not a tax. the cost is passed on whether they buy it or lease it.
the case for leasing it comes from the fact that spectrum is limited. its effectively a finite resource, sbuject to natural monpoly economic rules. it should be treated a public resource, in the sense that the public, through its agents in the government, owns it. So selling it off to private interests is bad, cause they then turn around and sell it back to us. No different than if we allowed private interests to siphon all the oxygen out of the air and then sell it to us in order to breathe.
I honestly am not even sure spectrum should be leased to companies. Rather I'd say the spectrum that has been sold or leased should simply be classified for use. Phone makers then simply sell devices able to operate in said classifications. They dont own the spectrum, they dont even lease it; we the public do. They simply provide devices able to access it.
So you logic is: Because it almost, but did not, happen, everything is ok and there is no ened for rules to prevent further almost or even actual happenings?
Really you are a moron. You have no clue what you are talking about, or any concept of risk management.
Further, a single bird very much is a potential threat to a plane. Bird strikes cause over 600 million dollars in damage to the airline industry every year. Whule a variety of birds can be found at airports, the most common birds encountered on airports are geese, because even though they try to make airport land unattractive to birds, geese have a proclivity for eating grass, and airports tend to have that. And since you dont seem to know much of anything, you should be aware that geese arent small. An 8 lb bird striking an aircraft moving at over 120mph, and even ignoring thr birds own airspeed and momentum, is sufficient to crack plexiglass, dent airframe aluminum, and/or destroy an engine (just bending/breaking one blade on a turbine can unbalance it sufficiently to tear itself apart). Herons and large raptors have also been ingested into engines. An F16 canopy was partially dislodged (though still held by the catches) and nearly shattered after an impact. These are objects made of soft tissue with wery weak/hollow bones.
you apparently have zero knowledge of airfield, or birds. or logic.
if a drone operator is flying near an airport he is by definition doing by by choice, willingly in violation of already established FAA regulations. and if hes already willfully violating regulations and flying near an airport it is no longer a given that he will try to avoid a collision, because why is he flying over an active flightpath int he first place?!?!? Rationality and motive are called into question by the very situation you have posed?
birds arent making conscious choices like that. most birds tend to avoid giant noisy objects hurtling at them. few birds regualrly fly across a flightline. the chief threat is that in their evasion they get overtaken and sucked in by an engine. that's why airports work to make the land the flightlines, taxiways , and runways occupy unattractive to birds. No trees, no ponds, and active denial systems (IE, devices that randomly emit loud noises). in general they work quite well.
The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.
Neither true nor untrue, just simply compeltely and totally ignorant and unfactual.
There is zero new risk here and history shows that there is zero actual risk in this as nobody ever brought down a commercial airliner with a model airplane or helicopter. AFAIK it has not even been tried, ever.
the risk has increased simply due to proliferation. the fact it hasnt happened yet is not proof that it cant happen. all you have to do FOD out an engine on takeoff and the plane is going down.
the flu causes more death and more economic loss every year than almost any other communicable disease. this percieved lack of threat only exacerbates it.
no, its not as scary as ebola. but ebola is really hard to catch and spread. ebola kills too easily, it burns itself out. the flu doesnt do that though. it spready very easily. and kills only rarely. but it does kill. this results in it being able to infect a far larger total nubmer of persons, which means a far larger total number of deaths.
ebola may have a >50% mortality rate (and we've seent hat in a modern medicine environment its actually far far lower), but if the base number of infected is below 20k people, thats not that many dead.
contrast that with the flu, with a mortality rate of sub 5%, but an infection base in the tens and hundreds of millions of people. and you end up with a total number of deaths averaging nearly 30k. and thanks to the flu having multiple strains that all evolve quickly, it repeats. every. year.
but lets not stop at deaths.
theres also the economic costs. getting the lfu typically means between 3-7 days of lost work. days when someone is unproductive. the company suffers, the person suffers, the economy as a whole suffers. especially, agian, because of the large nubmers of people that get it.
so the people who need to stop are folks like. fonts of misinformation who dont know what they are talking about.
that's an opinion peice from a non expert criticing experts, and that piece has itself been torn to shreds.
for starters, theres the assumptions that the FBI statistics are at all adequate (they arent, and even the FBI says so), or that their statistics are the end of the discussion and should or would at all match studies.
the FBI stats are inadequate and incomplete. the FBI even says so.
there are tens of thousands of LEA's across the country (>35k), but onlya very small minority of them (1k) even track statistics and then report them to the FBIs database. further, unlike robbery or homicide, rape very rarely has third party witnesses or bystanders able to report the crime. meaning the only person capable of reporting it is the victim. and the victims very often dont report it for various reasons, such as intimidation and threats, they know the assailant, etc etc.
these are established problems with the current statistics, and only the tip of the iceberg of problems, that everyone acknowledges. except apparently the author of that horrible article...and you.
DUH! Obviously the Weather Service is only issuing reports and warnings to justify their own existence and get more funding. I dont know what theyre going to do with it, since being government employees their salaries are locked by codified pay scales so its not like they can pocket the money from "more funding".
Seriosuly, what do these nuts who say its about more funding think they're going to do with it? Its so dumb, its hard to properly parody it.
why do we have to BE a superpower? and your analogy sucks. there is no benefit to spending more on smoke detectors than clothing, but there is a benefit to giving an underfunded orginzation like teh CDC more funding. and it is true: the CDC covers an area responsible for more american death than terrorism ever has. but its not scary, or patriotic, and it deals with science, and then there that whole AC/Tinfoil hat crowd.
so youre saying we shouldnt hold them accountable when they are innefective and fail to do the job?
OK FOLKS! NEW CLARIFICATION FROM CONSERVATIVES ON THEIR PLATFORM: Accountability is only for black kenyan presidents, teachers, and scientists. No calling for accountability from the people with guns allowed, be it police or military.
who says cdc is bloated? their budget is less than 7 billion.
yet they are responsbile for and cover a great many things that pose actual threats to the american public. things that kill more citizens than terrorism ever has or likely ever will.
you mean where teh CDC was correct after all, and all the talking heads were fearmongering over ebola for nothing?
oh yeah. firearms....god forbid an organization whos chief concern is public health do research into one of the deadliest yet most preventable threats in a society, a threat most every other civilized nation has already neutralized. they also have guidance on cars, eating habits, and other leading causes of death. so scary. oooooooooo.
because the flu kills many more people than ebola, and is actually worth worrying abuot? because, unlike ebola, the flu doesnt burn itself out. ebola kills too easily and spreads with difficulty, which limits its spread and capabilty to harm large numbers. the flu, being more contagious and less deadly on an individual basis, is able to infect more people and thus kill more people.
ebola is still below 10k fatailities for this outbreak. the flu ranges between 3k and 49k every year, averaging >20k.
flu also causes a bigger drain on the world's economies, with lost production, costs spent on treatment, workers staying home, etc, than most other "scary" diseases.
and this is "average" considerations, where the article is about how this years flu season may be exceptional due to the vaccine being less capable than expected compared to the expected viral strain.
1. The temperature range is important because it affects the speed at which process can go. Whether life is carbon or silica or something else, its still ultimately chemical in nature and neccessarily must involve numerous chemical reactions, and temperature has a dramatic effect on reaction in general, and basically acts as a filter determins which reactions occur at an adequate pace in a given temperature range. And slower chemical baseline processes will be highly likely to lead to slower rates of evolution.
2, 3, 3.5. We make certain assumptions based on the prevalence of certain elements in the universe. Generally the lower on the period table you go, the more common the elements. Theres no reason to think our combination is that unique. If the odds of life happening are low, it's a fair assumption that what does work will be fairly common.
4. Star eneergy: again, temperature/energy affects the rate of processes.
6. Gas giants wont block the radiation. I dont think thats a sufficient solution.
7. Temperature stablility is likely to be important, just as minor variations are likely important to create the small amount of chaotic mixing that is also likely essential (ie, perfect stability in a system is unlikely to give rise to life as everything reaches equilibrium and stops)
you do realize that the things you mention that we've detected are million even billions of years old right?
why does an alien civilization have to be dramatically older than us? what if they're only a little older than us? there is the problem of transit time to be considered.
so if they're anything close to us in age it will still be thousand, millions, or even billions of years before we detect their emissions, or vice versa. or stated another way, any alien emissions we DO detect are likely to be many millions of years old.
what do you think the odds are that civilization still existing? what do you think the odds are of our civilization still existing by the time our emissions are detected?
swiss neutrality worked because they accepted everyones money, facilitated talks and even arms deals between opposing sides, and because no one cared enough to actually take a small minor nation with no strategic value.
the article assumes that a study should automatically match the FBI's crime statistics. problem is even the FBI admits their statistics are woefully inadequate. remember, we do not have a national database or mechanism for tracking any crime statistics. not homicides, murders, police harming civilians, nor rapes.
FBI statistics are based off voluntary reports from a small minority (fewer than 1,000) of the law enforcement and police departments (>30,000) across the nation.
And due to the nature of the crime, rape is only ever reported, IF it's even reported, by the victim. ie, there are rarely ever any eyewitnesses to report it and initiate an investigation comapred to robbery or homicide.
you say you want the truth, but reject out of hand actual scientific truth.
there is no "male gendered brain" or "female gendered brain", just as there is no male hear or female stomachs. a human brain is a human brain. it is a self wiring self developing organ that develops isnide either a male or female body. it may develpoe in a certain way in response to the envirinment and culture is is placed in, but that is not an inherent difference that would occur no matter what because of whats dangling between its legs, but a difference arising due to culture.
the human brain is not pysiologically male or female. that is not ideology but a fundamental scienitific truth established time and again. the differences that develope are entirely cultural in origin.
thats what i keep saying. but anything relating to genders is one/.'s biggest blindspots.
Our brains are like blank slates when we are born. they are undeveloped. But more importantly, they are like self-wiring, self-programming processors that develpoe based on their environment. the few physiological differences that occur in our brains are nto differences that occured at birth, by default, as a result of gender or genetics, but rather a result of this self-wiring. From the very moment of birth your brain starts developing in resposne to its environment. very quickly as the helpless infant turns into a toddler and then a adolescent, that environment exapnds to encompass not jsut the imeediate surroundings, but also all the social cues and social environment in which they exist, ie, culture.
Slashdot Mirror
not a tax.
the cost is passed on whether they buy it or lease it.
the case for leasing it comes from the fact that spectrum is limited. its effectively a finite resource, sbuject to natural monpoly economic rules.
it should be treated a public resource, in the sense that the public, through its agents in the government, owns it.
So selling it off to private interests is bad, cause they then turn around and sell it back to us.
No different than if we allowed private interests to siphon all the oxygen out of the air and then sell it to us in order to breathe.
I honestly am not even sure spectrum should be leased to companies.
Rather I'd say the spectrum that has been sold or leased should simply be classified for use.
Phone makers then simply sell devices able to operate in said classifications.
They dont own the spectrum, they dont even lease it; we the public do.
They simply provide devices able to access it.
So you logic is:
Because it almost, but did not, happen, everything is ok and there is no ened for rules to prevent further almost or even actual happenings?
Really you are a moron. You have no clue what you are talking about, or any concept of risk management.
Further, a single bird very much is a potential threat to a plane. Bird strikes cause over 600 million dollars in damage to the airline industry every year. Whule a variety of birds can be found at airports, the most common birds encountered on airports are geese, because even though they try to make airport land unattractive to birds, geese have a proclivity for eating grass, and airports tend to have that. And since you dont seem to know much of anything, you should be aware that geese arent small. An 8 lb bird striking an aircraft moving at over 120mph, and even ignoring thr birds own airspeed and momentum, is sufficient to crack plexiglass, dent airframe aluminum, and/or destroy an engine (just bending/breaking one blade on a turbine can unbalance it sufficiently to tear itself apart). Herons and large raptors have also been ingested into engines. An F16 canopy was partially dislodged (though still held by the catches) and nearly shattered after an impact. These are objects made of soft tissue with wery weak/hollow bones.
and yet we still have laws against homicide.
you apparently have zero knowledge of airfield, or birds.
or logic.
if a drone operator is flying near an airport he is by definition doing by by choice, willingly in violation of already established FAA regulations.
and if hes already willfully violating regulations and flying near an airport it is no longer a given that he will try to avoid a collision,
because why is he flying over an active flightpath int he first place?!?!?
Rationality and motive are called into question by the very situation you have posed?
birds arent making conscious choices like that.
most birds tend to avoid giant noisy objects hurtling at them. few birds regualrly fly across a flightline.
the chief threat is that in their evasion they get overtaken and sucked in by an engine. that's why airports work to make the land the flightlines, taxiways , and runways occupy unattractive to birds. No trees, no ponds, and active denial systems (IE, devices that randomly emit loud noises). in general they work quite well.
Not Insightful.
The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.
Neither true nor untrue, just simply compeltely and totally ignorant and unfactual.
There is zero new risk here and history shows that there is zero actual risk in this as nobody ever brought down a commercial airliner with a model airplane or helicopter. AFAIK it has not even been tried, ever.
the risk has increased simply due to proliferation.
the fact it hasnt happened yet is not proof that it cant happen.
all you have to do FOD out an engine on takeoff and the plane is going down.
then maybe you should talk to him so he can correct your ignorance and wildly misinformational posts.
this is not scare mongering
its facts.
the flu causes more death and more economic loss every year than almost any other communicable disease.
this percieved lack of threat only exacerbates it.
no, its not as scary as ebola. but ebola is really hard to catch and spread. ebola kills too easily, it burns itself out.
the flu doesnt do that though. it spready very easily. and kills only rarely. but it does kill.
this results in it being able to infect a far larger total nubmer of persons, which means a far larger total number of deaths.
ebola may have a >50% mortality rate (and we've seent hat in a modern medicine environment its actually far far lower), but if the base number of infected is below 20k people, thats not that many dead.
contrast that with the flu, with a mortality rate of sub 5%, but an infection base in the tens and hundreds of millions of people. and you end up with a total number of deaths averaging nearly 30k. and thanks to the flu having multiple strains that all evolve quickly, it repeats. every. year.
but lets not stop at deaths.
theres also the economic costs.
getting the lfu typically means between 3-7 days of lost work. days when someone is unproductive. the company suffers, the person suffers, the economy as a whole suffers. especially, agian, because of the large nubmers of people that get it.
so the people who need to stop are folks like. fonts of misinformation who dont know what they are talking about.
that's an opinion peice from a non expert criticing experts, and that piece has itself been torn to shreds.
for starters, theres the assumptions that the FBI statistics are at all adequate (they arent, and even the FBI says so), or that their statistics are the end of the discussion and should or would at all match studies.
the FBI stats are inadequate and incomplete.
the FBI even says so.
there are tens of thousands of LEA's across the country (>35k), but onlya very small minority of them (1k) even track statistics and then report them to the FBIs database.
further, unlike robbery or homicide, rape very rarely has third party witnesses or bystanders able to report the crime.
meaning the only person capable of reporting it is the victim. and the victims very often dont report it for various reasons, such as intimidation and threats, they know the assailant, etc etc.
these are established problems with the current statistics, and only the tip of the iceberg of problems, that everyone acknowledges.
except apparently the author of that horrible article...and you.
DUH! Obviously the Weather Service is only issuing reports and warnings to justify their own existence and get more funding.
I dont know what theyre going to do with it, since being government employees their salaries are locked by codified pay scales so its not like they can pocket the money from "more funding".
Seriosuly, what do these nuts who say its about more funding think they're going to do with it?
Its so dumb, its hard to properly parody it.
the only nutcase around here is you.
ok i take that back, you have a lot of company.
but still a nutcase.
why do we have to BE a superpower?
and your analogy sucks. there is no benefit to spending more on smoke detectors than clothing, but there is a benefit to giving an underfunded orginzation like teh CDC more funding. and it is true: the CDC covers an area responsible for more american death than terrorism ever has. but its not scary, or patriotic, and it deals with science, and then there that whole AC/Tinfoil hat crowd.
so youre saying we shouldnt hold them accountable when they are innefective and fail to do the job?
OK FOLKS! NEW CLARIFICATION FROM CONSERVATIVES ON THEIR PLATFORM:
Accountability is only for black kenyan presidents, teachers, and scientists.
No calling for accountability from the people with guns allowed, be it police or military.
who says cdc is bloated?
their budget is less than 7 billion.
yet they are responsbile for and cover a great many things that pose actual threats to the american public.
things that kill more citizens than terrorism ever has or likely ever will.
you mean where teh CDC was correct after all, and all the talking heads were fearmongering over ebola for nothing?
oh yeah. firearms....god forbid an organization whos chief concern is public health do research into one of the deadliest yet most preventable threats in a society, a threat most every other civilized nation has already neutralized. they also have guidance on cars, eating habits, and other leading causes of death.
so scary.
oooooooooo.
Ladies and gentlemen: I present to you ignorance so profound it represents a threat to society.
the numbers arent qite that high.
because the flu kills many more people than ebola, and is actually worth worrying abuot?
because, unlike ebola, the flu doesnt burn itself out.
ebola kills too easily and spreads with difficulty, which limits its spread and capabilty to harm large numbers.
the flu, being more contagious and less deadly on an individual basis, is able to infect more people and thus kill more people.
ebola is still below 10k fatailities for this outbreak.
the flu ranges between 3k and 49k every year, averaging >20k.
flu also causes a bigger drain on the world's economies, with lost production, costs spent on treatment, workers staying home, etc, than most other "scary" diseases.
and this is "average" considerations, where the article is about how this years flu season may be exceptional due to the vaccine being less capable than expected compared to the expected viral strain.
the rocket maybe, but the capsule is new.
1. The temperature range is important because it affects the speed at which process can go. Whether life is carbon or silica or something else, its still ultimately chemical in nature and neccessarily must involve numerous chemical reactions, and temperature has a dramatic effect on reaction in general, and basically acts as a filter determins which reactions occur at an adequate pace in a given temperature range. And slower chemical baseline processes will be highly likely to lead to slower rates of evolution.
2, 3, 3.5. We make certain assumptions based on the prevalence of certain elements in the universe. Generally the lower on the period table you go, the more common the elements. Theres no reason to think our combination is that unique. If the odds of life happening are low, it's a fair assumption that what does work will be fairly common.
4. Star eneergy: again, temperature/energy affects the rate of processes.
6. Gas giants wont block the radiation. I dont think thats a sufficient solution.
7. Temperature stablility is likely to be important, just as minor variations are likely important to create the small amount of chaotic mixing that is also likely essential (ie, perfect stability in a system is unlikely to give rise to life as everything reaches equilibrium and stops)
you do realize that the things you mention that we've detected are million even billions of years old right?
why does an alien civilization have to be dramatically older than us?
what if they're only a little older than us?
there is the problem of transit time to be considered.
so if they're anything close to us in age it will still be thousand, millions, or even billions of years before we detect their emissions, or vice versa.
or stated another way, any alien emissions we DO detect are likely to be many millions of years old.
what do you think the odds are that civilization still existing?
what do you think the odds are of our civilization still existing by the time our emissions are detected?
swiss neutrality worked because they accepted everyones money, facilitated talks and even arms deals between opposing sides, and because no one cared enough to actually take a small minor nation with no strategic value.
the article assumes that a study should automatically match the FBI's crime statistics.
problem is even the FBI admits their statistics are woefully inadequate.
remember, we do not have a national database or mechanism for tracking any crime statistics.
not homicides, murders, police harming civilians, nor rapes.
FBI statistics are based off voluntary reports from a small minority (fewer than 1,000) of the law enforcement and police departments (>30,000) across the nation.
And due to the nature of the crime, rape is only ever reported, IF it's even reported, by the victim.
ie, there are rarely ever any eyewitnesses to report it and initiate an investigation comapred to robbery or homicide.
god forbid we hold people accoutnable for dispicable behaviour thats not welcoemin society.
you say you want the truth, but reject out of hand actual scientific truth.
there is no "male gendered brain" or "female gendered brain", just as there is no male hear or female stomachs.
a human brain is a human brain.
it is a self wiring self developing organ that develops isnide either a male or female body.
it may develpoe in a certain way in response to the envirinment and culture is is placed in, but that is not an inherent difference that would occur no matter what because of whats dangling between its legs, but a difference arising due to culture.
the human brain is not pysiologically male or female.
that is not ideology but a fundamental scienitific truth established time and again.
the differences that develope are entirely cultural in origin.
thats what i keep saying. /.'s biggest blindspots.
but anything relating to genders is one
Our brains are like blank slates when we are born. they are undeveloped.
But more importantly, they are like self-wiring, self-programming processors that develpoe based on their environment.
the few physiological differences that occur in our brains are nto differences that occured at birth, by default, as a result of gender or genetics, but rather a result of this self-wiring. From the very moment of birth your brain starts developing in resposne to its environment. very quickly as the helpless infant turns into a toddler and then a adolescent, that environment exapnds to encompass not jsut the imeediate surroundings, but also all the social cues and social environment in which they exist, ie, culture.