Please explain how one gets from broken plastic clips on a vanity mirror to "rolling sarcophagus" in a way that wouldn't make any other engineer's (let along lawyer's) eyes roll.
Yes, engineers can become short-sighted, over-exaggerate and sometimes use immoderate language, but in general, I think you'd find less of that in engineering ranks than in any other department in the company.
I would disagree. Engineers suffer from the same human frailties as the rest of humanity; and I've been in enough engineering meetings to realize that egos, disagreements, personal objectives, etc. play as much a part of the decisions as they do anywhere else in the company. The main difference is every engineer thinks he or she is smarter than everyone else in the room and needs to prove it.
Sure, "cataclysmic" doesn't belong in an engineering email, but "always", "never", "critical", "serious", "safety", "safety-related", "dangerous" and (best of all, IMO) "problem"? That isn't engineers avoiding hyperbole, that's lawyers avoiding the truth.
While I agree with your overall sentiment; "always" and "never" are terms engineers should not use since they generally are not true. They imply a certainty that usually does not exist yet can be used in a court as proof of a problem. For example, a number years ago I worked on a project that had a set of technical specifications that must be met in order to certify the design. In it, the engineers used absolute statements that implied certain equipment would "always" function or "never"be unavailable; conditions that one could not assure with 100% certainty. As a result, has we submitted the specifications as written we would never have been able to certify the design since you could find cases where certain equipment would fail or be unavailable. Even though those cases did not impact safety we technically could not meet the specifications and those legally could not operate. The engineers answer was "of course it's not 100% but who would expect it to be?" and our answer was "the lawyer for those opposed to our plant" since we said it would be and now can't assure that. Unfortunately, what a word means to an engineer is often very different to what how it may be interpreted in a court of law.
Reusable and Man-Rating are different concepts here.
However reusable will cut the costs down dramatically.
Quite true. Reusable, for non-manned launches, can set a lower threshold for system failure resulting in mission failure; or in plain language reusing a part and blowing up a rocket and it's non-human payload is more acceptable than killing a crew.
Of course, risking destroying an expensive satellite because to save a few bucks on launch costs may be unacceptable a swell. Personally, I wouldn't base my launch cost model on reusability but view any cost savings from reuse a bonus.
However reusable will cut the costs down dramatically. The Falcon 9 booster itself is less than 60m a launch. ISS resupply missions on Dragon are around 100m (I believe, I couldn't find the number.) Obviously a man-rated Dragon is going to cost quite a bit more. This means they could literally throw away the dragon capsule every time it flies and be cheaper than Soyuz.
Also, keep in mind that Dragon seats 7, Soyuz seats 3.
Right now, your choice is Soyuz or don't go. Supply and demand dictates Russia can set prices as high as the market will bear, not on what it really costs.
Second point: the entire job of a teacher, particularly a K-8 teacher, is to evaluate students and set good progression goals for that student. That's what they do all day, every day. I'm sorry if you personally had some K-12 teachers who missed that mark (I'm not saying there aren't some at the lower end of the capability distribution - stats says there will be), but the vast majority of teachers I've met work very hard to do just that and are quite good at it.
sPh
While I agree many teachers try to do that, the reality is standardized test force them to teach to passing a test; because if students fail to score high enough the school gets penalized. As a result, test performance, rather than real learning, becomes paramount. Teachers hate it but have to play along in order to succeed.
Did illegal felon voters determine the outcome of the critical 2008 Minnesota Senate election? The day after the election, GOP Senator Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312 vote victory.
The outcome wound up having a significant impact, giving Democrats the critical 60th Senate vote they needed to block GOP filibusters. Mr. Franken's vote proved crucial in the passage of ObamaCare last December in the Senate. The next month Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
Ever since Mr. Franken was declared the victor, the conservative watchdog group Minnesota Majority has combed through records comparing lists of those who voted with criminal rap sheets. It found that at least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.
The assumption implicit in that is that felons are also Democratic voters; however without a conclusive way to prove how they voted you could also conclude (as wrongly as MM does) Franken's margin would have been larger had Republican's not gotten felons to vote for their guy. Ina edition, unless they verified that each felon had not had their voting rights restored you have no way ensuring their basic numbers are correct.
Of course, when you want to spin a story facts, logic, and truth are secondary to getting your story out.
keeping the model within his eyesight while holding a fairly conspicuous controller with antennas sticking out of it, and no extra laws are needed to catch and punish him, just a little police shoe-leather.
The drone was at least 2300 feet from the controller and therefore not as easily found as you may think. The controller could have been miles away.
I think you were responding to someone else. I realize tent the plane was not in the controller lOS and thus not conforming with exceptions for model a/c. specifically section c.2.
Its too bad you learned from these new standards which pride itself on the band-wagon approach to science where the most popular theory is heralded as the correct theory and any other competing theories are dismissed out of hand.
"It might be bad for the coal industry" is not a competing theory on the cause of the present climate change.
But when you add in "and bad for our pocketbooks..." it does become a competing theory. More to the point, "theory" is used as a proxy whenever someone presents an argument they do not like and thus need to find a reason to discredit it. Sure, there are concerns and arguments over the prevailing theory but science advances through critical analysis and testing. Unfortunately, some people dislike the idea of critical analysis because it may prove their viewpoint wrong and thus want nothing to be taught that risks putting what they believe at risk. After all, climate theory is merely the gateway drug for evolutionary theory and we all know where that leads...
You missed one very important point. The aircraft that it almost hit was at 2300 ft above ground level. That is much further than the other end of the park and far out of line of site. The only way to fly that high in control would be with a remote camera. Therefore RC aircraft + beyond LOS + camers = drone.
Sounds to me like this guy was flying a standard old RC airplane and doing so too close to an airport, which is already illegal.
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)).
The article also states that the aircraft was about 5 miles from the airport so he may have been just outside the 5 mile reporting requirement.
Actually, he was in violation of the law. Notification is only a part of it:
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
Number 4 makes it clear you must avoid commercial planes since they certainly are manned; and
given the altitude I doubt he was in conformance with c.2 as well.
Given the statutory construction statement I think it's pretty clear he violated the law and is subject to enforcement actions.
Of course, that doesn't change the problem of a few idiots who do stupid things and contribute to more regulations and hurt the many more responsible hobbyists who take great pains to avoid causing a dangerous situation. Couple stupidity with the increasing ease which novices can get more sophisticated devices that make it easier for them to commit idoicy and I can see why the responsible hobbyists are getting worried that their hobby will be ruined by a few idiots.
Seriously, how do you ensure there really is a space and payment? Or that someone who doesn't like the service gets a bunch of people to offer 'spaces?'
In-app ratings and reviews for the sellers.
Possibly, but that assumes the con and fast buck artists will: a) care about ratings because b) they can always create a new account or c) create false ratings. In addition, I doubt any one seller would produce enough real ratings to confer legitimacy.
Seriously, how do you ensure there really is a space and payment? Or that someone who doesn't like the service gets a bunch of people to offer 'spaces?'
My grad school forbade reselling case books, arguing that they were licensed not sold. If you put up a for sale sign on a campus bulletin board it got taken done. So we simply had an underground market as well as simply shared the books. Interestingly enough, while researching an article on the doctrine of first sale I learned it is not as black and white as some would think it is; with lots of variations state to state as well as defining what constitutes a sale.
Sorry but big government's approach to things isn't what I usually measure up against. They spent how much on the space shuttle and so it would be reusable and instead after every flight the basically take it apart and rebuild every major and most minor subsystems?
Let someone else give it a go before you just say it's impossible
They're not saying it is impossible; they're saying they discovered the cost of doing it was much higher than expected. It may have been cheaper to simply build new ones and spread the manufacturing costs over many more engines than try to rebuild them. One challenge they faced was limited engine flight data to identify how to rebuild them cost effectively without compromising safety. Add in the impact of salt water and you have some serious engineering challenges that may not be cost effective to solve. It's great that Space X wants to reuse them but NASA/ESA are saying they need to look carefully at the economics of reusability vs. all new components. One luxury Space X doesn't have that NASA/ESA have is large budgets and the ability to tap into even more public funds if needed so a mistake could spell the end of Space X.
Starting a journal is a good idea but will take time to make it a respected, viable option. Why not strike at the heart of the issue and push for copyright reform; say giving academic authors rights to publish their articles on a university or personal page while still letting the journal retain all other rights if they sign over the copyright? Then, all it takes is a good way to search for relevant papers without all the random garbage Google introduces.
These "advantages" can seem impressive to those who don't see what they cost in freedom. The most basic thing we must do is say, "I'd rather have nothing than have that," and then act accordingly.
the when asked about developing free hardware says:
This would cost millions of dollars, and we have no skills or experience in hardware manufacturing, so we couldn't do it.
To me , those two comments gets to the crux of free softwares challenges:
Without tangible rewards that allow people to do thing they like to do many things would not get done nor would we get many new innovative things. Sure, some people will code for the fun of it but that doesn't mean they will develop as complex and useful systems as the for profit world generates. Free software is nice and a lot of it is useful and as polished as non-free apps but a lot isn't. In the end, it is neither a better nor worse solution, just a different one.
Companies that collect data are realizing people are starting to become more aware of what is being collected and concerned about it. If enough people start making noise Congress may start to act and limit what can be collected and how it is used.
Here is an interesting thought for the real lawyers that read/. Could someone subpoena their data, if say they were charged with crime? Or as part of a civil suit? I would think not since they really aren't a part of the issue unless perhaps the cops used the data to locate someone or in an investigation, in which case this layman's view is the accused would have a right to see the data and challenge its use.
Of course, if the data became public imagine the havoc it could cause. Could you see the reaction from an elected official if a reporter showed up and asked them very detailed questions about their comings and goings?
A real kill switch that renders the phone unusable and unlock able without the original owner taking action
A nationwide database of stolen phones so they cannot be activated for phones without kill switches as well as backup to kill switches.
Sure, some phones will be stolen, hacked to work and or shipped abroad, but a lot of the theft is driven by the how easy it is to sell a hot phone on the street. Make it unusable and thieves will move on to the next way to make a quick buck.
After I RTFA, it appears the author's stance is "you gave Hulu permission by clicking Like, after all Like is supposed to let you tell people what you like. Thus, HULU should not be held responsible under the law for sharing your viewing history." My issue with that is, if I understand what HULU did, is clicking Like shares anything you watched and what you are watching, not just the original video, essentially making your history available without your consent. That is exactly what the law is designed to prevent. I find it a big jump from saying "I Like "Allo Allo S1E4" and taking that is "I consent to let you share my entire viewing history."
So our video viewing preferences are rigidly protected by big government but if we want to peaceably assemble to demonstrate and protest we must be confined to a chain-link fenced "free speech zone" in a parking lot somewhere in an out of the way industrial zone.
More like some Congressman doesn't want his wife to find out about all the midget porn.
Sort of. This is the "Bork Act" so named because when Robert Bork was nominated to SCOTUS his video rental habits were made public; no doubt causing concern amongst our illustrious members of Congress and Senators that theirs would appear in the next attack when they ran for reelection. hence, the concern for protecting our privacy trumpeted the ability of companies to profit off of it.
The tablet market gas gone through the early adopters and is maturing. It also appears to have a longer replacement cycle time than say cell phones, probably do to cost and newer models do not necessarily offer must have features, unlike phones which go from 2G-3G-4G LTE. Cost also figure into replacement time.
Right know, iPads and other tablets are good enough, even several generations old ones, for the uses that do better on a tablet than a cell phone but don't need a PC to be acceptable. For example, reading eBooks, browsing the web, light office suite use, etc. Despite speed increases and better screens, a Gen 1 iPad is still pretty good at that so there in no compelling reason to shell out $500 or more for a new one.
That said, tablets need to migrate beyond the "it's a mobile PC" mentality to becoming an information appliance that is used to get desired information in a variety of settings. In short, a mobile gateway to information that is now accessed in other ways and where a PC is to cumbersome and a phone too small.A good example is Synology's video viewer app. You can access videos from the NAS on an iPad (or phone) and use airplay to put it to a TV; bypassing a separate PC server for playback. If you leave the room you can continue to watch on the iPad or send it to another TV in the room you go to. In short, the iPad is the common connector for a better viewing experience; not a replacement viewer.
Felons are not citizens... well they are citizens again once their sentence is served. They cannot vote, they cannot own guns. They forfeit their rights against search and seizure. Where WE screwed up in the GCA 1968 where we never gave them back their gun rights.
A couple of points:
Felons are still citizens
Even so, nothing in the 2cd limits it to citizens.
What is reasonable will always vary because it comes down to what a jury believes to be reasonable.
Going from my bad memory the decision to shoot or not should come down to positive answers to each of the following questions:
Does the target pose an immediate life or death threat to yourself or another person?
Is the threat credible, do you believe they will carry out the threat?
Do they have the means to carry out the threat?
On the surface the details of that case does not sound reasonable to me. But I could see a Jury deciding that it was a reasonable action by virtue of being privy to much more information.
To me, it ultimately comes down to the "reasonable person" test; i.e. would a reasonable person reach the same conclusion and do what you dod? Just because one individual may have felt they were justified in that action is not good enough to justify their action.
So this is good news, but it makes the relevant question even more difficult: Why is it that cell phone companies previously found it profitable only to sell phones on contracts, and now find it profitable to move slightly in the opposite direction? With any luck, soon the question will be a historic one: "How come cell phone companies used to confuse us about what we were really paying for our cell phones, and why did we put up with it?"
As TFA points out, it's generally a pricing perception issue. People will part with $0 upfront and pay $XX per month rather that $600 up front and $YY per month; even if the second option is cheaper. Since the first option results in more money companies do that
Why did T-Mobile decide to do it differently? The cell phone business is a high fixed cost (the network) low variable (carrying a call) cost industry. T-Mobile, as TFA points out is a much smaller #3. Even so, their fixed costs are probably not proportionately smaller since they still have a similar service footprint except perhaps in low density rural areas. So they need as many subscribers as possible to cover the fixed costs; hence a move to differentiate themselves in the market.
Otherwise, this sounds like just another way the anti-gun fear mongering freedom hating lobbying industry are trying to increase the costs and burdens of gun ownership in order to reduce gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It is yet another straw man in the war against freedom.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are a variety of interests that benefit from this type of controversy. At both ends of the gun debate spectrum you get people riled up. That results in money. Anti gun groups can use this to say "See, there is a solution that keeps your gun in your hands but out of others." The gun industry and their lobbying groups gets to say "Look out; THEY"RE coming to get you guns. Buy now before it is too late..."
A problem gun manufacturers face is much of their market is already saturated and offers limited growth. So while they are reaching out to new markets such as women by offering guns designed to appeal to the; they also want to keep gun enthusiasts afraid of "what's coming" so they stock up in advance of the great gun grab.
Of course, a few nut cases cast all gun owners in a bad light. If a company wants to build a gun with an external cutoff, let them. If it sells there is a market if not then they go out of business. A fine libertarian solution to the problem without government intervention; but saying that don't create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Dollars) and thus is ignored because fear is the most important thing to drive the dollars.
Finally, I find it interesting that many folks who are staunch 1st amendment supporters want to keep criminals and those with mental problems from buying guns. Nowhere in the amendment does it say "...except felons and the mentally ill;" so they already implicitly accept that there are reasonable limits on weapons ownership. The question then becomes "what is reasonable?"
On a side, but related, Stand Your Ground is being used as a defense where a kid stabbed and killed another who had bullied him. Even though the dead kid was unarmed at the time the defense argues that their client was reasonably in fear of this life because of the previous actions.So know when someone threatens you does that give you a green light to later shoot them? Would the mere act of legally carrying a weapon be enough to justify standing your ground if the person made what appeared to be a treating move or said something that was threatening?
"...Stahl described the disk she was shown as "gigantic," and said she had never seen one that big."
And she realized only when the last syllable rolled off her tongue the double meaning of her words, punctuated by the shit-eating grin the General couldn't wipe off his face as he tried to explain that nuclear cowboys wrangling silos must swing big disks to be "secure"...
Since many of them are females you have unintentionally added to the double entendre.
Slashdot Mirror
They also had the DC-10 listed. A Plane that flew for 44 years and had it's last flight months ago.
Actually, it's last passenger flight was a few months ago but it's still in use as a cargo hauler with FedEx.
Please explain how one gets from broken plastic clips on a vanity mirror to "rolling sarcophagus" in a way that wouldn't make any other engineer's (let along lawyer's) eyes roll.
Yes, engineers can become short-sighted, over-exaggerate and sometimes use immoderate language, but in general, I think you'd find less of that in engineering ranks than in any other department in the company.
I would disagree. Engineers suffer from the same human frailties as the rest of humanity; and I've been in enough engineering meetings to realize that egos, disagreements, personal objectives, etc. play as much a part of the decisions as they do anywhere else in the company. The main difference is every engineer thinks he or she is smarter than everyone else in the room and needs to prove it.
Sure, "cataclysmic" doesn't belong in an engineering email, but "always", "never", "critical", "serious", "safety", "safety-related", "dangerous" and (best of all, IMO) "problem"? That isn't engineers avoiding hyperbole, that's lawyers avoiding the truth.
While I agree with your overall sentiment; "always" and "never" are terms engineers should not use since they generally are not true. They imply a certainty that usually does not exist yet can be used in a court as proof of a problem. For example, a number years ago I worked on a project that had a set of technical specifications that must be met in order to certify the design. In it, the engineers used absolute statements that implied certain equipment would "always" function or "never"be unavailable; conditions that one could not assure with 100% certainty. As a result, has we submitted the specifications as written we would never have been able to certify the design since you could find cases where certain equipment would fail or be unavailable. Even though those cases did not impact safety we technically could not meet the specifications and those legally could not operate. The engineers answer was "of course it's not 100% but who would expect it to be?" and our answer was "the lawyer for those opposed to our plant" since we said it would be and now can't assure that. Unfortunately, what a word means to an engineer is often very different to what how it may be interpreted in a court of law.
Reusable and Man-Rating are different concepts here.
However reusable will cut the costs down dramatically.
Quite true. Reusable, for non-manned launches, can set a lower threshold for system failure resulting in mission failure; or in plain language reusing a part and blowing up a rocket and it's non-human payload is more acceptable than killing a crew.
Of course, risking destroying an expensive satellite because to save a few bucks on launch costs may be unacceptable a swell. Personally, I wouldn't base my launch cost model on reusability but view any cost savings from reuse a bonus.
However reusable will cut the costs down dramatically. The Falcon 9 booster itself is less than 60m a launch. ISS resupply missions on Dragon are around 100m (I believe, I couldn't find the number.) Obviously a man-rated Dragon is going to cost quite a bit more. This means they could literally throw away the dragon capsule every time it flies and be cheaper than Soyuz.
Also, keep in mind that Dragon seats 7, Soyuz seats 3.
Right now, your choice is Soyuz or don't go. Supply and demand dictates Russia can set prices as high as the market will bear, not on what it really costs.
Second point: the entire job of a teacher, particularly a K-8 teacher, is to evaluate students and set good progression goals for that student. That's what they do all day, every day. I'm sorry if you personally had some K-12 teachers who missed that mark (I'm not saying there aren't some at the lower end of the capability distribution - stats says there will be), but the vast majority of teachers I've met work very hard to do just that and are quite good at it.
sPh
While I agree many teachers try to do that, the reality is standardized test force them to teach to passing a test; because if students fail to score high enough the school gets penalized. As a result, test performance, rather than real learning, becomes paramount. Teachers hate it but have to play along in order to succeed.
Did illegal felon voters determine the outcome of the critical 2008 Minnesota Senate election? The day after the election, GOP Senator Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312 vote victory.
The outcome wound up having a significant impact, giving Democrats the critical 60th Senate vote they needed to block GOP filibusters. Mr. Franken's vote proved crucial in the passage of ObamaCare last December in the Senate. The next month Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
Ever since Mr. Franken was declared the victor, the conservative watchdog group Minnesota Majority has combed through records comparing lists of those who voted with criminal rap sheets. It found that at least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.
The assumption implicit in that is that felons are also Democratic voters; however without a conclusive way to prove how they voted you could also conclude (as wrongly as MM does) Franken's margin would have been larger had Republican's not gotten felons to vote for their guy. Ina edition, unless they verified that each felon had not had their voting rights restored you have no way ensuring their basic numbers are correct.
Of course, when you want to spin a story facts, logic, and truth are secondary to getting your story out.
From your original post;
keeping the model within his eyesight while holding a fairly conspicuous controller with antennas sticking out of it, and no extra laws are needed to catch and punish him, just a little police shoe-leather.
The drone was at least 2300 feet from the controller and therefore not as easily found as you may think. The controller could have been miles away.
I think you were responding to someone else. I realize tent the plane was not in the controller lOS and thus not conforming with exceptions for model a/c. specifically section c.2.
Its too bad you learned from these new standards which pride itself on the band-wagon approach to science where the most popular theory is heralded as the correct theory and any other competing theories are dismissed out of hand.
"It might be bad for the coal industry" is not a competing theory on the cause of the present climate change.
But when you add in "and bad for our pocketbooks..." it does become a competing theory. More to the point, "theory" is used as a proxy whenever someone presents an argument they do not like and thus need to find a reason to discredit it. Sure, there are concerns and arguments over the prevailing theory but science advances through critical analysis and testing. Unfortunately, some people dislike the idea of critical analysis because it may prove their viewpoint wrong and thus want nothing to be taught that risks putting what they believe at risk. After all, climate theory is merely the gateway drug for evolutionary theory and we all know where that leads...
You missed one very important point. The aircraft that it almost hit was at 2300 ft above ground level. That is much further than the other end of the park and far out of line of site. The only way to fly that high in control would be with a remote camera. Therefore RC aircraft + beyond LOS + camers = drone.
Sounds to me like this guy was flying a standard old RC airplane and doing so too close to an airport, which is already illegal.
It is actually not illegal. You just need to inform the airport.
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)).
The article also states that the aircraft was about 5 miles from the airport so he may have been just outside the 5 mile reporting requirement.
Actually, he was in violation of the law. Notification is only a part of it:
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
Number 4 makes it clear you must avoid commercial planes since they certainly are manned; and
given the altitude I doubt he was in conformance with c.2 as well.
Given the statutory construction statement I think it's pretty clear he violated the law and is subject to enforcement actions.
Of course, that doesn't change the problem of a few idiots who do stupid things and contribute to more regulations and hurt the many more responsible hobbyists who take great pains to avoid causing a dangerous situation. Couple stupidity with the increasing ease which novices can get more sophisticated devices that make it easier for them to commit idoicy and I can see why the responsible hobbyists are getting worried that their hobby will be ruined by a few idiots.
Seriously, how do you ensure there really is a space and payment? Or that someone who doesn't like the service gets a bunch of people to offer 'spaces?'
In-app ratings and reviews for the sellers.
Possibly, but that assumes the con and fast buck artists will: a) care about ratings because b) they can always create a new account or c) create false ratings. In addition, I doubt any one seller would produce enough real ratings to confer legitimacy.
1. Find a spot about to expire
2. Offer it for sale
3. Profit
Seriously, how do you ensure there really is a space and payment? Or that someone who doesn't like the service gets a bunch of people to offer 'spaces?'
My grad school forbade reselling case books, arguing that they were licensed not sold. If you put up a for sale sign on a campus bulletin board it got taken done. So we simply had an underground market as well as simply shared the books. Interestingly enough, while researching an article on the doctrine of first sale I learned it is not as black and white as some would think it is; with lots of variations state to state as well as defining what constitutes a sale.
...we can't do it, you clearly can't either.
Sorry but big government's approach to things isn't what I usually measure up against. They spent how much on the space shuttle and so it would be reusable and instead after every flight the basically take it apart and rebuild every major and most minor subsystems?
Let someone else give it a go before you just say it's impossible
They're not saying it is impossible; they're saying they discovered the cost of doing it was much higher than expected. It may have been cheaper to simply build new ones and spread the manufacturing costs over many more engines than try to rebuild them. One challenge they faced was limited engine flight data to identify how to rebuild them cost effectively without compromising safety. Add in the impact of salt water and you have some serious engineering challenges that may not be cost effective to solve. It's great that Space X wants to reuse them but NASA/ESA are saying they need to look carefully at the economics of reusability vs. all new components. One luxury Space X doesn't have that NASA/ESA have is large budgets and the ability to tap into even more public funds if needed so a mistake could spell the end of Space X.
Starting a journal is a good idea but will take time to make it a respected, viable option. Why not strike at the heart of the issue and push for copyright reform; say giving academic authors rights to publish their articles on a university or personal page while still letting the journal retain all other rights if they sign over the copyright? Then, all it takes is a good way to search for relevant papers without all the random garbage Google introduces.
RMS points out, in regards to paid apps:
These "advantages" can seem impressive to those who don't see what they cost in freedom. The most basic thing we must do is say, "I'd rather have nothing than have that," and then act accordingly.
the when asked about developing free hardware says:
This would cost millions of dollars, and we have no skills or experience in hardware manufacturing, so we couldn't do it.
To me , those two comments gets to the crux of free softwares challenges:
Without tangible rewards that allow people to do thing they like to do many things would not get done nor would we get many new innovative things. Sure, some people will code for the fun of it but that doesn't mean they will develop as complex and useful systems as the for profit world generates. Free software is nice and a lot of it is useful and as polished as non-free apps but a lot isn't. In the end, it is neither a better nor worse solution, just a different one.
Companies that collect data are realizing people are starting to become more aware of what is being collected and concerned about it. If enough people start making noise Congress may start to act and limit what can be collected and how it is used.
Here is an interesting thought for the real lawyers that read /. Could someone subpoena their data, if say they were charged with crime? Or as part of a civil suit? I would think not since they really aren't a part of the issue unless perhaps the cops used the data to locate someone or in an investigation, in which case this layman's view is the accused would have a right to see the data and challenge its use.
Of course, if the data became public imagine the havoc it could cause. Could you see the reaction from an elected official if a reporter showed up and asked them very detailed questions about their comings and goings?
A real kill switch that renders the phone unusable and unlock able without the original owner taking action
A nationwide database of stolen phones so they cannot be activated for phones without kill switches as well as backup to kill switches.
Sure, some phones will be stolen, hacked to work and or shipped abroad, but a lot of the theft is driven by the how easy it is to sell a hot phone on the street. Make it unusable and thieves will move on to the next way to make a quick buck.
After I RTFA, it appears the author's stance is "you gave Hulu permission by clicking Like, after all Like is supposed to let you tell people what you like. Thus, HULU should not be held responsible under the law for sharing your viewing history." My issue with that is, if I understand what HULU did, is clicking Like shares anything you watched and what you are watching, not just the original video, essentially making your history available without your consent. That is exactly what the law is designed to prevent. I find it a big jump from saying "I Like "Allo Allo S1E4" and taking that is "I consent to let you share my entire viewing history."
So our video viewing preferences are rigidly protected by big government but if we want to peaceably assemble to demonstrate and protest we must be confined to a chain-link fenced "free speech zone" in a parking lot somewhere in an out of the way industrial zone.
More like some Congressman doesn't want his wife to find out about all the midget porn.
Sort of. This is the "Bork Act" so named because when Robert Bork was nominated to SCOTUS his video rental habits were made public; no doubt causing concern amongst our illustrious members of Congress and Senators that theirs would appear in the next attack when they ran for reelection. hence, the concern for protecting our privacy trumpeted the ability of companies to profit off of it.
The tablet market gas gone through the early adopters and is maturing. It also appears to have a longer replacement cycle time than say cell phones, probably do to cost and newer models do not necessarily offer must have features, unlike phones which go from 2G-3G-4G LTE. Cost also figure into replacement time.
Right know, iPads and other tablets are good enough, even several generations old ones, for the uses that do better on a tablet than a cell phone but don't need a PC to be acceptable. For example, reading eBooks, browsing the web, light office suite use, etc. Despite speed increases and better screens, a Gen 1 iPad is still pretty good at that so there in no compelling reason to shell out $500 or more for a new one.
That said, tablets need to migrate beyond the "it's a mobile PC" mentality to becoming an information appliance that is used to get desired information in a variety of settings. In short, a mobile gateway to information that is now accessed in other ways and where a PC is to cumbersome and a phone too small.A good example is Synology's video viewer app. You can access videos from the NAS on an iPad (or phone) and use airplay to put it to a TV; bypassing a separate PC server for playback. If you leave the room you can continue to watch on the iPad or send it to another TV in the room you go to. In short, the iPad is the common connector for a better viewing experience; not a replacement viewer.
Felons are not citizens... well they are citizens again once their sentence is served. They cannot vote, they cannot own guns. They forfeit their rights against search and seizure. Where WE screwed up in the GCA 1968 where we never gave them back their gun rights.
A couple of points:
Felons are still citizens
Even so, nothing in the 2cd limits it to citizens.
What is reasonable will always vary because it comes down to what a jury believes to be reasonable.
Going from my bad memory the decision to shoot or not should come down to positive answers to each of the following questions: Does the target pose an immediate life or death threat to yourself or another person? Is the threat credible, do you believe they will carry out the threat? Do they have the means to carry out the threat?
On the surface the details of that case does not sound reasonable to me. But I could see a Jury deciding that it was a reasonable action by virtue of being privy to much more information.
To me, it ultimately comes down to the "reasonable person" test; i.e. would a reasonable person reach the same conclusion and do what you dod? Just because one individual may have felt they were justified in that action is not good enough to justify their action.
So this is good news, but it makes the relevant question even more difficult: Why is it that cell phone companies previously found it profitable only to sell phones on contracts, and now find it profitable to move slightly in the opposite direction? With any luck, soon the question will be a historic one: "How come cell phone companies used to confuse us about what we were really paying for our cell phones, and why did we put up with it?"
As TFA points out, it's generally a pricing perception issue. People will part with $0 upfront and pay $XX per month rather that $600 up front and $YY per month; even if the second option is cheaper. Since the first option results in more money companies do that
Why did T-Mobile decide to do it differently? The cell phone business is a high fixed cost (the network) low variable (carrying a call) cost industry. T-Mobile, as TFA points out is a much smaller #3. Even so, their fixed costs are probably not proportionately smaller since they still have a similar service footprint except perhaps in low density rural areas. So they need as many subscribers as possible to cover the fixed costs; hence a move to differentiate themselves in the market.
Otherwise, this sounds like just another way the anti-gun fear mongering freedom hating lobbying industry are trying to increase the costs and burdens of gun ownership in order to reduce gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It is yet another straw man in the war against freedom.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are a variety of interests that benefit from this type of controversy. At both ends of the gun debate spectrum you get people riled up. That results in money. Anti gun groups can use this to say "See, there is a solution that keeps your gun in your hands but out of others." The gun industry and their lobbying groups gets to say "Look out; THEY"RE coming to get you guns. Buy now before it is too late..."
A problem gun manufacturers face is much of their market is already saturated and offers limited growth. So while they are reaching out to new markets such as women by offering guns designed to appeal to the; they also want to keep gun enthusiasts afraid of "what's coming" so they stock up in advance of the great gun grab.
Of course, a few nut cases cast all gun owners in a bad light. If a company wants to build a gun with an external cutoff, let them. If it sells there is a market if not then they go out of business. A fine libertarian solution to the problem without government intervention; but saying that don't create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Dollars) and thus is ignored because fear is the most important thing to drive the dollars.
Finally, I find it interesting that many folks who are staunch 1st amendment supporters want to keep criminals and those with mental problems from buying guns. Nowhere in the amendment does it say "...except felons and the mentally ill;" so they already implicitly accept that there are reasonable limits on weapons ownership. The question then becomes "what is reasonable?"
On a side, but related, Stand Your Ground is being used as a defense where a kid stabbed and killed another who had bullied him. Even though the dead kid was unarmed at the time the defense argues that their client was reasonably in fear of this life because of the previous actions.So know when someone threatens you does that give you a green light to later shoot them? Would the mere act of legally carrying a weapon be enough to justify standing your ground if the person made what appeared to be a treating move or said something that was threatening?
"...Stahl described the disk she was shown as "gigantic," and said she had never seen one that big."
And she realized only when the last syllable rolled off her tongue the double meaning of her words, punctuated by the shit-eating grin the General couldn't wipe off his face as he tried to explain that nuclear cowboys wrangling silos must swing big disks to be "secure"...
Since many of them are females you have unintentionally added to the double entendre.