Actually, if they terminate you... as long as you don't steal their clients or give away confidential information you acquired while at your former employer, you can probably simply ignore the non-compete entirely. The entire reason for non-competes is to prevent loss to the company. If you do not do anything in your new job that could cause them loss, then they will have absolutely no legitimate reason to come after you, even if you are doing exactly the same job as you were before.
I think you'd have a great case even if you did start courting their clients as long as they terminated you for their convince (i.e. not for cause). If the contract has a Non-Disclosure clause you will have to abide by that forever (no taking "contact lists" and such), but if you got a layoff the non-compete part should be easily dealt with in court if your previous employer comes after you.
However, having been sued over a non-compete contract, I can tell you it's a bloody expensive difficult mess even when you win. It takes time to deal with all the lawyer visits, depositions, correspondence and court visits. It takes big bucks to pay the lawyer, the transcriptionists, the court fees, making copies and putting gas in the car to get to the appointments. You won't get your time or money back when you win. I don't recommend doing this if you don't have too, it's really not any fun. My case got settled just before trial when my former employer realized they where likely going to loose (Like they had on two side battles about Unemployment payments and overtime payments) and by that time I was ready to let it go and wash my hands of those idiots.
Like my lawyer said at one point, "Only the lawyers win in stuff like this." He was right.. The only real "way to win is not to play"...
I agree, if they initiate the severance, then they should either release you from the NCA or pay you, benefits included, until the term is up. However, if you leave of your own doing, then the NCA applies.
Actually, if they terminate you, its a pretty good bet you could fight them in court if they tried to enforce the NCA and win. However, that's a huge expensive mess and there is a chance they would win so I'd not recommend going that route unless necessary. But what you can do is move to Cali and let them come after you in the local courts. You will win summary judgment in Cali..
How is this important to me? I can personally care less what kind of communication device is carried by the president. I only care that it's SECURE when it needs to be and RELIABLE when necessary. Apart from that, who cares? It can be a blackberry, I-phone, Android, Windows Phone, a blanket and a smoky fire as long as the thing is secure and always works.
The issue here is that a lot of what the president needs to communicate to/from his staff and advisers is highly sensitive. That stuff needs to be encrypted every which way from Sunday with keys that change often for the nations' security. I can pretty much tell you that the president DOESN'T won't have a cell phone on their person. Yea, it may *look* like a Samsung Galaxy 4 and may even share parts from the consumer device, but it's not the same phone.
But even with all that.. PLEASE tell me the president doesn't carry a cell phone of any kind in public.. For Pete's sake that would be a moronic thing to do and I'm sure the Secret Service would be having fits if they had to deal with stuff like that.
Like I said when this was posted previously this week...
This is the wrong thing to be investing in. All this carbon sequestration technology is pretty much pointless unless you can make it cost neutral on an industrial scale. It this processes costs money, even a little, the production of CO2 will NOT abate world wide. The likes of China, Russia and the Third World will simply choose the cheapest form of energy production and laugh at the western world for unilaterally deciding to only use more expensive energy and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. And believe me, it's quite a disadvantage.
What we should be doing is investing in cleaner and cheaper forms of energy technology. Yes, Solar and Wind, but MORE than just that. We need to have a viable Fusion process, push Fission development and use. Invest in energy technology development in areas where there are both the possibility for zero emissions and economic viability and all this carbon sequestration stuff is clearly neither. Sequestration ALWAYS takes more energy and always makes the energy we get cost more because of that. We need to stop investing in loosing propositions and go for the *REAL* solutions.
To put it another way... Would you put your investment money in a business that is loosing money and has no prospects for changing that except perhaps being able to loose less money next quarter by cutting their size and selling less (yet loosing MORE per unit sold doing so)? Of course not, that would be stupid. You want to invest in a company who has a plan that develop a new way of supplying their customer's needs that might someday turn a profit and give you a return... I'm saying invest in things that have a chance to give us a return, not stuff that never will..
Doing this Carbon sequestration stuff is short sighted and largely useless anyway
It's the distraction of choice because oil companies were already aware of pumping gas underground to drive out more oil.
What are you talking about? Yes, I've heard about this oil extraction process, but it doesn't mean that it makes sense to just willy-nilly pump CO2 into the ground wherever we want. Besides, read TFA and you will see that this is talking about a different kind of process, that needs research money (of course).
I'm saying that we should forego the investment into this kind of research and instead concentrate in development of the technology to REPLACE the processes we currently use which emit stuff we don't like with processes we DO like and can afford. Develop ALTERNATE ways of industrial power production like Fusion, Fission and the like so we can wean the western world and then the less industrial world off of the kinds of things which don't have as many environmental issues... Our priority should be in R&D in areas that promise THAT kind of return, not on things like carbon sequestration technologies which are likely to have environmental impacts of their own and stand little chance of actually making any kind of difference...
Claiming to be Trying and actually Doing are totally different things, but you are missing the whole point here...
My point is that there is zero chance we can make enough difference and actually curb emissions world wide while we are dependent on our current sources of Energy. Alternate forms of energy which have NO EMISSONS need to be developed to the point where they are cheap enough to be used or it doesn't matter how much we try here in the western world, emissions will continue to grow with the world's population.
Folks like you are too short sighted for our own good. Think about the reality of the global economic situation and stop taking a "pie in the sky" view about what can be done here for industrial scale energy production. Then carefully consider the local impact of the local regulations you are proposing. If you are thoughtful and honest, I think you will see at least *some* justification for what I'm saying.
You sold that for feeling safe at airports. Happened a few years back.
Did it work?
It's been going on LONG before the TSA got their start... Perhaps to a lesser degree, but government seizure of assets w/o prior legal review has been going on for decades.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I can tell you've never dealt with the IRS (other than to file your return). This has been the general practice of a number of agencies, seize first and ask questions later. Much later, you give the "owner" of said asset a chance to ask for it back, but asking takes time and resources, and the agency who took your stuff is in charge of the process, hires the people who review your claim and makes the rules you have to follow..
The IRS can pretty much take everything you own without you having much to say about it if they think you owe them something. They can garnish your wages, seize assets and bank accounts in their efforts to collect what THEY say you owe. Other government agencies have similar abilities...
What difference does it make? There is no way we will get 3rd world countries, China and Russia to curb their emissions instead of going for cheap energy anyway, so pumping CO2 into the ground or pushing it into rocks is pretty much all cost and zero benefit for us. It's like trying to stop a hurricane using a household box fan or empty the ocean with a 2 gallon bucket... You will have zero measureable affect on the real issue.
What we should be doing is developing better SOURCES of energy which are cheaper and have less environmental impact. We should be investing heavily in fusion and nuclear research and development not this. Doing this Carbon sequestration stuff is short sighted and largely useless anyway.
Not exactly.... But yes, FET's are (in some operating modes) more voltage devices than current devices and somewhat mimic a vacuum tube's operating mode. However, I would like to note that I specifically described devices other than FETs in my discussion before.
I currently use a Dumbphone. I would be in the market for a smartphone only if:
1) It has a physical keyboard.
2) It does not require touch screen use.
3) Its OS and Programs are not made by companies who use my data for their profits.
4) The OS and Programs have not been back doored by government agencies.
5) The company who makes the phones and OS does not cooperate with government agencies when they ask to weaken security and encryption.
From the looks of it, I'll be keeping my dumb prepaid phone forever.
1 and 2 you have with the dumb phone, but the rest? Not so much.
Like it or not that dumb phone still runs software/firmware that your carrier can upgrade remotely if they choose, runs apps that can track you for the government if they wish. You may be less of a target due to the dumb phone's lesser capabilities, but that doesn't mean you are getting the security you seek from it. The only way to get all you want is to ditch the phone and most modern communications systems...
It's not voltage that kills, it's the current.... But at 800 volts, generating enough current to shutdown one's heart is pretty much a given.
Better tip.... Don't work on tube circuits which are powered or have recently been plugged in unless absolutely necessary (and it rarely is if you think about what you are doing), in fact, don't ever have it plugged in and the cover off at the same time. Secondary tip: Always discharge capacitors and verify they are discharged using a screwdriver with an insolated handle to cross the terminals BEFORE you touch anything else.
Occasions where it is necessary to work on a tube circuit with the unit under power are very rare. When necessary, use only one hand, insure that you are totally ungrounded though any other path (shoes, leaning on the work bench ect.) and NEVER touch anything where when your primary muscles contract that you will get hung up AND have somebody watch you who knows not to touch you and how to quickly remove the power from the device.
Where the transistor (bipolar PNP/NPN types) are usually designed with "current gain" and not voltage, vacuum tubes are more voltage driven devices where you have voltage gain. You bias a tube with voltage, by carefully adjusting the grid, almost exactly like you bias a bipolar transistor with current to get the device into the active region. Apply a little bit of varying voltage to the grid and see a large variation on the cathode plate voltage, just like varying the base current to see a large current change in the CE current.
I don't see much use for small tubes in digital circuits, but they might be useful in small quantities for analog stuff but somehow I doubt that it's going to be too useful. You have to get the cathode hot enough for the electrons to want to leave and head for the plate and it takes fairly high voltages to make everything work, both of these are not good things for existing solid state devices where you want to keep the voltages and temperatures low. Doesn't seem like a good mix to me.
Likely so.. Getting a good filter cap that's gong to work at 800 Volts is going to be fun though. Electrolytic's don't like over voltage about as much as reverse voltage... KAPOW...
Um.. It's not the "courts" they are ignoring, it's the DOJ's lawyers opinion they are ignoring. I know it's a fine line here, but let's be accurate in what we say.
Seriously though, if somebody is implicated by evidence collected illegally, THEN they have recourse at the criminal trial to have the illegal evidence suppressed along with all the evidence that came from the illegally collected evidence. If the FBI really is out collecting evidence which is not legal, then they are doing stupid stuff and a whole bunch of criminals are going to walk. Even the FBI gumshoes know this and don't want to risk letting the bad guy off on a technicality.
So don't get your panties in a wad over this. The FBI is into law enforcement, catching criminals and putting bad guys behind bars, not doing stupid stuff... Not like the DOJ is stupid, usually because the DOJ is a political tool these days, used to bring legal action to pursue political purposes... So who do you think is more likely correct? The politically motivated hacks at the DOJ or the FBI who's mission is law enforcement? I know who's got my vote.
Oh really? Come on.. I'm a US citizen and I KNOW that's not true and hasn't been true for about 200 or so years.
Remember the US Revolutionary war was not fought in a vacuum, that the British where engaged in multiple conflicts before, during and after this war that drastically reduced the legal influence and standing of the monarchs. They are no longer absolute rulers, but more akin to figure heads, representatives of the state at official functions with very little actual legal control given parliament must really be involved in most things now.
Actually, this move away from the absolute ruler had been well underway long before the colonies on this side of the pond started to revolt, with most such arrangements being similar to what we see today, with parliaments having the real power and the monarchs having more of an advise and consent figure head role. However, it wasn't until around the 1700's that parliaments where filled with elected members over appointed ones and where the monarch lost the privilege of deciding when a parliament sat and who was on it.
For a private pilot, "uber in the sky" is a non starter. The FAA has ruled that you cannot do that kind of "ride sharing" that Uber is using to skirt the local rules on how one must run a commercial taxi service.
Personally I agree with the FAA on this and not just for safety reasons. The terms of my Private Pilot's license made it clear that I could only fly for private personal reasons and I understood that when I got it. (I think there where some written test questions on that topic too.). I also believe that Uber, as it now works, should be regulated as a commercial taxi service too, although my opinion doesn't seem to be winning right now and Uber just refuses to address the legal issues and will stop operating with local areas that try to enforce their laws. (aka Austin Texas). (Full disclosure, I have a Private Pilot's license and about 100 hours of PIC nearly 20 years ago, and a Class B commercial driver's license and can legally transport passengers in a commercial operation, including busses with air brakes. Where I don't do that professionally, I believe Uber SHOULD be bound by local and federal regulations regarding commercial transportation.
I believe A certified Flight Instructor HAS a commercial license. In the USA, you don't get paid to fly without a commercial license.
Teaching on point to point trips is often done, however such teaching and proficiency check rides are incidental to the flying. So, a CFI can be doing his thing while the aircraft is flying cargo, but the flying cargo operation MUST be run under the commercial rules, including the stricter aircraft inspection rules, tighter operating rules and the licenses required by the pilots.
So, if your CFI is trying to do private pilot instruction while hauling cargo in a commercial operation it's going to be pretty hard to be legitimate (maybe not impossible, just hard). Besides, I see little real value in sticking a private student on a commercial run because there is little they can officially do and the hours won't count in their log book even if they did all the actual flying, so great experience, it just won't advance your training in any way. Now if the CFI is performing an annual proficiency check or is evaluating the student who holds the proper commercial license for a type rating renewal, then THAT is done all the time.
After thought, I'm revising how I say this for accuracy.... Because flying to a business meeting where your employer pays for the operating costs IS clearly OK with the FAA and even taking people you work with along to the same meeting, while getting close to the grey, is still OK as long as it's not part of your job to fly folks and stuff around. The flying must not be part of your job but be incidental to your job, and you can accept reimbursement for expenses.
What you CANNOT do is operate a business where you fly for compensation unless you follow the commercial rules. This includes agreeing to take somebody someplace BECAUSE they are paying you. Even if they don't pay you all your costs, if the flight is being operated as a business, even if you are loosing money, you cannot do it as a private pilot.
So the issue is flying "as a business" "for hire" or "commercially" cannot be done, regardless of who's paying or how much they are paying, by a private pilot. But if you are flying for personal reasons, even if it's personal business reasons where you are reimbursed your expenses fully, it is permitted.
I imagine that the FAA will be looking at multiple things here when they suspect a private pilot is actually flying commercially and that no one factor or test will really be all that's looked at. But rest assured that if somebody you don't know, pays you one red cent to fly them from A to B they are going to seriously start thinking you are running a business... Now if you are flying your room mate to grandma's house for her birthday party and he chips in for your rental fees, or if your boss agrees to reimburse your actual travel costs to attend a business meeting for him, that doesn't look like a flying business.
I was responding to the "If I'm going to die, at least it will be quick and painless" quote. IF you are going to die in a general aviation accident, the chances are it won't be quick or painless. Your best chance of death is to die of smoke inhalation while being burned alive, which is about as far from quick and painless as I can imagine.
I disagree slightly. "Share" does not mean "Evenly share" it means "Share" and the rule is you CAN share the actual costs. However, the FAA is going to take a very dim view of your "operation" if you, as a private pilot, engage in activity that looks or smells like a business, even if you loose money. For instance, your employer can pay your expenses for you to fly yourself to a business meeting, no problem. You might even take some fellow employees along for the ride who are going to the same meeting and still be able to get 100% of your costs. Although, as soon as it starts to look like you are running a charter service, where you are being paid to fly folks around the FAA rightly is going to want a bit more control.
As long as you are not "flying for money" as a private pilot knock yourself out, but if you start hauling strangers around, even if they are only paying half your costs, it's going to start looking like a business and the FAA is going to impose a different level of rules on the operation, profitable or not. A Private pilot can fly for personal reasons, but cannot operate for commercial reasons.
The line here is "operate like a business" or "flying for compensation" not who's paying the costs. Your employer can say provide you an aircraft you can fly for free (thus paying all the costs) and you can take that aircraft on a business trip as a private pilot. However, they CANNOT pay you to take passengers or cargo places in the aircraft as part of your job function. If folks just happened to be passengers heading to the same meeting, it's starting to get into the grey area but as long as the flying is incidental to your real job it's likely going to be OK with the FAA.
At least my death would most likely be quick and painless.
Chances are you'd die a painful death actually. General Aviation aircraft are usually slow and carry a lot of very volatile gasoline and where "at cruse" accidents happen, most accidents are during landing and takeoff operations.
In general aviation, crashes are usually slow speed affairs and most survive the impact with just serious injuries like broken bones, internal injuries and severed limbs. Most die in the post crash fire before they can bleed to death. Your best hope is to be rendered unconscious on impact but at the speeds usually involved in general aviation this is not a sure thing...
The economics of such a system prevent it from being an effective commercial sky taxi service. If the pilots are going to be doing the trip anyway then what's the difference as to whether or not there's a passenger?
I used to do this frequently while a friend was getting his license. He needed his hours up so was doing the trips anyway and I needed a quick vacation to some other city so I offered to split the fuel costs with him (a tiny fraction of the cost of his flight when you don't own your own plane, but he appreciated the extra money).
Shazam man... When I was learning how to fly, the LAST thing I needed was a passenger to distract me from the task at hand. Besides, it was REALLY clear that I was NOT allowed to take passengers as a student. I could take my CFI, or fly by myself under my CFI's supervision, but that's all I could do. I could fly locally (take off and land at the local airport) once he said I could solo but No flying off to someplace, even on my own w/o getting my CFI to approve it, sign my log book saying he was OK with it. There was no way I could take passengers, and that was clearly printed on my student pilot's license/medical card.
After I got my full pilot's license, I still have to get a CFI to sign my log book yearly and demonstrate a minimum of flight experience before I can take a passenger even around the pattern.
If your friend really was a student who didn't have his license yet, then he was a dangerous idiot who didn't care about the rules and had a fool for a passenger..
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if they terminate you... as long as you don't steal their clients or give away confidential information you acquired while at your former employer, you can probably simply ignore the non-compete entirely. The entire reason for non-competes is to prevent loss to the company. If you do not do anything in your new job that could cause them loss, then they will have absolutely no legitimate reason to come after you, even if you are doing exactly the same job as you were before.
I think you'd have a great case even if you did start courting their clients as long as they terminated you for their convince (i.e. not for cause). If the contract has a Non-Disclosure clause you will have to abide by that forever (no taking "contact lists" and such), but if you got a layoff the non-compete part should be easily dealt with in court if your previous employer comes after you.
However, having been sued over a non-compete contract, I can tell you it's a bloody expensive difficult mess even when you win. It takes time to deal with all the lawyer visits, depositions, correspondence and court visits. It takes big bucks to pay the lawyer, the transcriptionists, the court fees, making copies and putting gas in the car to get to the appointments. You won't get your time or money back when you win. I don't recommend doing this if you don't have too, it's really not any fun. My case got settled just before trial when my former employer realized they where likely going to loose (Like they had on two side battles about Unemployment payments and overtime payments) and by that time I was ready to let it go and wash my hands of those idiots.
Like my lawyer said at one point, "Only the lawyers win in stuff like this." He was right.. The only real "way to win is not to play"...
I agree, if they initiate the severance, then they should either release you from the NCA or pay you, benefits included, until the term is up. However, if you leave of your own doing, then the NCA applies.
Actually, if they terminate you, its a pretty good bet you could fight them in court if they tried to enforce the NCA and win. However, that's a huge expensive mess and there is a chance they would win so I'd not recommend going that route unless necessary. But what you can do is move to Cali and let them come after you in the local courts. You will win summary judgment in Cali..
How is this important to me? I can personally care less what kind of communication device is carried by the president. I only care that it's SECURE when it needs to be and RELIABLE when necessary. Apart from that, who cares? It can be a blackberry, I-phone, Android, Windows Phone, a blanket and a smoky fire as long as the thing is secure and always works.
The issue here is that a lot of what the president needs to communicate to/from his staff and advisers is highly sensitive. That stuff needs to be encrypted every which way from Sunday with keys that change often for the nations' security. I can pretty much tell you that the president DOESN'T won't have a cell phone on their person. Yea, it may *look* like a Samsung Galaxy 4 and may even share parts from the consumer device, but it's not the same phone.
But even with all that.. PLEASE tell me the president doesn't carry a cell phone of any kind in public.. For Pete's sake that would be a moronic thing to do and I'm sure the Secret Service would be having fits if they had to deal with stuff like that.
Like I said when this was posted previously this week...
This is the wrong thing to be investing in. All this carbon sequestration technology is pretty much pointless unless you can make it cost neutral on an industrial scale. It this processes costs money, even a little, the production of CO2 will NOT abate world wide. The likes of China, Russia and the Third World will simply choose the cheapest form of energy production and laugh at the western world for unilaterally deciding to only use more expensive energy and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. And believe me, it's quite a disadvantage.
What we should be doing is investing in cleaner and cheaper forms of energy technology. Yes, Solar and Wind, but MORE than just that. We need to have a viable Fusion process, push Fission development and use. Invest in energy technology development in areas where there are both the possibility for zero emissions and economic viability and all this carbon sequestration stuff is clearly neither. Sequestration ALWAYS takes more energy and always makes the energy we get cost more because of that. We need to stop investing in loosing propositions and go for the *REAL* solutions.
To put it another way... Would you put your investment money in a business that is loosing money and has no prospects for changing that except perhaps being able to loose less money next quarter by cutting their size and selling less (yet loosing MORE per unit sold doing so)? Of course not, that would be stupid. You want to invest in a company who has a plan that develop a new way of supplying their customer's needs that might someday turn a profit and give you a return... I'm saying invest in things that have a chance to give us a return, not stuff that never will..
It's the distraction of choice because oil companies were already aware of pumping gas underground to drive out more oil.
What are you talking about? Yes, I've heard about this oil extraction process, but it doesn't mean that it makes sense to just willy-nilly pump CO2 into the ground wherever we want. Besides, read TFA and you will see that this is talking about a different kind of process, that needs research money (of course).
I'm saying that we should forego the investment into this kind of research and instead concentrate in development of the technology to REPLACE the processes we currently use which emit stuff we don't like with processes we DO like and can afford. Develop ALTERNATE ways of industrial power production like Fusion, Fission and the like so we can wean the western world and then the less industrial world off of the kinds of things which don't have as many environmental issues... Our priority should be in R&D in areas that promise THAT kind of return, not on things like carbon sequestration technologies which are likely to have environmental impacts of their own and stand little chance of actually making any kind of difference...
Claiming to be Trying and actually Doing are totally different things, but you are missing the whole point here...
My point is that there is zero chance we can make enough difference and actually curb emissions world wide while we are dependent on our current sources of Energy. Alternate forms of energy which have NO EMISSONS need to be developed to the point where they are cheap enough to be used or it doesn't matter how much we try here in the western world, emissions will continue to grow with the world's population.
Folks like you are too short sighted for our own good. Think about the reality of the global economic situation and stop taking a "pie in the sky" view about what can be done here for industrial scale energy production. Then carefully consider the local impact of the local regulations you are proposing. If you are thoughtful and honest, I think you will see at least *some* justification for what I'm saying.
You sold that for feeling safe at airports. Happened a few years back.
Did it work?
It's been going on LONG before the TSA got their start... Perhaps to a lesser degree, but government seizure of assets w/o prior legal review has been going on for decades.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I can tell you've never dealt with the IRS (other than to file your return). This has been the general practice of a number of agencies, seize first and ask questions later. Much later, you give the "owner" of said asset a chance to ask for it back, but asking takes time and resources, and the agency who took your stuff is in charge of the process, hires the people who review your claim and makes the rules you have to follow..
The IRS can pretty much take everything you own without you having much to say about it if they think you owe them something. They can garnish your wages, seize assets and bank accounts in their efforts to collect what THEY say you owe. Other government agencies have similar abilities...
What difference does it make? There is no way we will get 3rd world countries, China and Russia to curb their emissions instead of going for cheap energy anyway, so pumping CO2 into the ground or pushing it into rocks is pretty much all cost and zero benefit for us. It's like trying to stop a hurricane using a household box fan or empty the ocean with a 2 gallon bucket... You will have zero measureable affect on the real issue.
What we should be doing is developing better SOURCES of energy which are cheaper and have less environmental impact. We should be investing heavily in fusion and nuclear research and development not this. Doing this Carbon sequestration stuff is short sighted and largely useless anyway.
But you answer it when he hands it to you... ;)
Not exactly.... But yes, FET's are (in some operating modes) more voltage devices than current devices and somewhat mimic a vacuum tube's operating mode. However, I would like to note that I specifically described devices other than FETs in my discussion before.
I currently use a Dumbphone. I would be in the market for a smartphone only if: 1) It has a physical keyboard. 2) It does not require touch screen use. 3) Its OS and Programs are not made by companies who use my data for their profits. 4) The OS and Programs have not been back doored by government agencies. 5) The company who makes the phones and OS does not cooperate with government agencies when they ask to weaken security and encryption.
From the looks of it, I'll be keeping my dumb prepaid phone forever.
1 and 2 you have with the dumb phone, but the rest? Not so much.
Like it or not that dumb phone still runs software/firmware that your carrier can upgrade remotely if they choose, runs apps that can track you for the government if they wish. You may be less of a target due to the dumb phone's lesser capabilities, but that doesn't mean you are getting the security you seek from it. The only way to get all you want is to ditch the phone and most modern communications systems...
It's not voltage that kills, it's the current.... But at 800 volts, generating enough current to shutdown one's heart is pretty much a given.
Better tip.... Don't work on tube circuits which are powered or have recently been plugged in unless absolutely necessary (and it rarely is if you think about what you are doing), in fact, don't ever have it plugged in and the cover off at the same time. Secondary tip: Always discharge capacitors and verify they are discharged using a screwdriver with an insolated handle to cross the terminals BEFORE you touch anything else.
Occasions where it is necessary to work on a tube circuit with the unit under power are very rare. When necessary, use only one hand, insure that you are totally ungrounded though any other path (shoes, leaning on the work bench ect.) and NEVER touch anything where when your primary muscles contract that you will get hung up AND have somebody watch you who knows not to touch you and how to quickly remove the power from the device.
As I recall.... Out of the cobwebs..
Where the transistor (bipolar PNP/NPN types) are usually designed with "current gain" and not voltage, vacuum tubes are more voltage driven devices where you have voltage gain. You bias a tube with voltage, by carefully adjusting the grid, almost exactly like you bias a bipolar transistor with current to get the device into the active region. Apply a little bit of varying voltage to the grid and see a large variation on the cathode plate voltage, just like varying the base current to see a large current change in the CE current.
I don't see much use for small tubes in digital circuits, but they might be useful in small quantities for analog stuff but somehow I doubt that it's going to be too useful. You have to get the cathode hot enough for the electrons to want to leave and head for the plate and it takes fairly high voltages to make everything work, both of these are not good things for existing solid state devices where you want to keep the voltages and temperatures low. Doesn't seem like a good mix to me.
Likely so.. Getting a good filter cap that's gong to work at 800 Volts is going to be fun though. Electrolytic's don't like over voltage about as much as reverse voltage... KAPOW...
Of course they are ignoring the court....
Um.. It's not the "courts" they are ignoring, it's the DOJ's lawyers opinion they are ignoring. I know it's a fine line here, but let's be accurate in what we say.
Seriously though, if somebody is implicated by evidence collected illegally, THEN they have recourse at the criminal trial to have the illegal evidence suppressed along with all the evidence that came from the illegally collected evidence. If the FBI really is out collecting evidence which is not legal, then they are doing stupid stuff and a whole bunch of criminals are going to walk. Even the FBI gumshoes know this and don't want to risk letting the bad guy off on a technicality.
So don't get your panties in a wad over this. The FBI is into law enforcement, catching criminals and putting bad guys behind bars, not doing stupid stuff... Not like the DOJ is stupid, usually because the DOJ is a political tool these days, used to bring legal action to pursue political purposes... So who do you think is more likely correct? The politically motivated hacks at the DOJ or the FBI who's mission is law enforcement? I know who's got my vote.
Oh really? Come on.. I'm a US citizen and I KNOW that's not true and hasn't been true for about 200 or so years.
Remember the US Revolutionary war was not fought in a vacuum, that the British where engaged in multiple conflicts before, during and after this war that drastically reduced the legal influence and standing of the monarchs. They are no longer absolute rulers, but more akin to figure heads, representatives of the state at official functions with very little actual legal control given parliament must really be involved in most things now.
Actually, this move away from the absolute ruler had been well underway long before the colonies on this side of the pond started to revolt, with most such arrangements being similar to what we see today, with parliaments having the real power and the monarchs having more of an advise and consent figure head role. However, it wasn't until around the 1700's that parliaments where filled with elected members over appointed ones and where the monarch lost the privilege of deciding when a parliament sat and who was on it.
For a private pilot, "uber in the sky" is a non starter. The FAA has ruled that you cannot do that kind of "ride sharing" that Uber is using to skirt the local rules on how one must run a commercial taxi service.
Personally I agree with the FAA on this and not just for safety reasons. The terms of my Private Pilot's license made it clear that I could only fly for private personal reasons and I understood that when I got it. (I think there where some written test questions on that topic too.). I also believe that Uber, as it now works, should be regulated as a commercial taxi service too, although my opinion doesn't seem to be winning right now and Uber just refuses to address the legal issues and will stop operating with local areas that try to enforce their laws. (aka Austin Texas). (Full disclosure, I have a Private Pilot's license and about 100 hours of PIC nearly 20 years ago, and a Class B commercial driver's license and can legally transport passengers in a commercial operation, including busses with air brakes. Where I don't do that professionally, I believe Uber SHOULD be bound by local and federal regulations regarding commercial transportation.
I believe A certified Flight Instructor HAS a commercial license. In the USA, you don't get paid to fly without a commercial license.
Teaching on point to point trips is often done, however such teaching and proficiency check rides are incidental to the flying. So, a CFI can be doing his thing while the aircraft is flying cargo, but the flying cargo operation MUST be run under the commercial rules, including the stricter aircraft inspection rules, tighter operating rules and the licenses required by the pilots.
So, if your CFI is trying to do private pilot instruction while hauling cargo in a commercial operation it's going to be pretty hard to be legitimate (maybe not impossible, just hard). Besides, I see little real value in sticking a private student on a commercial run because there is little they can officially do and the hours won't count in their log book even if they did all the actual flying, so great experience, it just won't advance your training in any way. Now if the CFI is performing an annual proficiency check or is evaluating the student who holds the proper commercial license for a type rating renewal, then THAT is done all the time.
After thought, I'm revising how I say this for accuracy.... Because flying to a business meeting where your employer pays for the operating costs IS clearly OK with the FAA and even taking people you work with along to the same meeting, while getting close to the grey, is still OK as long as it's not part of your job to fly folks and stuff around. The flying must not be part of your job but be incidental to your job, and you can accept reimbursement for expenses.
What you CANNOT do is operate a business where you fly for compensation unless you follow the commercial rules. This includes agreeing to take somebody someplace BECAUSE they are paying you. Even if they don't pay you all your costs, if the flight is being operated as a business, even if you are loosing money, you cannot do it as a private pilot.
So the issue is flying "as a business" "for hire" or "commercially" cannot be done, regardless of who's paying or how much they are paying, by a private pilot. But if you are flying for personal reasons, even if it's personal business reasons where you are reimbursed your expenses fully, it is permitted.
I imagine that the FAA will be looking at multiple things here when they suspect a private pilot is actually flying commercially and that no one factor or test will really be all that's looked at. But rest assured that if somebody you don't know, pays you one red cent to fly them from A to B they are going to seriously start thinking you are running a business... Now if you are flying your room mate to grandma's house for her birthday party and he chips in for your rental fees, or if your boss agrees to reimburse your actual travel costs to attend a business meeting for him, that doesn't look like a flying business.
I was responding to the "If I'm going to die, at least it will be quick and painless" quote. IF you are going to die in a general aviation accident, the chances are it won't be quick or painless. Your best chance of death is to die of smoke inhalation while being burned alive, which is about as far from quick and painless as I can imagine.
I disagree slightly. "Share" does not mean "Evenly share" it means "Share" and the rule is you CAN share the actual costs. However, the FAA is going to take a very dim view of your "operation" if you, as a private pilot, engage in activity that looks or smells like a business, even if you loose money. For instance, your employer can pay your expenses for you to fly yourself to a business meeting, no problem. You might even take some fellow employees along for the ride who are going to the same meeting and still be able to get 100% of your costs. Although, as soon as it starts to look like you are running a charter service, where you are being paid to fly folks around the FAA rightly is going to want a bit more control.
As long as you are not "flying for money" as a private pilot knock yourself out, but if you start hauling strangers around, even if they are only paying half your costs, it's going to start looking like a business and the FAA is going to impose a different level of rules on the operation, profitable or not. A Private pilot can fly for personal reasons, but cannot operate for commercial reasons.
The line here is "operate like a business" or "flying for compensation" not who's paying the costs. Your employer can say provide you an aircraft you can fly for free (thus paying all the costs) and you can take that aircraft on a business trip as a private pilot. However, they CANNOT pay you to take passengers or cargo places in the aircraft as part of your job function. If folks just happened to be passengers heading to the same meeting, it's starting to get into the grey area but as long as the flying is incidental to your real job it's likely going to be OK with the FAA.
At least my death would most likely be quick and painless.
Chances are you'd die a painful death actually. General Aviation aircraft are usually slow and carry a lot of very volatile gasoline and where "at cruse" accidents happen, most accidents are during landing and takeoff operations.
In general aviation, crashes are usually slow speed affairs and most survive the impact with just serious injuries like broken bones, internal injuries and severed limbs. Most die in the post crash fire before they can bleed to death. Your best hope is to be rendered unconscious on impact but at the speeds usually involved in general aviation this is not a sure thing...
The economics of such a system prevent it from being an effective commercial sky taxi service. If the pilots are going to be doing the trip anyway then what's the difference as to whether or not there's a passenger?
I used to do this frequently while a friend was getting his license. He needed his hours up so was doing the trips anyway and I needed a quick vacation to some other city so I offered to split the fuel costs with him (a tiny fraction of the cost of his flight when you don't own your own plane, but he appreciated the extra money).
Shazam man... When I was learning how to fly, the LAST thing I needed was a passenger to distract me from the task at hand. Besides, it was REALLY clear that I was NOT allowed to take passengers as a student. I could take my CFI, or fly by myself under my CFI's supervision, but that's all I could do. I could fly locally (take off and land at the local airport) once he said I could solo but No flying off to someplace, even on my own w/o getting my CFI to approve it, sign my log book saying he was OK with it. There was no way I could take passengers, and that was clearly printed on my student pilot's license/medical card.
After I got my full pilot's license, I still have to get a CFI to sign my log book yearly and demonstrate a minimum of flight experience before I can take a passenger even around the pattern.
If your friend really was a student who didn't have his license yet, then he was a dangerous idiot who didn't care about the rules and had a fool for a passenger..
AND you need to vetted by a CFI within the last year PLUS have enough recent IFR flight experience to be "current"...
And an aircraft that currently carries the minimum IFR equipment which is currently certified for IFR operations.
AND have the necessary charts/maps on board.
AND have a filed IFR flight plan...
AND have the fuel on board necessary to reach your destination, proceed to the alternate and have a minimum reserve when you arrive.
AND have received clearance to fly the flight plan you've filed...
AND be flying the filed and approved flight plan...
THEN and ONLY THEN may you venture into a cloud on purpose..