I know who Boeing are: they have a long history and a fantastic pedigree in aerospace engineering. Including STS components. I know who SpaceX are as well, they're the guys who have already demonstrated the viability of a private concern running shuttle to the ISS.
I'd take a photo (I'm really sad I think in having a hard copy which I've had in a frame since 1997, on my wall) and upload it, but I'm sure there'll still be a copy online somewhere. It's easy to distinguish between it and the 2007 version, myspace isn't in there. Slashdot's still there in group 9, tho (so's Chips N Dips which is odd, since they're the same site).
out of interest, what's the propagation speed of an AG lightning bolt? I've heard various figures bandied about from 35 to 90 miles a second. Care to weigh in as more of an expert than a lot of people who have ventured a guess?
I was part of the ground circuit when lightning struck my house and blew the ring main on its way through - I had the misfortune of happening to be plugging in the TV at the time, got thrown across the room. Only permanent effect as far as I can tell is a marked reduction in tolerance for idiots.
So Franchise W selling only Porsche/VW/Skoda, Franchise X selling only Ford, Franchise Y selling only Daewoo, Franchise Z selling only Hyundai, they're not subject to this shit either? Who are they franchised to, in exclusive sales contracts? SURELY NOT THE MANUFACTURERS!?
If THEY can operate in Iowa, who are the State to tell ME I can't approach Tesla and say "Five percent gross from each sale and I'll only sell your car"?
Doesn't make sense? Ohreali? Am I the only one that sees gasoline favouritism by the State here?
...additional: I wouldn't trust what the ACLU link says (particularly since it doesn't offer any citations), as it claims that recording private conversations in public space is illegal although the proper citation indicates otherwise (ie the proper citation being a link to the relevant piece of legislation).
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5703 only prohibits recording of telephone conversations absent consent from all parties - it does NOT prohibit recording of face to face conversations taking place in public spaces (even if you're not party to the conversation). Aside from that, common sense prevails. A whispered conversation is not intended for the consumption of eavesdroppers, speaking loudly clearly means you don't give a shit who hears you.
yes, that is she. The reason it's not causing riots (it should be) is that the courtroom was cleared prior to the hearing and there is an active blanket gag on unapproved reporting by mainstream media due to the subject matter and the people implicated. UKColumn is pretty much the only agency reporting in the UK, because - as Brian Gerrish himself has said, they do not answer to the Levison Cartel.
I can vouch for everything said in that article, as I have been personally made aware of several dozen people by those people, of the abuse they suffered at Beechwood, Wood Nook and other establishments. I have taken a number of statements over the time I've carried out my own investigations and forwarded evidence in the form of transcripts, historical documents, and other media, to relevant International authorities such as the United Nations Security Council and the High Commissioner for Children (among a great many others) as well as specifically, a report concerning the abduction and trafficking of children of foreign nationals by the British State for financial gain - as admitted by the State! - to the Embassies of each of 114 countries identified as victim States of this crime, including the United States, South Africa, Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ghana, China, Russia, France, Germany, Canada, Palestine, India, and Pakistan. The British Government are a bunch of evil, twisted fucks.
actually, reading this made me wonder what other patent expiries resulted in products going mainstream which otherwise couldn't have because of the ridiculous licensing...
Personally, I'm waiting for Sony's folding LCD patent to expire so I can have a 60" monitor that fits in my pocket.
this is the thing, is a parking structure a private space to which the public have no access? If the answer to that specific question is YES, and the employer has absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that an employee is ever likely to steal or damage private property left in his care however temporarily, even accidentally, then the case can be made that whatever happens on section 4B stays on section 4B. Were that the case then there would be no mandate for employer's liability without which pretty much nowhere would you find even momnpop employers because they'd find that covering for employee's dishonesty or clumsiness would far outweigh their ability to pay for such damage ever.
I know I'm all over hte place with comments here, but:
A few months ago I was streaming video covering hte ATOS demonstrations in Nottingham. I was approached by a police officer who was very polite, even approachable, who asked me if I was recording. I told him, completely truthfully, that no I wasn't recording, that I was in fact streaming live audio and video (via HD webcam on my shoulder bar) to some 11,000 viewers and did he have any comments on the demo? That interview did go rather well, he had a lot to say - mainly positive about the demo, entirely negative against ATOS who he said had deemed his quadriplegic mother fit enough for construction work.
citations needed. The general rule is that recording without notice or consent particularly in public spaces is legal. Otherwise we could not have outside broadcasting, compact cameras with video capability, location filming... the only time you're likely to need permits is if you intend to record in a private space to which the public have access (think shopping malls). In England the only place you're specifically prohibited from recording audio/video is on an active military facility (Official Secrets Act 1911, as amended).
in England, usage of the word "illegal" is generally frowned upon unless chapter and verse of the Law is also provided. For the purposes of the prevailing discussion, the Data Protection Act 1998 section 36 provides that "data recorded for private, domestic or family purposes is exempt from the data protection principles given [elsewhere in the Act]". In a nutshell, this means that [citable precedent also provides] public servants or those acting in a public capacity, or private individuals acting in a public space, or any individual acting in the confines of another's private space (including private conveyances) have no expectation of privacy and should ordinarily behave as if their every move outside of their own home and/or in eyeshot of any public right of way into their home (ie an uncovered window) were being monitored with camera and every word they utter outside of a soundproof box that can be heard by any other human being is being recorded.
For those decrying this state of affairs as unconstitutional or bleating about the "illegality" of it, might I suggest you lock yourself into a soundproof, windowless room and never emerge and never, ever interact with another human being for the rest of your life, as that will be the only way you'll be able to break the Law with impunity as is clearly your intent.
60mph?? A valet key should limit to first gear and 6mph, there is absolutely no need for anything more than that not even in the behemoth parking structures you have over there.
common sense should prevail here, you're absolutely right, but Sod's law says in 90% of cases it doesn't and you become embroiled in a wiretapping charge. Altohugh, were I a valet I would assume that I was being monitored while in someone else's vehicle and not be making or taking private calls anyway. At least, not with the car's electrics turned on (and be necessarily stationary).
There is a pecking order: city, county, state, federal. The FBI can seize jurisdiction in pretty much any case it feels like, and there isn't a damn thing that even a State trooper can say about it. The FCC can and do supercede local communication laws and do indeed nullify local laws where these conflict with federal laws. Don't need citations, the first sentence in this mini-rant says it all for me.
actually, in England if one party to a conversation consents to it being recorded, then anything goes (Data Protection Act 1998 Section 36, which also explicity covers your waiving your rights to anything upon entering MY HOME particularly when not invited). Any individual acting in a public capacity in any given situation waives his right to privacy, period (Stafford, per Munby J). Acting in a public space, even within the confines of a private conveyance, implies consent to being monitored (various local ordinances covering CCTV and audio recording in an enclosed space).
My question to you, is where are your citations to reinforce your claims of such activity being "illegal, nearly all over the world"? BTW, ignorance of the Law is not an excuse to break it.
thanks for that, didn't notice that until after I'd hit send. I do prefer the old school terrain mappers such as VistaPro and FractINT (which does render some amazing terrain based in bitmap colour values, try it on a suitably-converted-to-gif89a portrait!)
My car is a mobile extension of my home. By accepting my invitation to enter, you are accepting the moral and legal obligations that accompany, viz: you consent to being monitored, you consent to being recorded, and you promise to behave yourself lest the recordings be used against you in a civil or criminal claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Boeing and SpaceX have BOTH demonstrated technological ability in space, SN have not.
Are you going to buy an untested car from an unknown manufacturer, load your kids in it and drive it cross country?
Or are you going to buy a Ford?
who the fuck are Sierra Nevada??
I know who Boeing are: they have a long history and a fantastic pedigree in aerospace engineering. Including STS components.
I know who SpaceX are as well, they're the guys who have already demonstrated the viability of a private concern running shuttle to the ISS.
Answers on a postcard, please.
I'd take a photo (I'm really sad I think in having a hard copy which I've had in a frame since 1997, on my wall) and upload it, but I'm sure there'll still be a copy online somewhere. It's easy to distinguish between it and the 2007 version, myspace isn't in there. Slashdot's still there in group 9, tho (so's Chips N Dips which is odd, since they're the same site).
out of interest, what's the propagation speed of an AG lightning bolt? I've heard various figures bandied about from 35 to 90 miles a second. Care to weigh in as more of an expert than a lot of people who have ventured a guess?
I was part of the ground circuit when lightning struck my house and blew the ring main on its way through - I had the misfortune of happening to be plugging in the TV at the time, got thrown across the room. Only permanent effect as far as I can tell is a marked reduction in tolerance for idiots.
So' ghuS!
So Franchise W selling only Porsche/VW/Skoda, Franchise X selling only Ford, Franchise Y selling only Daewoo, Franchise Z selling only Hyundai, they're not subject to this shit either? Who are they franchised to, in exclusive sales contracts? SURELY NOT THE MANUFACTURERS!?
If THEY can operate in Iowa, who are the State to tell ME I can't approach Tesla and say "Five percent gross from each sale and I'll only sell your car"?
Doesn't make sense? Ohreali? Am I the only one that sees gasoline favouritism by the State here?
...additional: I wouldn't trust what the ACLU link says (particularly since it doesn't offer any citations), as it claims that recording private conversations in public space is illegal although the proper citation indicates otherwise (ie the proper citation being a link to the relevant piece of legislation).
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5703 only prohibits recording of telephone conversations absent consent from all parties - it does NOT prohibit recording of face to face conversations taking place in public spaces (even if you're not party to the conversation). Aside from that, common sense prevails. A whispered conversation is not intended for the consumption of eavesdroppers, speaking loudly clearly means you don't give a shit who hears you.
yes, that is she. The reason it's not causing riots (it should be) is that the courtroom was cleared prior to the hearing and there is an active blanket gag on unapproved reporting by mainstream media due to the subject matter and the people implicated. UKColumn is pretty much the only agency reporting in the UK, because - as Brian Gerrish himself has said, they do not answer to the Levison Cartel.
I can vouch for everything said in that article, as I have been personally made aware of several dozen people by those people, of the abuse they suffered at Beechwood, Wood Nook and other establishments. I have taken a number of statements over the time I've carried out my own investigations and forwarded evidence in the form of transcripts, historical documents, and other media, to relevant International authorities such as the United Nations Security Council and the High Commissioner for Children (among a great many others) as well as specifically, a report concerning the abduction and trafficking of children of foreign nationals by the British State for financial gain - as admitted by the State! - to the Embassies of each of 114 countries identified as victim States of this crime, including the United States, South Africa, Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ghana, China, Russia, France, Germany, Canada, Palestine, India, and Pakistan. The British Government are a bunch of evil, twisted fucks.
actually, reading this made me wonder what other patent expiries resulted in products going mainstream which otherwise couldn't have because of the ridiculous licensing...
Personally, I'm waiting for Sony's folding LCD patent to expire so I can have a 60" monitor that fits in my pocket.
this is the thing, is a parking structure a private space to which the public have no access? If the answer to that specific question is YES, and the employer has absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that an employee is ever likely to steal or damage private property left in his care however temporarily, even accidentally, then the case can be made that whatever happens on section 4B stays on section 4B. Were that the case then there would be no mandate for employer's liability without which pretty much nowhere would you find even momnpop employers because they'd find that covering for employee's dishonesty or clumsiness would far outweigh their ability to pay for such damage ever.
yep. "Turn the camera off? Why, do you intend to fuck a child in the back seat?"
I know I'm all over hte place with comments here, but:
A few months ago I was streaming video covering hte ATOS demonstrations in Nottingham. I was approached by a police officer who was very polite, even approachable, who asked me if I was recording. I told him, completely truthfully, that no I wasn't recording, that I was in fact streaming live audio and video (via HD webcam on my shoulder bar) to some 11,000 viewers and did he have any comments on the demo? That interview did go rather well, he had a lot to say - mainly positive about the demo, entirely negative against ATOS who he said had deemed his quadriplegic mother fit enough for construction work.
I was going to say minors can't contract therefore can't consent, good catch.
citations needed. The general rule is that recording without notice or consent particularly in public spaces is legal. Otherwise we could not have outside broadcasting, compact cameras with video capability, location filming... the only time you're likely to need permits is if you intend to record in a private space to which the public have access (think shopping malls). In England the only place you're specifically prohibited from recording audio/video is on an active military facility (Official Secrets Act 1911, as amended).
in England, usage of the word "illegal" is generally frowned upon unless chapter and verse of the Law is also provided. For the purposes of the prevailing discussion, the Data Protection Act 1998 section 36 provides that "data recorded for private, domestic or family purposes is exempt from the data protection principles given [elsewhere in the Act]". In a nutshell, this means that [citable precedent also provides] public servants or those acting in a public capacity, or private individuals acting in a public space, or any individual acting in the confines of another's private space (including private conveyances) have no expectation of privacy and should ordinarily behave as if their every move outside of their own home and/or in eyeshot of any public right of way into their home (ie an uncovered window) were being monitored with camera and every word they utter outside of a soundproof box that can be heard by any other human being is being recorded.
For those decrying this state of affairs as unconstitutional or bleating about the "illegality" of it, might I suggest you lock yourself into a soundproof, windowless room and never emerge and never, ever interact with another human being for the rest of your life, as that will be the only way you'll be able to break the Law with impunity as is clearly your intent.
60mph?? A valet key should limit to first gear and 6mph, there is absolutely no need for anything more than that not even in the behemoth parking structures you have over there.
the way I've seen a lot of people drive, I would not be at all surprised if they have a folding white stick in the door pocket.
common sense should prevail here, you're absolutely right, but Sod's law says in 90% of cases it doesn't and you become embroiled in a wiretapping charge. Altohugh, were I a valet I would assume that I was being monitored while in someone else's vehicle and not be making or taking private calls anyway. At least, not with the car's electrics turned on (and be necessarily stationary).
There is a pecking order: city, county, state, federal. The FBI can seize jurisdiction in pretty much any case it feels like, and there isn't a damn thing that even a State trooper can say about it. The FCC can and do supercede local communication laws and do indeed nullify local laws where these conflict with federal laws. Don't need citations, the first sentence in this mini-rant says it all for me.
actually, in England if one party to a conversation consents to it being recorded, then anything goes (Data Protection Act 1998 Section 36, which also explicity covers your waiving your rights to anything upon entering MY HOME particularly when not invited). Any individual acting in a public capacity in any given situation waives his right to privacy, period (Stafford, per Munby J). Acting in a public space, even within the confines of a private conveyance, implies consent to being monitored (various local ordinances covering CCTV and audio recording in an enclosed space).
My question to you, is where are your citations to reinforce your claims of such activity being "illegal, nearly all over the world"? BTW, ignorance of the Law is not an excuse to break it.
is public-facing CCTV legal in those states? What's the difference if it's mounted in a vehicle like a bus or (gasp!) a private conveyance?
thanks for that, didn't notice that until after I'd hit send. I do prefer the old school terrain mappers such as VistaPro and FractINT (which does render some amazing terrain based in bitmap colour values, try it on a suitably-converted-to-gif89a portrait!)
My car is a mobile extension of my home. By accepting my invitation to enter, you are accepting the moral and legal obligations that accompany, viz: you consent to being monitored, you consent to being recorded, and you promise to behave yourself lest the recordings be used against you in a civil or criminal claim.