So if there is an outbreak of measles, you think the state should be rendered impotent, that the lives of others who, for a number of reasons, do not have the luxury of choice over vaccinations (the very young and immuno-compromised people) should be sacrificed on your altar of absolute liberties?
The very young aren't immunized because they carry maternal antibodies and it's simpler to vaccinate once or twice later, but they certainly can be vaccinated at birth. And "immuno-compromised patients" are at risk for hundreds of common diseases and need to take other precautions anyway; measles is usually the least of their worries because they usually are immune to it or can be vaccinated.
Don't get me wrong: measles vaccination is safe and effective, and it is certainly a nice thing to do for your fellow men. But the case for mandatory measles vaccinations is pretty weak.
Or, to put things more simply, you should be allowed to be a carrier of harmful diseases, and anyone that objects can go get fucked, and if any of them are harmed via your decision, well, too fucking bad.
Everybody is a "carrier of harmful diseases"; your belief that vaccinations can change this is a delusion.
You know, it is kind of funny. Person A... person B...
There are people who like feature-rich systems and there are people who like lean systems. Usually, the people who like feature-rich systems are people with enterprise-class budgets and enterprise-class staff, so they don't care much producing enterprise-class waste and enterprise-class inefficiencies. People who run startups or otherwise are concerned with manageability, reliability, cost efficiency, and scalability go for simple, lean systems.
The irony to that argument is that you'll find that many of these "bloated" enterprise-class features in Solaris have been working their way into Linux for years.
SunOS/Solaris started out lean; when it got bloated, people like me jumped ship. Linux started out lean and it is getting bloated; when it is getting too bloated, I will jump ship again. Where is the irony in that? It's the way software systems usually evolve. It's also what usually kills them. Solaris is on its last leg. Linux is mature but probably still has some life in it.
In this case, it was a live migration over two different chassis.
Why bother? Just shut down that server, replace the memory, restart. If your application can't handle a brief downtime for one of your servers, there is something wrong with the application, and no OS magic can fix that for you.
Linux has had several implementations of this over the years; they never caught on in the mainstream because it's little more than a gee-whiz feature. It's precisely that kind of useless bloat in Solaris why people have increasingly moved away from it.
How do you enforce trespassing rights on the ground? Do you sue or shoot everybody who ever sets foot on your property? Of course not, because it's too much hassle and cost. People enforce trespassing rights when the trespass is substantial and affects them in some way. The fact that there is a substantial threshold for actually making it worth your while to enforce your rights is a good thing.
Government regulation means that somebody else is able to enforce the rules
Government regulations mean that someone comes up with a simplistic set of rules that are neither necessary nor sufficient for guarding your property rights. FAA regulations right now do not protect you from noise or other nuisances flights cause, while at the same time coming down hard on pilots for violations that have no consequences at all.
Lawsuits are a really bad way to enforce things like that; it's sort of like throwing exceptions to break out of normal loops.
No, lawsuits are a really good way of enforcing things like that because they exactly enforce your property rights while discouraging slavish rule following. If you want a software engineering analogy, lawsuits are like a large library of software test cases and corresponding bug fixes that gradually cover all the weird exceptions and edge cases. Trying to address such issues with government regulations is like writing your program, dumping it on the world without testing, and then just mostly ignoring crashes because you don't get paid for bug fixes.
Pilot here : 3000 feet is WAY too high for one thing. Pilot here : 3000 feet is WAY too high for one thing.
The justification for allowing planes to fly over private property is that it benefits society. Commercial airliners benefit society, but they usually fly way over 3000 ft, except for starting and landing near airports (where they should negotiate easements). How does society benefit letting you fly over private property at 1000ft for fun?
Right now the FAA can and will come after me if I fly lower than 1000 feet over your house. If you make an "FAA free zone" for me to play under, you might not like the results.
Without the FAA-created exemption to private property rights, we'd be back at traditional air rights: "cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos". So you'd be guilty of trespassing, same way as if you trespassed on foot. If you don't make a nuisance of yourself, you'd probably get away with it. If I "might not like the results", you'd be prosecuted and hauled into civil court, same way as if you make a nuisance of yourself on the ground.
IANAL but it seems that anything flying over private airspace is probably going to be fair game - at least until drone specific regulations come into effect:
The problem is that for drones, "minimum safe altitude" and "navigable airspace" is basically all the way to ground level.
Congress should define a clear minimum altitude above ground that all flights need to stay out of, in addition to the safety and navigability requirements.
Your reasoning is backwards. You think that without the FAA, corporations could do whatever they want over your property and the FAA protects you from big, evil corporations. But that's not at all what has happened. Before regulation and the FAA (i.e., without the act establishing the FAA), corporations couldn't legally fly over your land at all, because historically, you owned all the airspace over your property, and you could enforce those rights in a court of law.
But Congress passed laws that effectively strip you of most rights to the airspace over your property because the budding airline industry lobbied for it. Obviously, a completely unrestricted handout to corporations would really not end well, so the FAA was created to dole out the absolute minimum level of protection to you through regulation after your property rights had been stripped away. The FAA doesn't give you protection or give you rights, it is a mechanism for taking away your rights, it just limits how much it strips you of your rights in order to remain politically feasible.
I think having airspace a few thousand feet up be public airspace, usable by airlines and commercial flights, is actually reasonable. But under current laws, corporations can and will lobby the FAA to allow drones to fly low over your land much lower, and the FAA will force land owners to live with those drone flights; you have no recourse.
I doubt when the FAA was created, Congress considered the possibility of millions of flights a few dozen feet above private property, and the aviation act should be modified to establish a height limit below which FAA has no authority and you control what happens over your land. That is, Congress should simply pass a law that everything below, say, 3000 ft above ground level, is indisputably private property and not subject to FAA regulation (possibly establishing easements around existing airports, given that those properties effectively have already priced in that nuisance). That would be compatible with existing piloted flights, and for drone flights, well, operators would either have to fly up high enough to avoid annoying you, or they would have to negotiate flight corridors (probably mostly over roads, but towns and HOAs could, of course, decide to grant permission for lower flights for larger areas).
As I was saying: "Public records laws do not automatically exempt PII".
The implication is that if you communicate with a public official, you should assume that everything you say, including PII's, may get disclosed, either accidentally (as here) or if someone determines that there is a privacy interest. Furthermore, you effectively have no recourse if they get it wrong, which makes what the regulations say rather moot.
Geez, do you really need everything spelled out for you? Don't send your f*cking SSN to anyone, in government or private industry, except in situations where it is required, period. What is so hard to grasp about that concept?
The time is largely spent in political wrangling and procurement. Once people figure out how to make money with space flight (and that will happen), things will go much more quickly.
Private companies are probably going to be reluctant to invest significantly in space flight until property rights have been worked out. No point in spending billions on mining an asteroid only to have people tell you that you don't own it, on top of an already very risky operation.
The Asteroid Redirect Mission might be the most important upcoming mission. It will demonstrate that this sort of thing is feasible, which will lead companies to lobby and pressure politicians to create more of a legal framework for private space industry and mining.
As I was saying, it doesn't matter whether the E-mail address is "official". Public records laws apply to people and roles, not E-mail addresses.
Gathering data piecemeal through FOIA requests is so yesterday, now that we have a highly placed politician who just lays the feast out there on a streetside table, where every black hat passer-by can help themself.
Yes, and you should remember that when you communicate with government officials. You should also remember it when you favor laws that require citizens to send information to government officials, because the government is a lousy caretaker of personal data: they don't care and they aren't liable.
Doesn't matter if he is using it in an official capacity. Public records laws apply to all official communications.
Second, an SSN is usually considered PII and should not be released to anyone.
Public records laws do not automatically exempt PII; they would be rather useless if they did.
Third, I wonder if any of those e-mails had the standard legalish boilerplate signature saying the e-mail is intended for the recipient only.
Again, you can't circumvent public records rules by adding legalese to your letters. It too would make public records laws rather useless.
Mind you, I think Bush acted stupidly and may have well have violated privacy laws with the release of some of the E-mails. But in general, a lot of communications you send, whether E-mail or paper, are subject to public records laws and discovery in court cases.
A FOIA request is "please send me details of X", not "please publish details of X by sending a mass email".
True, and after you get those details, you can republish them. FOIA requests wouldn't be very useful if you had to keep the information you obtain secret. And whether John Q Public asks politician X to do something and then X gets done or doesn't get done is of widespread public interest.
(I guess I should never underestimate how important it is to state the obvious.)
The Freedom of Information Act defines a public record as “a writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body in the performance of an official function, from the time it is created.” MCL 15.232(e)
That would seem to include E-mails sent from private individuals to public officials, in particular E-mails intended to influence policy. Isn't making such E-mails transparent and public one of the main functions of FOIA?
Women in other countries are somewhat more well represented in technology and more likely to go into STEM fields - so what are those other countries doing differently?
No, women are usually less well represented in tech in other countries (but I'm sure you can find the occasional exception if you look hard enough).
by passing laws saying you can't get election funds from corporations? like many countries do? and those other countries do not have high price/ low quality broadband problems amazing huh?
I happen to have grown up in one of those countries. You are utterly ignorant about what's going on in those countries.
the usa functions under a system of legalized corruption. are you not aware of this simple problem for some reason?
I am quite aware of it. The technical term is "rent seeking". It is far worse in Europe, and ignorant people like you are the primary cause of it.
the real culprit is plutocrats, not government, via corruption
For a plutocrat like Musk to advertise a Tesla to you isn't illegal, wrong, or harmful. What's wrong and harmful is if you make the choice to buy it even if you can't afford it.
For companies to go to regulators to say "we can do wonders for society and the public if you grant us a monopoly/subsidize us/protect us from competition/fix our prices" isn't illegal, wrong, or harmful. What's wrong and harmful is if government actually grants complies. The responsibility is with government, not with the people doing the asking.
the idea is to pass laws against corrupt regulation
Corrupt regulation is created by two groups of people: the executive branch and the legislative branch. Those are the same people responsible for passing laws against corrupt regulation.
Why do you believe that the people responsible for creating corrupt regulations in the first place would pass laws restricting their own ability to create corrupt regulation? How is that supposed to work?
"We make truckloads more money screwing our wireless customers" is the actual reason.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that so many people are economically impaired so I put things sloppily. "We don't see any profit in this" is indeed sloppy shorthand for "we make less money doing this than doing something else".
So, you're right, that is the actual reason. That is always the actual reason when companies or investors get out of a market in response to regulation or taxes. It's what's supposed to happen, and there is nothing you can do about it because you can't force people to invest in something.
but if you are a propagandized moron, you ask for a weakened government, which works for the plutocrats, because now there is no regulatory capture they have to engage in or corruption they have to fund
You do realize that "regulatory capture" refers to the capture of regulations? I.e., the fact that when you pass regulations, they get captured by special interests?
if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government
Actually, you just sound like an NSDAP supporter from the 1930's. I don't think they were particularly intelligent.
They are telling you "we are a greedy corporation, and we don't see any profit in this".
What exactly do you think that is an "excuse" for? Are you alleging that they really could make a profit but they are refusing to do so because they are evil? Or what?
Sure, in lots of ways the Democrats are terrible, but the Republicans are far worse.
They aren't "far worse". Democrats and Republicans each pick positions that appeal to different groups of voters, with the end result that they usually each get about 50% of the vote.
Socialism as practiced in Western Europe doesn't seem so bad.
Well, of course it doesn't "seem so bad" to you because you seem to be ignorant of what is actually going on in Europe, starting with the ridiculous notion that Western Europe "practices socialism".
Countries like Germany are governed by Christian conservatives: the budget is balanced through cuts in benefits and the military; health insurance is private and not very generous; welfare recipients get much less money; government surveillance is widespread; churches and corporations receive large amounts of money from the government and co-write the laws; gay marriage doesn't exist and abortions are limited. Need I go on?
At least they have decent health care. But of course the American system which spends way more and has worse outcomes is superior because Murikah, yeah!
People like you would be screaming bloody murder if the US actually adopted health care systems like Switzerland or Germany; you'd think the US had been taken over by rabid right wingers. And even their systems are running into financial problems.
And as someone who actually had a choice in the matter and a basis for comparison, you bet I chose "Murikah".
which seems to be a reflection of the apathy towards politics enjoyed by the majority of Americans
Not at all. Rather, it's a reflection of selfishness, greed, and ignorance like yours.
Slashdot Mirror
The very young aren't immunized because they carry maternal antibodies and it's simpler to vaccinate once or twice later, but they certainly can be vaccinated at birth. And "immuno-compromised patients" are at risk for hundreds of common diseases and need to take other precautions anyway; measles is usually the least of their worries because they usually are immune to it or can be vaccinated.
Don't get me wrong: measles vaccination is safe and effective, and it is certainly a nice thing to do for your fellow men. But the case for mandatory measles vaccinations is pretty weak.
Everybody is a "carrier of harmful diseases"; your belief that vaccinations can change this is a delusion.
There are people who like feature-rich systems and there are people who like lean systems. Usually, the people who like feature-rich systems are people with enterprise-class budgets and enterprise-class staff, so they don't care much producing enterprise-class waste and enterprise-class inefficiencies. People who run startups or otherwise are concerned with manageability, reliability, cost efficiency, and scalability go for simple, lean systems.
SunOS/Solaris started out lean; when it got bloated, people like me jumped ship. Linux started out lean and it is getting bloated; when it is getting too bloated, I will jump ship again. Where is the irony in that? It's the way software systems usually evolve. It's also what usually kills them. Solaris is on its last leg. Linux is mature but probably still has some life in it.
Why bother? Just shut down that server, replace the memory, restart. If your application can't handle a brief downtime for one of your servers, there is something wrong with the application, and no OS magic can fix that for you.
Linux has had several implementations of this over the years; they never caught on in the mainstream because it's little more than a gee-whiz feature. It's precisely that kind of useless bloat in Solaris why people have increasingly moved away from it.
Is anybody else "fully committed" to SPARC hardware, or even committed at all?
How do you enforce trespassing rights on the ground? Do you sue or shoot everybody who ever sets foot on your property? Of course not, because it's too much hassle and cost. People enforce trespassing rights when the trespass is substantial and affects them in some way. The fact that there is a substantial threshold for actually making it worth your while to enforce your rights is a good thing.
Government regulations mean that someone comes up with a simplistic set of rules that are neither necessary nor sufficient for guarding your property rights. FAA regulations right now do not protect you from noise or other nuisances flights cause, while at the same time coming down hard on pilots for violations that have no consequences at all.
No, lawsuits are a really good way of enforcing things like that because they exactly enforce your property rights while discouraging slavish rule following. If you want a software engineering analogy, lawsuits are like a large library of software test cases and corresponding bug fixes that gradually cover all the weird exceptions and edge cases. Trying to address such issues with government regulations is like writing your program, dumping it on the world without testing, and then just mostly ignoring crashes because you don't get paid for bug fixes.
The justification for allowing planes to fly over private property is that it benefits society. Commercial airliners benefit society, but they usually fly way over 3000 ft, except for starting and landing near airports (where they should negotiate easements). How does society benefit letting you fly over private property at 1000ft for fun?
Without the FAA-created exemption to private property rights, we'd be back at traditional air rights: "cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos". So you'd be guilty of trespassing, same way as if you trespassed on foot. If you don't make a nuisance of yourself, you'd probably get away with it. If I "might not like the results", you'd be prosecuted and hauled into civil court, same way as if you make a nuisance of yourself on the ground.
The problem is that for drones, "minimum safe altitude" and "navigable airspace" is basically all the way to ground level.
Congress should define a clear minimum altitude above ground that all flights need to stay out of, in addition to the safety and navigability requirements.
Your reasoning is backwards. You think that without the FAA, corporations could do whatever they want over your property and the FAA protects you from big, evil corporations. But that's not at all what has happened. Before regulation and the FAA (i.e., without the act establishing the FAA), corporations couldn't legally fly over your land at all, because historically, you owned all the airspace over your property, and you could enforce those rights in a court of law.
But Congress passed laws that effectively strip you of most rights to the airspace over your property because the budding airline industry lobbied for it. Obviously, a completely unrestricted handout to corporations would really not end well, so the FAA was created to dole out the absolute minimum level of protection to you through regulation after your property rights had been stripped away. The FAA doesn't give you protection or give you rights, it is a mechanism for taking away your rights, it just limits how much it strips you of your rights in order to remain politically feasible.
I think having airspace a few thousand feet up be public airspace, usable by airlines and commercial flights, is actually reasonable. But under current laws, corporations can and will lobby the FAA to allow drones to fly low over your land much lower, and the FAA will force land owners to live with those drone flights; you have no recourse.
I doubt when the FAA was created, Congress considered the possibility of millions of flights a few dozen feet above private property, and the aviation act should be modified to establish a height limit below which FAA has no authority and you control what happens over your land. That is, Congress should simply pass a law that everything below, say, 3000 ft above ground level, is indisputably private property and not subject to FAA regulation (possibly establishing easements around existing airports, given that those properties effectively have already priced in that nuisance). That would be compatible with existing piloted flights, and for drone flights, well, operators would either have to fly up high enough to avoid annoying you, or they would have to negotiate flight corridors (probably mostly over roads, but towns and HOAs could, of course, decide to grant permission for lower flights for larger areas).
Once the FAA sets rules, it probably doesn't matter what you want or don't want. That's the way it worked with airspace for piloted flights.
Here are some examples of what that can lead to:
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As I was saying: "Public records laws do not automatically exempt PII".
The implication is that if you communicate with a public official, you should assume that everything you say, including PII's, may get disclosed, either accidentally (as here) or if someone determines that there is a privacy interest. Furthermore, you effectively have no recourse if they get it wrong, which makes what the regulations say rather moot.
Geez, do you really need everything spelled out for you? Don't send your f*cking SSN to anyone, in government or private industry, except in situations where it is required, period. What is so hard to grasp about that concept?
The time is largely spent in political wrangling and procurement. Once people figure out how to make money with space flight (and that will happen), things will go much more quickly.
Private companies are probably going to be reluctant to invest significantly in space flight until property rights have been worked out. No point in spending billions on mining an asteroid only to have people tell you that you don't own it, on top of an already very risky operation.
The Asteroid Redirect Mission might be the most important upcoming mission. It will demonstrate that this sort of thing is feasible, which will lead companies to lobby and pressure politicians to create more of a legal framework for private space industry and mining.
Seems like you ought to be able to do better in terms of propulsion when you can easily vaporize the liquid you're immersed in.
There are huge uproars about lots of things, often amounting to people wanting to have their cake (privacy) and eat it too (transparent government).
As I was saying, it doesn't matter whether the E-mail address is "official". Public records laws apply to people and roles, not E-mail addresses.
Yes, and you should remember that when you communicate with government officials. You should also remember it when you favor laws that require citizens to send information to government officials, because the government is a lousy caretaker of personal data: they don't care and they aren't liable.
Doesn't matter if he is using it in an official capacity. Public records laws apply to all official communications.
Public records laws do not automatically exempt PII; they would be rather useless if they did.
Again, you can't circumvent public records rules by adding legalese to your letters. It too would make public records laws rather useless.
Mind you, I think Bush acted stupidly and may have well have violated privacy laws with the release of some of the E-mails. But in general, a lot of communications you send, whether E-mail or paper, are subject to public records laws and discovery in court cases.
Yes. If you communicate with government officials, your communications may be subject to FOIA requests. Conduct yourself accordingly.
True, and after you get those details, you can republish them. FOIA requests wouldn't be very useful if you had to keep the information you obtain secret. And whether John Q Public asks politician X to do something and then X gets done or doesn't get done is of widespread public interest.
(I guess I should never underestimate how important it is to state the obvious.)
That would seem to include E-mails sent from private individuals to public officials, in particular E-mails intended to influence policy. Isn't making such E-mails transparent and public one of the main functions of FOIA?
No, women are usually less well represented in tech in other countries (but I'm sure you can find the occasional exception if you look hard enough).
I happen to have grown up in one of those countries. You are utterly ignorant about what's going on in those countries.
I am quite aware of it. The technical term is "rent seeking". It is far worse in Europe, and ignorant people like you are the primary cause of it.
For a plutocrat like Musk to advertise a Tesla to you isn't illegal, wrong, or harmful. What's wrong and harmful is if you make the choice to buy it even if you can't afford it.
For companies to go to regulators to say "we can do wonders for society and the public if you grant us a monopoly/subsidize us/protect us from competition/fix our prices" isn't illegal, wrong, or harmful. What's wrong and harmful is if government actually grants complies. The responsibility is with government, not with the people doing the asking.
Corrupt regulation is created by two groups of people: the executive branch and the legislative branch. Those are the same people responsible for passing laws against corrupt regulation.
Why do you believe that the people responsible for creating corrupt regulations in the first place would pass laws restricting their own ability to create corrupt regulation? How is that supposed to work?
Sorry, I keep forgetting that so many people are economically impaired so I put things sloppily. "We don't see any profit in this" is indeed sloppy shorthand for "we make less money doing this than doing something else".
So, you're right, that is the actual reason. That is always the actual reason when companies or investors get out of a market in response to regulation or taxes. It's what's supposed to happen, and there is nothing you can do about it because you can't force people to invest in something.
You do realize that "regulatory capture" refers to the capture of regulations? I.e., the fact that when you pass regulations, they get captured by special interests?
Actually, you just sound like an NSDAP supporter from the 1930's. I don't think they were particularly intelligent.
They are telling you "we are a greedy corporation, and we don't see any profit in this".
What exactly do you think that is an "excuse" for? Are you alleging that they really could make a profit but they are refusing to do so because they are evil? Or what?
They aren't "far worse". Democrats and Republicans each pick positions that appeal to different groups of voters, with the end result that they usually each get about 50% of the vote.
Well, of course it doesn't "seem so bad" to you because you seem to be ignorant of what is actually going on in Europe, starting with the ridiculous notion that Western Europe "practices socialism".
Countries like Germany are governed by Christian conservatives: the budget is balanced through cuts in benefits and the military; health insurance is private and not very generous; welfare recipients get much less money; government surveillance is widespread; churches and corporations receive large amounts of money from the government and co-write the laws; gay marriage doesn't exist and abortions are limited. Need I go on?
People like you would be screaming bloody murder if the US actually adopted health care systems like Switzerland or Germany; you'd think the US had been taken over by rabid right wingers. And even their systems are running into financial problems.
And as someone who actually had a choice in the matter and a basis for comparison, you bet I chose "Murikah".
Not at all. Rather, it's a reflection of selfishness, greed, and ignorance like yours.