You can't actually write "fish" as "ghoti" in English either, it's an exaggeration for effect; English is full of arbitrary rules and exceptions and inconsistency, but it doesn't go that far. Both 'gh' as the voiceless labiodental fricative typically written as 'f' and 'ti' as the voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant typically written as 'sh' are context sensitive, and the context is wrong in 'ghoti'.
The vowel is unlikely too, but English is even less consistent about vowels. I suspect 'o' in 'women' ended up pronounced like 'i' in 'fish' to distinguish it from 'woman'; the different unstressed vowel wouldn't be sufficient.
I suspect you'd find high levels of illiteracy among the rural white poor subcultures (the ones who smoke meth instead of crack) as well. But nobody cares about them; they're too poor to concern conservatives and too white to concern liberals.
They tried to use 91.13(a) in the earlier case which they lost (in their own courts). In this case it was just "As I have told you before, UAS operations that are not authorized violate part 91(and some others) and hence are illegal."
The trouble with drones is that most of them don't have enough sensing to avoid other aircraft. Most don't have aviation transponders. Yet some of them are big enough that they're a hazard to other aircraft. Many of them can get 500 feet above ground level (AGL).
Many model aircraft can get above 500ft AGL. It's not a real problem getting them up there, it's a problem controlling them once they're up there if you're watching from the ground. Thus, "first person view" drones.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics used to have a 450' AGL rule, and the FAA has a clear rule about doing anything off the ground within 5 miles of an airport without coordination with the tower. That's enough to keep the little guys from interfering with aircraft.
The AMA is a bunch of irrelevant old retired guys; their main thrust is to convince municipalities it is too dangerous to allow anyone to fly model aircraft unless they have the AMA seal of approval, which they'll grant you (for a fee) if you're an old retired guy willing to fly your plane in a predefined pattern all day. They hate First Person View because they think it violates the purity of the hobby or something, and a lot of them object to anything that's not fixed-wing.
I suspect most people flying model aircraft in the US haven't heard of them; certainly few enough are members.
The FAA has lost the only court case on this matter they've fought.
It's worse than that. Not only did they lose the case, they lost it in their own administrative courts. But of course they can force everyone else go to through the exact same long and expensive process because there's no cost to them for doing so.
If instead of fucking around with putting MLK in jail for 30-60 days at a time, they've managed to get the laws changed so that organizing a sit-in was a felony, they could have kept him locked up, incommunicado or nearly so, for years and kept him on a tight leash (as a convicted felon) even if he got out.
The scarier people could either have gotten the message or been shot while resisting arrest.
We've got the necessary laws, 100 times over, by now. The protests that happen are ineffective because anything that threatens to become effective will be destroyed in no time.
Precisely. No matter what alternative energy you come up with, as soon as it threatens to become practical to use it at scale, the environmentalists will find a problem with it and shut it down. Fuck em, just burn lignite.
Temperature goes up more or less linearly, and CO2 goes up more or less linearly. Thus they are well-correlated. There's not a lot of power to that correlation, as the article demonstrates itself by trying it with different lags (from 0 to 20 years -- would have been interesting if he'd tried negative lags); the data is too featureless to show anything interesting.
That's why software developers shouldn't insist on using the title Engineer. This kind of accountability is expected of an engineer, it's not an anomaly.
Engineers just build siege engines, they're not responsible if the siege fails.
Making mid-production changes in parts without changing the part number -- at least the customer-visible part number -- is not unheard-of, it's common.
This same crap keeps coming up on slashdot, where someone takes some 'evil patent' that's 'so obvious', hunts down an example of something vaguely similar, and shouts 'look, prior art, prior art! it's invalid!'.
As opposed to searching through some patents bought in a bankruptcy proceeding, hunting down an example of something vaguely similar, and shouting "infringement, infringement"? That strategy seems to work pretty well.
These are the same kind of idiots that seriously think apple patented a rounded rectangle,
They did. If you check their design patent, the shape itself was in fact the only thing they claimed. Everything else was excluded.
call microsoft a patent troll
One of Microsoft's patents claims doing a 64-bit CRC of song metadata and using that as a hash key. That's pretty trollish.
A FHSS based 2.4GHz cannot fail in this way. It doesn't stay on one frequency long enough for interference on that frequency to matter.
You don't have to knock out all that many to get a "glitch". Total loss of control is more difficult.
You'd have better luck if you deliberately hit either the aircraft or the transmitter with a strong enough signal to overwhelm the antenna. The equipment required to do that isn't generally sold. It'd have to be custom built.
Overwhelming the front end isn't too hard, all you need is a microwave oven magnetron, horn antenna, and power supply.
People are calling this thing a "drone", but I'm wondering if it's really more of a standard model R/C aircraft under real-time control from the pilot and without any sort of autopiloting capabilities. With those, if the control signal is lost, they won't hover and certainly won't return home, they will generally cut throttle and return control surfaces to neutral, dropping out of the sky.
Prior to the DMCA, sites could be sued for any comment posted on their website, and have a good chance of losing (I don't know any case of this happening before the 1998, if someone else knows, that would be interesting).
In fact, the opposite was the case. You were not liable for copyrighted content posted by others. The DMCA didn't change that, but created a much stronger safe harbor which you lose by not obeying the DMCAs takedown provision, thus providing a strong incentive to follow those takedown provisions. A sneaky end-run around the First Amendment; you don't HAVE to obey the whims of those who send takedown letters, but in practice the incentive is overwhelming.
JSTOR, not Swartz, cut off access: "MIT was harmed in the process, Grimson said, with 10,000 researchers denied an important resource for several days as JSTOR sought to cut off the mass downloading."
Standard authoritarian tactic -- follow the chain of cause and effect back to the party you want to blame, then stop.
Which is just the opposite of what Martin Luther King said which is that if you break laws protesting an unjust law, you should gladly go to jail.
That tactic is out of date. The government has adapted to it. Now if you break laws protesting an unjust law, you are arrested and go to jail until your cause is long dead (or better yet, you are) and nobody even notices except a few unimportant true-believers.
Yup, it's like the thousands of 'structurally deficient' bridges that are around the country - the engineers have examined them, they know they have serious deficiencies from lack of proper maintenance (or perhaps use above/beyond their design)... those bridges are almost sure to fail "sometime" in the future, but it's impossible to say when... could be tomorrow, or the thing could last another 10 years, but unless something is done, it will fail eventually.
And that turns out to be a less than useful warning. Even a well-built bridge will fail eventually without maintenance.
This hill seems to have been known to be quite a bit more dangerous than that, however. It seems to be basically a pile of rubble held up only by friction of the bottom part, which is constantly being worn away.
Because one of the early studies on this estimated cell phone use by comparing cell phone call records (as recorded by the phone company) with accident times (as recorded on the police report.) One of those is quite accurate. The other... ain't. And what's likely one of the first things you're going to do after you get into a minor accident.... call someone.
The no-fly list means you don't board. There's another list, called the selectee list, which is for hassling people.
And of course it's blatantly unconstitutional on its face, it violates due process and constitutes attainder. But the constitution is not being respected so it doesn't matter.
What's going to need regular maintenance on a Tesla? All-electric drivetrains require very little maintenance. There's fewer moving parts, the transmission is incredibly simple and robust (1-speed, doesn't have to shift even for reverse), mechanical stresses on all drivetrain components are far lower because there's no percussive impacts from cylinders firing, and there's no high temperatures because there's no combustion.
So why does Tesla charge $600/year if regular maintenance is so much less expensive than for gasoline vehicles (which don't cost $600/year in maintenance either)
Slashdot Mirror
You can't actually write "fish" as "ghoti" in English either, it's an exaggeration for effect; English is full of arbitrary rules and exceptions and inconsistency, but it doesn't go that far. Both 'gh' as the voiceless labiodental fricative typically written as 'f' and 'ti' as the voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant typically written as 'sh' are context sensitive, and the context is wrong in 'ghoti'.
The vowel is unlikely too, but English is even less consistent about vowels. I suspect 'o' in 'women' ended up pronounced like 'i' in 'fish' to distinguish it from 'woman'; the different unstressed vowel wouldn't be sufficient.
I suspect you'd find high levels of illiteracy among the rural white poor subcultures (the ones who smoke meth instead of crack) as well. But nobody cares about them; they're too poor to concern conservatives and too white to concern liberals.
They tried to use 91.13(a) in the earlier case which they lost (in their own courts). In this case it was just "As I have told you before, UAS operations that are not authorized violate part 91(and some others) and hence are illegal."
Many model aircraft can get above 500ft AGL. It's not a real problem getting them up there, it's a problem controlling them once they're up there if you're watching from the ground. Thus, "first person view" drones.
The AMA is a bunch of irrelevant old retired guys; their main thrust is to convince municipalities it is too dangerous to allow anyone to fly model aircraft unless they have the AMA seal of approval, which they'll grant you (for a fee) if you're an old retired guy willing to fly your plane in a predefined pattern all day. They hate First Person View because they think it violates the purity of the hobby or something, and a lot of them object to anything that's not fixed-wing.
I suspect most people flying model aircraft in the US haven't heard of them; certainly few enough are members.
It's worse than that. Not only did they lose the case, they lost it in their own administrative courts. But of course they can force everyone else go to through the exact same long and expensive process because there's no cost to them for doing so.
If instead of fucking around with putting MLK in jail for 30-60 days at a time, they've managed to get the laws changed so that organizing a sit-in was a felony, they could have kept him locked up, incommunicado or nearly so, for years and kept him on a tight leash (as a convicted felon) even if he got out.
The scarier people could either have gotten the message or been shot while resisting arrest.
We've got the necessary laws, 100 times over, by now. The protests that happen are ineffective because anything that threatens to become effective will be destroyed in no time.
Precisely. No matter what alternative energy you come up with, as soon as it threatens to become practical to use it at scale, the environmentalists will find a problem with it and shut it down. Fuck em, just burn lignite.
Temperature goes up more or less linearly, and CO2 goes up more or less linearly. Thus they are well-correlated. There's not a lot of power to that correlation, as the article demonstrates itself by trying it with different lags (from 0 to 20 years -- would have been interesting if he'd tried negative lags); the data is too featureless to show anything interesting.
Engineers just build siege engines, they're not responsible if the siege fails.
Making mid-production changes in parts without changing the part number -- at least the customer-visible part number -- is not unheard-of, it's common.
Get a "Bad Cop/No Donut" bumper sticker, a LOT of cameras, drive the speed limit, and enjoy the eventual civil rights lawsuit.
And also they've heard he notes the fall of every sparrow, and they'd really like to learn his methods.
As opposed to searching through some patents bought in a bankruptcy proceeding, hunting down an example of something vaguely similar, and shouting "infringement, infringement"? That strategy seems to work pretty well.
They did. If you check their design patent, the shape itself was in fact the only thing they claimed. Everything else was excluded.
One of Microsoft's patents claims doing a 64-bit CRC of song metadata and using that as a hash key. That's pretty trollish.
You don't have to knock out all that many to get a "glitch". Total loss of control is more difficult.
Overwhelming the front end isn't too hard, all you need is a microwave oven magnetron, horn antenna, and power supply.
People are calling this thing a "drone", but I'm wondering if it's really more of a standard model R/C aircraft under real-time control from the pilot and without any sort of autopiloting capabilities. With those, if the control signal is lost, they won't hover and certainly won't return home, they will generally cut throttle and return control surfaces to neutral, dropping out of the sky.
Also that thing where it turned out the Star of Bethlehem was a sign of God genociding an intelligent species.
In fact, the opposite was the case. You were not liable for copyrighted content posted by others. The DMCA didn't change that, but created a much stronger safe harbor which you lose by not obeying the DMCAs takedown provision, thus providing a strong incentive to follow those takedown provisions. A sneaky end-run around the First Amendment; you don't HAVE to obey the whims of those who send takedown letters, but in practice the incentive is overwhelming.
Standard authoritarian tactic -- follow the chain of cause and effect back to the party you want to blame, then stop.
That tactic is out of date. The government has adapted to it. Now if you break laws protesting an unjust law, you are arrested and go to jail until your cause is long dead (or better yet, you are) and nobody even notices except a few unimportant true-believers.
His Magnificence, the Generallissimo Norvegicus, says you can go right on believing that if you like.
And that turns out to be a less than useful warning. Even a well-built bridge will fail eventually without maintenance.
This hill seems to have been known to be quite a bit more dangerous than that, however. It seems to be basically a pile of rubble held up only by friction of the bottom part, which is constantly being worn away.
His name's Stroustrup. Bjarne Stroustrup.
No, he didn't break OPEC. He nearly broke the US, though; his plans resulted in manufactured shortages of gasoline and sky-high (for the time) prices.
Because one of the early studies on this estimated cell phone use by comparing cell phone call records (as recorded by the phone company) with accident times (as recorded on the police report.) One of those is quite accurate. The other... ain't. And what's likely one of the first things you're going to do after you get into a minor accident.... call someone.
The no-fly list means you don't board. There's another list, called the selectee list, which is for hassling people.
And of course it's blatantly unconstitutional on its face, it violates due process and constitutes attainder. But the constitution is not being respected so it doesn't matter.
So why does Tesla charge $600/year if regular maintenance is so much less expensive than for gasoline vehicles (which don't cost $600/year in maintenance either)