved in the installation of, which for security purposes included pure-monitor stations that did nothing but listen for 'rogue' wifi signals...
FCC doesn't get involved with Faraday cages as they're legal. Lead paint would have many agencies OTHER than the FCC coming, and at that point a $750k fine would be the least of their concerns. OSHA, EPA, FDA if food is served in the building, etc...
If they use the aluminum-iron oxide paint that's available for the stated purpose, it's the same as a Faraday cage, legal.
Nope, if the FCC is involved they were jamming via active broadcast.
One thing I remember from watching court TV shows such as 'Judge Judy' is that a criminal conviction is pretty much a slam dunk in a liability case.
So, since their actions amounted to extortion(We illegally blocked your signal so you had to pay us), this is now ripe for small claims cases and/or a class action lawsuit.
BTW, that $100 fee for a small claims court case? That $80 for the service you were illegally forced to buy just turned into a $180 claim, plus a few other things, most likely.
Then, if they don't send a representative, you're almost certain to automatically win, and that win allows you to do various nasty things to them.
Heh, as a old fan of the Ranma 1/2 series back in my youth, I giggled at the idea of swimming from Tokyo to Shanghai.
You know it'd be great exercise!
Hm...
24 rides from the insurance company(per year), 2 from the bank, call it another 12 using party specific stuff, another 12 from the bars, etc...
You could probably get drunk every Friday night and never have to pay for a ride.
You can actually talk to a person and give them details.
I'm a visual learner though. I consider talking to a person a downside. I can punch an address into the application, verify it on the map, READ the quoted price, SEE the time estimates to be picked up and dropped off, maybe even my ride's current location, etc...
As for being too drunk to use an app, in that case you're likely just trying to get home right? I'm sure your house would be in your 'address book'. Heck, you could have a big red button of an app: 'GET RIDE HOME'.
Although I am sure someone will be along shortly to ruin that for everyone by pretending to be drunk and getting rides home for free (they will only take you home).
Pretending? Why, when actually getting drunk* is so cheap?
*Defined as 'over the legal limit', not 'soused'.
Yes, Taxis would be expensive, but they're often 'cheaper' in the sense that a taxi business will insure ALL of it's vehicles under an umbrella policy for a fairly major discount. Still not cheap, but there.
However, remember we're looking at Uber and such. Uber's black car services are professional full time drivers with commercial insurance. They're technically not taxis in most locations, but in the same category as dealer convenience shuttles(Where they'll do things like drop you off at work while your car is being worked on).
The question is for the 'part time' drivers. Now, Uber covers you from the time you have a 'match' to dropping off the customer. It even covers you when you have the app on, though they wait for your primary personal insurance to reject you first in that case(does not apply in all states; in some they're now primary there as well). When the app is off and you're driving for personal stuff, then your personal insurance covers you.
All that said, a uber driver who's NOT black-car shouldn't be paying taxi rates, because he's going to be the only driver of the vehicle and it's not going to be getting taxi miles on it.
Drink driving is not at all a constant risk with respect to time or location.
People are creatures of habit though. If they're used to calling up Uber for XYZ driving needs, they're more likely to do so when drunk.
They already have. Uber now provides primary insurance from the time the app is 'turned on' until it's turned off. Though you need to be careful of state variations.
If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed.
Or perhaps, that it is you that is ignorant or misinformed.
It's called 'regulatory capture'. Because they're already 'in the business', larger businesses can handle larger amounts of regulation, much like how an experienced weightlifter can lift a heavier weight than a newcomer. And when it comes to regulation, the newcomer is typically expected to comply with all the regulations right from the beginning.
As such, usually the only time you get 'new' businesses in such industries is when somebody experienced splits off from an existing company.
They whine and beg against it publicly, but behind doors?
You'd be covered by your friend's insurance, assuming that he has insurance. Limits are typically $50k or more. I think 'most' states require at least $100k worth per person today.
Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.
Citation, preferably recent? Because there's plenty of news articles that say the opposite. I'm not saying that all drivers are properly covered, but you can find gypsy cabs out there that aren't as well, as well as pizza drivers and such.
I won't dispute that there was some 'shaking out' on who's responsible when on the insurance front.
Personal comprehensive insurance does not. Business comprehensive will.
In the USA, 'comprehensive' is an insurance type that covers more than the minimum required 'liability' insurance.
Liability - you hit somebody else, insurance will pay. Smack into a tree yourself? Nada. Your vehicle is stolen? Nope.
Comprehensive covers 'everything' from you hitting somebody else to a windstorm blowing a tree over onto your vehicle parked in your driveway.
The biggest exemption for insurance is indeed that personal insurance doesn't cover you if you're using your vehicle for business - and this means earning money, not driving to/from work, but driving AS work.
I heard that he actually said it, but that it's also taken out of context - he was doing a 'next 5 years' prediction, and the 640k held for the next 4 or so, so he was actually 'close'. (I know, only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades)
Reasons for the searches, no-fly-list etc.? Money? Control? Something else?
Theater. The appearance of doing something about the 'problem'. I've also heard of it being a disguised jobs/welfare program.
Or, if you can't fly directly into the USA, fly into Canada and rent a car.
Do we know if the TSA has discouraged anyone from attacking a plane? I don't really care. I'm interested in if they have prevented anyone form attacking a plane. How many passengers have they dragged off in cuffs from the screening area [slate.com]? Two?
To be specific, the TSA, not being a law enforcement agency(I know!), doesn't haul anybody away 'in cuffs'. The local police department would do that, maybe the FBI or such in extreme circumstances.
They have, however, led to the arrest of a lot more than two people, but the vast majority of those arrested were arrested in the pursuit of our war on drugs, not terrorism.
However, it seems reasonable that in a population of 320 million, there would be a few hundred who truly are dangerous, for whom there is enough evidence that _I_ wouldn't want to be on a plane with them.
I think that's a lot like firearms though. As something of a philosophical point, if you're unable to trust somebody with a firearm, shouldn't they be in some sort of protective custody/supervision, at the least? I mean, I can probably kill more people with a 5 gallon can of gasoline than I can with a pistol.
That being said, we also can't afford to lock up everybody, so I think we need to take a long hard look at our country and what we're doing to generate dangerous people. The first one that comes to my mind is our very justice system. Studies have shown that the majority of murderers have criminal records, often extensive ones, BEFORE they commit their murder. At least one study found that 54% of defendents had at least 1 felony conviction, and 81% had been arrested before. Alternatively, your best DEFENSE to being murdered, in the USA, is pretty simple: Don't be a criminal or associate with them. The average prior criminal record for a murder victim is only slightly less than the killer.
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed, or don't you have a "real" criminal to catch, or don't you know I pay your salary?!?!
True, most 'newsworthy' incidents happen when an asshole meets another asshole. However, while we can't do much about random assholes on the streets, we can keep the body count down by making sure the police officers sent to corral them up aren't assholes as well.
That, and you still have the incidents where asshole cops do things like break into a sleeping person's house in the middle of the night. And while it's certainly possible, it's much harder to still be an asshole while asleep than awake.
It's still a pretty serious system if he's looking at 20kW. For my house I'd be looking at a 4-6 kW solution, covering the entire south facing side of my roof, and my roof is about as ideal for solar as it gets, shape wise.
20kW would require a much larger house, and probably a barn or two as well.
Darn it: "Sorry, Project Sunroof hasn't reached this address yet."
Can't say much about it then.
Well, 10 years later, the contract was not renewed, the vendor probably doesn't even support them anymore, and it's all paid off, so it can be dumped as scrap equipment.
It's stated that the vender has gone out of business, so there's a guarantee of no support from them.