Is there no anti-trust regulation left remaining in the the U.S.? Did they throw 'em all out in the trash bin while no one was looking? I am genuinely puzzled.
Nothing. Antitrust does not imply there must be a specific number of competitors in a market; rather it looks at market power and how company(s) exercise it. At any rate, there is more to he US cellular market than ATT/VZW/SPRINT/TM - with various prepaid and other competitors (MetroPCS for example) that give people a choice. You want unlimited calls/text/web for cheap with no contract - it's available just most people don't consider anyone but the big 4.
This is like having three units of measurement for the weight of the pie, the weight of the pie you have eaten, and the weight you gain by eating the pie.
A not unreasonable thing - one tells you the overall size, one tells you what you consumed, and the third is impact on you. very different things.
Any idea why there are so many different units of measure for radiation?
Some are historical and SI unit conversions (Rem/RAD and Gray/Sievert); others deal with how does effects what absorbs it. The Roentgen is a measure of gamma energy, the RAD is the measure of energy transferred and is an acronym for Radiation absorbed Dose, which them must be adjusted for a quality factor do to the difference in energy transfer, which generally is referred to as REM - Roentgen Equivalent Man which corrupts for different quality factors so that 1 REM is the same no matter the source of the dose. For practical purposes, Roentgen RAD and REM are equivalent since gamma is generally the radiation of concern.
It's not that different than the measurements - foot meter; slug kilo; punned newton, with the added medical impact measurement.
Well i guess we are all pilots then. I am a current one myself.
So here is one to twist your noodle. In balance flight you AOA is always 0 (zero ) no matter the angle of the nose to the horizon.
Which is only to say that your AOA is only greater then zero if the wings angle relative to the direction of flight is other then zero.
Well, since in coordinated flight you are heading in the direction you are pointed that makes sense. Since AOA is a relative measurement, the horizon is immaterial to it. IIRC, wings need to be at zero incidence as well and the decallage takes care of the balancing moment.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow
Damn good thing you are not a pilot.
Your parroting a landing idiom, "Pitch for speed, throttle for altitude" not a good thing to do when trying to fly level, descend or climb.
Actually, I was pilot. For a given AOA (assuming constant weight) you have a given airspeed. Thrust (power) controls altitude by matching drag to power. If I add throttle, the excess thrust converts to altitude and I climb. I may need to adjust my position relative to the horizon but my angle of attack is the same and I climb at a instant airspeed. Similarly, if I cut the throttle I push the nose down to maintain a constant AOA and airspeed, and I descend - at a constant AOA / airspeed even if my nose is now below the horizon. Remember AOA is a relative, not absolute measure that depends on the airflow over the wing. climbing and descending changes that airflow and hence aka and airspeed unless you pitch up or down.
In a worse case scenario, all the throttle in the world won't help you if you are in a nose up attitude (unless you have so much thrust to ascend ballistically) - you'll just do a power on stall and learn the four fundamentals of flight the hard way - stall, spin, crash and burn.
Now even without an airspeed indicator, most or the presumptions were a frozen and clogged pilot tube, you can still get a good clue about airspeed with nothing more then throttle setting.
Except angle of attack controls airspeed, not the throttle. Throttle controls altitude.
The problem with "pilot error" determination is that maybe 50% (made up number of large percentage is accurate) of the time, it actually has absolutely nothing to do with the accident. Pilot error is sort of a catch-all for, "we have no fucking clue what happened and feel we must explain the crash if possible so pilot error is as good as any. Not to mention its very believable."
While I agree that "pilot error" can be a catchall it's often a proximate cause of the accident. Poor design or environmental factors can be major contributor, but in modern accidents human (i.e pilot) actions often worsen the situation or create it in the first place - hence "pilot error."
For example - attempts to land in bad weather rather than divert, especially when it's the second or third attempt. Or the NYC crash where the co-pilot overstressed the rudder which came off. Pilot's turning engines off in flight because of switch placement (they did a restart and went on normally). Poor or confusing design can lead to poor decision making. Accidents are the result of an often complex chain of events, in which an operator's decision played a crucial role in a negative outcome.
The real danger is, as you suggest, to use "pilot error" as an excuse not to discover other probable causes of an accident.
The first protects your right to free speech, however you are still liable for any consequences of exercising that right. It does not grant you any immunity from being punished for what you said.
It most certainly protects you from being punished by government agencies for what you said. Without that, it's meaningless; Congress could pass a law specifying you be executed as a consequence of speaking against the government. The school is a public school, hence an arm of the government.
No it doesn't - it protects you from prior restraint; you are still responsible for what you said and it's results. As for your strawman; a court might decide such punishment is de facto prior restraint and hence unconstitutional but that does not mean that you are exempt from any consequences, whether civil or criminal, for what you say.
I'll assume this is a public school, in which case they don't have any choice but to follow our Constitution, namely the First Amendment.
The first protects your right to free speech, however you are still liable for any consequences of exercising that right. It does not grant you any immunity from being punished for what you said.
These children said these things out of school, it's none of the school's business. If they go snooping and find out, then they can't do anything about it.
They can - schools have the right (and responsibility) to provide a safe working environment for students and staff. If something is said or done off campus hay can certainly take action as a result of what was said.
Bottom line is kids say things about teachers they don't like. They always have and always will. Punishing them for exercising their freedom of speech will only cause further resentment towards the school and teachers which will result in more severe verbal bashing of the institution.
Maybe they'll learn that their free speech rights come with responsibilities as well.
Not surprisingly, the article doesn't mention what the teacher did that may have resulted in this type of reaction from the students.
Yea, it's probably something as horrific as giving them a bad grade because they didn't do their work or separate them in class because they were talking to each other.
Depends - in my area the camera records all the time, with the recording being saved as soon as the lights go on. (plus some time before the lights as well).
I believe it isn't an ex post facto law because it's about the publication of names of protected individuals and a big part of it will depend on the legal definition of what a publication date is on an online document. If it goes the online documents are published on demand then things will get interesting.
True - does the original date something was made available online determine when it was published or does making something available online constitute an ongoing act of publication? Print is pretty easy since there is a tangible item put out but online content can be removed from the public. At any rate, if Assange would remove the material prior to the bill being signed into law (if it were to pass) then he would be protected under the Constitution.
Outlook gets used as a "all in one" app by many corporations. This does not tend to happen with Excel or Word. As long as you can export a Word or Excel compatible document from whatever alternative you have, you can use that in the corporate world.
You also need to be able to import them as well - something OO/LO aren't good at as the article pointed out.
I believe that would be an ex post facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. Whether information published after (and if) the law is passed would be protected by the 1st amendment is another issue.
At least those have nice clear rules and are fairly portable across languages. English has dialects so far apart they are not easily understood by other native speakers. I once offended a Dell support person when I asked to be transferred to someone with better English and he informed me he was in the Southern US and a native. An Indian would have been far easier to understand.
Just cousin youins chain't unner stand usen ifin yawl ain't from round heruh ain't usein's fahwlt.
Disturbing to look at letter after letter to the FBI. All these well meaning people thinking that they're doing the right thing by reporting this work to the FBI, suggesting that the FBI stop it's publication. These people are a greater threat to freedom than anyone who has bought this book.
However, the FBI's response of "we don't stop publication of books" was pretty refreshing; especially given the period they were written.
Neither TFA nor the project website contain decent images of the actual paper airplanes. What design did they choose, and how did they find a design that would work this well?
I doubt the design had much to do with it, at least as far as the distance. Being light weight, they probably simply got caught up in upper atmosphere winds and were blown a long distance rather than flown a long distance. The design looks like a basic delta wing glider - with the SD card providing balance. I wonder if any hit anything? Could you imagine the surprise on a pilots face, if Samsung had written small notes on them, when at 30k a note that says "help me. I am prisoner on an alien spacecraft" hits the windshield? No that would be a prank!
I never understood why photographs can be copyrighted. If somebody takes a picture of me, then why do they own the picture?
I bet the famous Afghan girl never saw any of those millions that the photographer did.
They did the creative work, however, without a model release from you they are limited in how they can use it commercially. As for the Afghan girl, NG reports:
If the license is the GPL; does the right to redistribute contain an implicit license to use any trademarked or copyrighted names and art, etc?
No it most certainly does not. The Firefox/Iceweasel case is well known example of software that is distributed under the GPL licence but does not allow you to use the trademark on derivative work.
Except that was not a legal case - two companies came to a mutually agreeable solution. While I agree with the outcome it doesn't set any legal precedent. The question is does the specific (non-reuse of certain aspects of the program) overcome the general aspects (free redistribution) of the GPL.
If the license is the GPL; does the right to redistribute contain an implicit license to use any trademarked or copyrighted names and art, etc? It would seem that a blanket redistribution clause would imply you have the right to use such items but have no right to independently use them; such as in advertising or screen shoots on a web page. So simply recompiling and selling the game would be OK but creating a derivative work would not; except that allowing modifications to the code might open the door to that.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there no anti-trust regulation left remaining in the the U.S.? Did they throw 'em all out in the trash bin while no one was looking? I am genuinely puzzled.
Nothing. Antitrust does not imply there must be a specific number of competitors in a market; rather it looks at market power and how company(s) exercise it. At any rate, there is more to he US cellular market than ATT/VZW/SPRINT/TM - with various prepaid and other competitors (MetroPCS for example) that give people a choice. You want unlimited calls/text/web for cheap with no contract - it's available just most people don't consider anyone but the big 4.
Virgin is just a way to rebrand Sprint's network.
A fast Virgin is OK by me...
True but alpha contamination is generally not a problem; even so it's only concern if ingested.
This is like having three units of measurement for the weight of the pie, the weight of the pie you have eaten, and the weight you gain by eating the pie.
A not unreasonable thing - one tells you the overall size, one tells you what you consumed, and the third is impact on you. very different things.
Any idea why there are so many different units of measure for radiation?
Some are historical and SI unit conversions (Rem/RAD and Gray/Sievert); others deal with how does effects what absorbs it. The Roentgen is a measure of gamma energy, the RAD is the measure of energy transferred and is an acronym for Radiation absorbed Dose, which them must be adjusted for a quality factor do to the difference in energy transfer, which generally is referred to as REM - Roentgen Equivalent Man which corrupts for different quality factors so that 1 REM is the same no matter the source of the dose. For practical purposes, Roentgen RAD and REM are equivalent since gamma is generally the radiation of concern.
It's not that different than the measurements - foot meter; slug kilo; punned newton, with the added medical impact measurement.
Well i guess we are all pilots then. I am a current one myself.
So here is one to twist your noodle. In balance flight you AOA is always 0 (zero ) no matter the angle of the nose to the horizon.
Which is only to say that your AOA is only greater then zero if the wings angle relative to the direction of flight is other then zero.
Well, since in coordinated flight you are heading in the direction you are pointed that makes sense. Since AOA is a relative measurement, the horizon is immaterial to it. IIRC, wings need to be at zero incidence as well and the decallage takes care of the balancing moment.
ROFLMAO
And the 2nd engine is for???
It of course, carries you to the crash site.
It's a pitot tube and it's, than. (And it shouldn't have happened.)
Ahh, the beauty of using speel cheekers... And failing to propely qoute the GP
An airplane is a concert of parts flying in tight formation, with constant battles as the various parts jockey for position.
Very true. That's why I chose to learn how to jump out of them as well.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow
Damn good thing you are not a pilot.
Your parroting a landing idiom, "Pitch for speed, throttle for altitude" not a good thing to do when trying to fly level, descend or climb.
Actually, I was pilot. For a given AOA (assuming constant weight) you have a given airspeed. Thrust (power) controls altitude by matching drag to power. If I add throttle, the excess thrust converts to altitude and I climb. I may need to adjust my position relative to the horizon but my angle of attack is the same and I climb at a instant airspeed. Similarly, if I cut the throttle I push the nose down to maintain a constant AOA and airspeed, and I descend - at a constant AOA / airspeed even if my nose is now below the horizon. Remember AOA is a relative, not absolute measure that depends on the airflow over the wing. climbing and descending changes that airflow and hence aka and airspeed unless you pitch up or down.
In a worse case scenario, all the throttle in the world won't help you if you are in a nose up attitude (unless you have so much thrust to ascend ballistically) - you'll just do a power on stall and learn the four fundamentals of flight the hard way - stall, spin, crash and burn.
Now even without an airspeed indicator, most or the presumptions were a frozen and clogged pilot tube, you can still get a good clue about airspeed with nothing more then throttle setting.
Except angle of attack controls airspeed, not the throttle. Throttle controls altitude.
The problem with "pilot error" determination is that maybe 50% (made up number of large percentage is accurate) of the time, it actually has absolutely nothing to do with the accident. Pilot error is sort of a catch-all for, "we have no fucking clue what happened and feel we must explain the crash if possible so pilot error is as good as any. Not to mention its very believable."
While I agree that "pilot error" can be a catchall it's often a proximate cause of the accident. Poor design or environmental factors can be major contributor, but in modern accidents human (i.e pilot) actions often worsen the situation or create it in the first place - hence "pilot error."
For example - attempts to land in bad weather rather than divert, especially when it's the second or third attempt. Or the NYC crash where the co-pilot overstressed the rudder which came off. Pilot's turning engines off in flight because of switch placement (they did a restart and went on normally). Poor or confusing design can lead to poor decision making. Accidents are the result of an often complex chain of events, in which an operator's decision played a crucial role in a negative outcome.
The real danger is, as you suggest, to use "pilot error" as an excuse not to discover other probable causes of an accident.
It most certainly protects you from being punished by government agencies for what you said. Without that, it's meaningless; Congress could pass a law specifying you be executed as a consequence of speaking against the government. The school is a public school, hence an arm of the government.
No it doesn't - it protects you from prior restraint; you are still responsible for what you said and it's results. As for your strawman; a court might decide such punishment is de facto prior restraint and hence unconstitutional but that does not mean that you are exempt from any consequences, whether civil or criminal, for what you say.
OMG, Really?
Sure. Since we do not know the disciplinary history of this involved it may have been the next step in a series of punishments.
I'll assume this is a public school, in which case they don't have any choice but to follow our Constitution, namely the First Amendment.
The first protects your right to free speech, however you are still liable for any consequences of exercising that right. It does not grant you any immunity from being punished for what you said.
These children said these things out of school, it's none of the school's business. If they go snooping and find out, then they can't do anything about it.
They can - schools have the right (and responsibility) to provide a safe working environment for students and staff. If something is said or done off campus hay can certainly take action as a result of what was said.
Bottom line is kids say things about teachers they don't like. They always have and always will. Punishing them for exercising their freedom of speech will only cause further resentment towards the school and teachers which will result in more severe verbal bashing of the institution.
Maybe they'll learn that their free speech rights come with responsibilities as well.
Not surprisingly, the article doesn't mention what the teacher did that may have resulted in this type of reaction from the students.
Yea, it's probably something as horrific as giving them a bad grade because they didn't do their work or separate them in class because they were talking to each other.
Depends - in my area the camera records all the time, with the recording being saved as soon as the lights go on. (plus some time before the lights as well).
I believe it isn't an ex post facto law because it's about the publication of names of protected individuals and a big part of it will depend on the legal definition of what a publication date is on an online document. If it goes the online documents are published on demand then things will get interesting.
True - does the original date something was made available online determine when it was published or does making something available online constitute an ongoing act of publication? Print is pretty easy since there is a tangible item put out but online content can be removed from the public. At any rate, if Assange would remove the material prior to the bill being signed into law (if it were to pass) then he would be protected under the Constitution.
Outlook gets used as a "all in one" app by many corporations. This does not tend to happen with Excel or Word. As long as you can export a Word or Excel compatible document from whatever alternative you have, you can use that in the corporate world.
You also need to be able to import them as well - something OO/LO aren't good at as the article pointed out.
I believe that would be an ex post facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. Whether information published after (and if) the law is passed would be protected by the 1st amendment is another issue.
At least those have nice clear rules and are fairly portable across languages. English has dialects so far apart they are not easily understood by other native speakers. I once offended a Dell support person when I asked to be transferred to someone with better English and he informed me he was in the Southern US and a native. An Indian would have been far easier to understand.
Just cousin youins chain't unner stand usen ifin yawl ain't from round heruh ain't usein's fahwlt.
Disturbing to look at letter after letter to the FBI. All these well meaning people thinking that they're doing the right thing by reporting this work to the FBI, suggesting that the FBI stop it's publication. These people are a greater threat to freedom than anyone who has bought this book.
However, the FBI's response of "we don't stop publication of books" was pretty refreshing; especially given the period they were written.
Not to say you're wrong, but I would like to point out that Islam is fairly primitive and backwards.
You mean:
religious fundamentalismis fairly primitive and backwards.
Christian fundamentalism is no better
Neither TFA nor the project website contain decent images of the actual paper airplanes. What design did they choose, and how did they find a design that would work this well?
I doubt the design had much to do with it, at least as far as the distance. Being light weight, they probably simply got caught up in upper atmosphere winds and were blown a long distance rather than flown a long distance. The design looks like a basic delta wing glider - with the SD card providing balance. I wonder if any hit anything? Could you imagine the surprise on a pilots face, if Samsung had written small notes on them, when at 30k a note that says "help me. I am prisoner on an alien spacecraft" hits the windshield? No that would be a prank!
I never understood why photographs can be copyrighted. If somebody takes a picture of me, then why do they own the picture?
I bet the famous Afghan girl never saw any of those millions that the photographer did.
They did the creative work, however, without a model release from you they are limited in how they can use it commercially. As for the Afghan girl, NG reports:
Asked if Sharbat would benefit financially from her famous image, Matson said she was "being looked after."
If the license is the GPL; does the right to redistribute contain an implicit license to use any trademarked or copyrighted names and art, etc?
No it most certainly does not. The Firefox/Iceweasel case is well known example of software that is distributed under the GPL licence but does not allow you to use the trademark on derivative work.
Except that was not a legal case - two companies came to a mutually agreeable solution. While I agree with the outcome it doesn't set any legal precedent. The question is does the specific (non-reuse of certain aspects of the program) overcome the general aspects (free redistribution) of the GPL.
If the license is the GPL; does the right to redistribute contain an implicit license to use any trademarked or copyrighted names and art, etc? It would seem that a blanket redistribution clause would imply you have the right to use such items but have no right to independently use them; such as in advertising or screen shoots on a web page. So simply recompiling and selling the game would be OK but creating a derivative work would not; except that allowing modifications to the code might open the door to that.