Have you ever heard a pre-takeoff safety briefing? If the pilot decides to depressurize the cabin, you will have this truly inconspicuous clue of oxygen masks dropping from the panels above the passengers' heads throughout the entire cabin, so they will definitely notice something is off. Nothing they can do, though, as the chemical generators are capable of sustaining them for around 15 minutes and their supply will run out long before the pilot's.
Exit nodes can see all the data going through them, but they do not know where that data originates from. If you use TLS on top of the Tor circuit, it is unlikely that the exit node can figure out who you are. To do so would require the exit node to also control your entry node and to run a sophisticated timing attack; unsurprisingly, Tor takes measures to guard against it. Exits are also regularly probed for malicious behaviour like traffic sniffing and banned from the network if caught doing that.
Great reading comprehension there. You just missed the following insignificant part: Around a third of leading machine learning and AI specialists who have left the UK's top institutions are currently working at Silicon Valley tech firms. If you add the more than a tenth [... at] North American universities and the nearly a tenth [... at] other smaller US companies to the third who have left for Silicon Valley, you can sort of understand why the British would be concerned. Losing fifty percent of AI researchers leaving the British academia to the U.S. means you are not exactly competitive.
You sort of do if an extremely powerful and under-regulated industry has convinced your parents to feed you copious quantities of sugar, hence giving you obesity well before you have been given the necessary information to make informed diet choices. If the couch potatoes responsible for putting you on the syrup teat have also failed to convey the importance of exercise to you for years, you must be truly exceptional to improve your diet, start exercising, and overcome obesity without any help whatsoever.
Sure, but in that case they either obtain a Master's from one of the DoD postgraduate institutions or receive further on-the-job training that does not add up to a college education, just like similar internal on-the-job training in the private sector does not constitute a college education.
Mandatory filters for microfibres in washing machines. Scientists studying plastic pollution want them introduced; the industry obviously does not because of the cost.
(Clothes also serve a fundamental need of maintaining body temperature; the same cannot be said for glitter.)
Neither of you has the better perspective on your own because alone both of you lack a control to compare yourselves to. Only together do your experiences acquire comparability and meaningfulness, and for any inferences drawn to be significant, we need to take lots of one of you (no degree during early career) and lots of the other of you (degree during early career). Anecdotes are useless for drawing inferences about the worth of something.
Feel free to call me a Luddite, but leaving some slack in the system will be the only way to preserve it.
Why should we want to preserve the system? I would rather have my tax money spent on enabling people to give up meaningless jobs and paint, sing, dance, write, garden, hike, bike, paddle, or do whatever else floats their boat instead.
According to the original source, the per train savings would be 1,200,000 INR/yr. That's about 16,200 €/yr or 18,700 $/yr. Seems fairly OK for 21,000 l of diesel. The editor or submitter just cannot convert currencies, but that's no surprise.
There is a major difference between sexual harassment and student activism: you have no constitutional right to sexually harass other people; on the grounds of a public university open to the public, students do have the First Amendment right to assemble and speak.
It is perfectly possible to believe the victim and treat them with due sensitivity while not treating the alleged assailant any differently until they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers in a court of law. Even if the alleged assailant is cleared, there is no reason to disbelieve the victim: the recollection and interpretation of events can vary wildly from one person to next, and it is possible to feel violated even if the other person's conduct was legal and they truly had no way of knowing that you did not consent any more.
By way of example, consider a couple who always engage in intercourse doggy style. They are not into making noise: she just likes to quietly smile, he likes to tell her cute things, and they have always abided by the principles of enthusiastic consent. This has been their routine for a while, so he is not concerned about her being quiet. The time comes when he thinks up a new comment, but instead of the comment making her smile more, it causes her to freeze up: it has triggered memories of past traumatic experience and she feels scared, in danger, maybe about to die, and totally unable to communicate. She definitely does not want to have intercourse any more. He knows none of it: to him, she appears as she always has during their romps, and for all he knows, she is quietly smiling. At some point they finish and he realizes that something is wrong. What happens depends on the strength of their bond, but she would not be wrong if she lost all trust in him and considered herself to have been raped. However, considering their usual lack of communication, his conduct would not have been unreasonable, and there would clearly have been no intent on his part to assault her. A jury would be unlikely to convict him and there would be little reason to treat him as a dangerous monster, yet you could still believe she has been raped, fully empathize with her, and understand if she never wanted to see him again.
(Yes, the above is an example of bad communication between a couple, but believe it or not, most people are bad at communication.)
If we are going to regulate drones, it should be done based on weight, altitude, payload (cameras, machine guns, etc.) and location (near airports or flight paths).
We do.
Sec 336(a)(3):
the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
Sec 336(a)(5):
when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
Sec 336(c)(2)
flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;
Airspace controls and restrictions are also applicable to model aircraft.
Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"?
Because Section 336(a)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform
Act specifically restricts the FAA's ability to regulate model aircraft if "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use".
Commercial pilots of traditional aircraft have stricter qualification requirements because they are likely to fly heavier aircraft, they are likely to fly more often, and they are likely to operate in busier airspaces. As a consequence, commercial flights pose a greater risk. This is also true of commercial operation of model aircraft.
We place a higher standard on commercial operation of vehicles (taxis, buses, lorries), professional engineering and construction (you need to be adequately educated and licensed to undertake the construction of a large shopping mall whereas you are likely permitted to build your own dwelling), professional practice of law (you cannot represent others without a law licence), etc. In doing so, we recognize that the risks for professional activities are higher, the public has a heightened expectation of competence, and professional practice is associated with an income that should cover compliance with the requirements. We rarely place similar restrictions on non-professional activities. Why should it be any different in aviation?
[...] Portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries may be carried in either checked or carry-on baggage. Spare lithium batteries must be carried in carry-on baggage only. [...]
No, I think this could be technically described as libel[.]
Not in the US. Only false statements of fact or opinions implying false statements of fact can be defamatory in the US. The original message is clearly hyperbole and no reasonable person would interpret it as a false statement of fact in its context, so no US court would find it libellous either.
On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[13][14][15] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs. Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.[16]
On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[20][21][22]
Not at all subjective. All protected speech in the US.
Cloudfare shouldn't be policing their customers. If someone is violating the law and you are the victim, report it to law enforcement or initiate civil proceedings. It is the function of courts to issue permanent injunctions if the law is being violated and Cloudfare will comply with these injunctions; Cloudfare has no duty to act as an arbitrator, nor should it have.
Also when it comes to spam, publish a restrictive DMARC policy and sign your outgoing e-mail streams using DKIM. Discard bounces if necessary.
A general purpose computer is simply a computer that can be used to compute any computable function when space and time constraints are ignored. Your phone is a general purpose computer. The opposite of that would be an application-specific integrated circuit or general purpose hardware locked down to running a limited set of applications.
No, the judge referred to the precedent, but then reasoned that 1) the act of surrendering a physical key requires divulging information about the key (identifying the key and its location); 2) requiring a defendant to surrender a physical key is permitted; 3) requiring a defendant to divulge a passcode requires them to divulge essentially the same information, so it must also be permitted. In step 3) he also explicitly ignored binding Supreme Court precedent that had found a qualitative difference between handing over a physical key and requiring a defendant to divulge a passcode. The decision is likely to be overturned by Florida Supreme Court or a federal court if the defendant is willing to pursue this case further.
The right to be forgotten in most of the world and other horrendous restrictions on speech mean that even with all the NSA spying going on the USA is still the land of the free. There will probably come a time when a US based search engine with no established presence anywhere else will make sure that we denizens of the rest of the world still have the opportunity to speak out.
The fact that information is easier to find these days than 30 years ago simply means that we as a society have to re-evaluate what emphasis we put on past deeds; it should not mean that nobody should have the right to speak about certain things any more.
Nothing wrong with posting the e-mails (lobbying should be transparent!), but home and e-mail addresses could have conceivably been redacted and probably should have been. Furthermore, some of those e-mails may contain sensitive information (i.e., someone complaining about the treatment their child has received in a school for children with special needs), and in such cases the identities of the persons involved should also be concealed. But in general this is a good start.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever heard a pre-takeoff safety briefing? If the pilot decides to depressurize the cabin, you will have this truly inconspicuous clue of oxygen masks dropping from the panels above the passengers' heads throughout the entire cabin, so they will definitely notice something is off. Nothing they can do, though, as the chemical generators are capable of sustaining them for around 15 minutes and their supply will run out long before the pilot's.
Preemption – as long as the Congress says the feds can do it, the state cannot do anything.
Exit nodes can see all the data going through them, but they do not know where that data originates from. If you use TLS on top of the Tor circuit, it is unlikely that the exit node can figure out who you are. To do so would require the exit node to also control your entry node and to run a sophisticated timing attack; unsurprisingly, Tor takes measures to guard against it. Exits are also regularly probed for malicious behaviour like traffic sniffing and banned from the network if caught doing that.
Great reading comprehension there. You just missed the following insignificant part: Around a third of leading machine learning and AI specialists who have left the UK's top institutions are currently working at Silicon Valley tech firms. If you add the more than a tenth [... at] North American universities and the nearly a tenth [... at] other smaller US companies to the third who have left for Silicon Valley, you can sort of understand why the British would be concerned. Losing fifty percent of AI researchers leaving the British academia to the U.S. means you are not exactly competitive.
You don't need special treatment to exercise.
You sort of do if an extremely powerful and under-regulated industry has convinced your parents to feed you copious quantities of sugar, hence giving you obesity well before you have been given the necessary information to make informed diet choices. If the couch potatoes responsible for putting you on the syrup teat have also failed to convey the importance of exercise to you for years, you must be truly exceptional to improve your diet, start exercising, and overcome obesity without any help whatsoever.
Sure, but in that case they either obtain a Master's from one of the DoD postgraduate institutions or receive further on-the-job training that does not add up to a college education, just like similar internal on-the-job training in the private sector does not constitute a college education.
Because they do not comprise four years of education? The federal service academies count as college, the rest is just vocational training.
Mandatory filters for microfibres in washing machines. Scientists studying plastic pollution want them introduced; the industry obviously does not because of the cost. (Clothes also serve a fundamental need of maintaining body temperature; the same cannot be said for glitter.)
Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast. It is more benign than it sounds: just spend your days keeping an eye on your local air traffic (the transponder-equipped kind).
Neither of you has the better perspective on your own because alone both of you lack a control to compare yourselves to. Only together do your experiences acquire comparability and meaningfulness, and for any inferences drawn to be significant, we need to take lots of one of you (no degree during early career) and lots of the other of you (degree during early career). Anecdotes are useless for drawing inferences about the worth of something.
Feel free to call me a Luddite, but leaving some slack in the system will be the only way to preserve it.
Why should we want to preserve the system? I would rather have my tax money spent on enabling people to give up meaningless jobs and paint, sing, dance, write, garden, hike, bike, paddle, or do whatever else floats their boat instead.
According to the original source, the per train savings would be 1,200,000 INR/yr. That's about 16,200 €/yr or 18,700 $/yr. Seems fairly OK for 21,000 l of diesel. The editor or submitter just cannot convert currencies, but that's no surprise.
There is a major difference between sexual harassment and student activism: you have no constitutional right to sexually harass other people; on the grounds of a public university open to the public, students do have the First Amendment right to assemble and speak.
It is perfectly possible to believe the victim and treat them with due sensitivity while not treating the alleged assailant any differently until they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers in a court of law. Even if the alleged assailant is cleared, there is no reason to disbelieve the victim: the recollection and interpretation of events can vary wildly from one person to next, and it is possible to feel violated even if the other person's conduct was legal and they truly had no way of knowing that you did not consent any more.
By way of example, consider a couple who always engage in intercourse doggy style. They are not into making noise: she just likes to quietly smile, he likes to tell her cute things, and they have always abided by the principles of enthusiastic consent. This has been their routine for a while, so he is not concerned about her being quiet. The time comes when he thinks up a new comment, but instead of the comment making her smile more, it causes her to freeze up: it has triggered memories of past traumatic experience and she feels scared, in danger, maybe about to die, and totally unable to communicate. She definitely does not want to have intercourse any more. He knows none of it: to him, she appears as she always has during their romps, and for all he knows, she is quietly smiling. At some point they finish and he realizes that something is wrong. What happens depends on the strength of their bond, but she would not be wrong if she lost all trust in him and considered herself to have been raped. However, considering their usual lack of communication, his conduct would not have been unreasonable, and there would clearly have been no intent on his part to assault her. A jury would be unlikely to convict him and there would be little reason to treat him as a dangerous monster, yet you could still believe she has been raped, fully empathize with her, and understand if she never wanted to see him again.
(Yes, the above is an example of bad communication between a couple, but believe it or not, most people are bad at communication.)
We do.
Sec 336(a)(3):
Sec 336(a)(5):
Sec 336(c)(2)
Airspace controls and restrictions are also applicable to model aircraft.
Because Section 336(a)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically restricts the FAA's ability to regulate model aircraft if "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use".
Commercial pilots of traditional aircraft have stricter qualification requirements because they are likely to fly heavier aircraft, they are likely to fly more often, and they are likely to operate in busier airspaces. As a consequence, commercial flights pose a greater risk. This is also true of commercial operation of model aircraft.
We place a higher standard on commercial operation of vehicles (taxis, buses, lorries), professional engineering and construction (you need to be adequately educated and licensed to undertake the construction of a large shopping mall whereas you are likely permitted to build your own dwelling), professional practice of law (you cannot represent others without a law licence), etc. In doing so, we recognize that the risks for professional activities are higher, the public has a heightened expectation of competence, and professional practice is associated with an income that should cover compliance with the requirements. We rarely place similar restrictions on non-professional activities. Why should it be any different in aviation?
49 CFR 175.10(a)(18):
Not in the US. Only false statements of fact or opinions implying false statements of fact can be defamatory in the US. The original message is clearly hyperbole and no reasonable person would interpret it as a false statement of fact in its context, so no US court would find it libellous either.
If you are not a native speaker, perhaps you should consider a dictionary? Writers with a better command of English need not dumb down for you.
Not at all subjective. All protected speech in the US.
Cloudfare shouldn't be policing their customers. If someone is violating the law and you are the victim, report it to law enforcement or initiate civil proceedings. It is the function of courts to issue permanent injunctions if the law is being violated and Cloudfare will comply with these injunctions; Cloudfare has no duty to act as an arbitrator, nor should it have. Also when it comes to spam, publish a restrictive DMARC policy and sign your outgoing e-mail streams using DKIM. Discard bounces if necessary.
A general purpose computer is simply a computer that can be used to compute any computable function when space and time constraints are ignored. Your phone is a general purpose computer. The opposite of that would be an application-specific integrated circuit or general purpose hardware locked down to running a limited set of applications.
No, the judge referred to the precedent, but then reasoned that 1) the act of surrendering a physical key requires divulging information about the key (identifying the key and its location); 2) requiring a defendant to surrender a physical key is permitted; 3) requiring a defendant to divulge a passcode requires them to divulge essentially the same information, so it must also be permitted. In step 3) he also explicitly ignored binding Supreme Court precedent that had found a qualitative difference between handing over a physical key and requiring a defendant to divulge a passcode. The decision is likely to be overturned by Florida Supreme Court or a federal court if the defendant is willing to pursue this case further.
The right to be forgotten in most of the world and other horrendous restrictions on speech mean that even with all the NSA spying going on the USA is still the land of the free. There will probably come a time when a US based search engine with no established presence anywhere else will make sure that we denizens of the rest of the world still have the opportunity to speak out. The fact that information is easier to find these days than 30 years ago simply means that we as a society have to re-evaluate what emphasis we put on past deeds; it should not mean that nobody should have the right to speak about certain things any more.
Nothing wrong with posting the e-mails (lobbying should be transparent!), but home and e-mail addresses could have conceivably been redacted and probably should have been. Furthermore, some of those e-mails may contain sensitive information (i.e., someone complaining about the treatment their child has received in a school for children with special needs), and in such cases the identities of the persons involved should also be concealed. But in general this is a good start.