The lift of the ban for 3 minutes on a global scale followed by a new global ban rather than first peek through the software is no surprise. Of course they took a peek through the firewalls first!
This looks much more a well planed statement as a botched trial.
Killing is a barbaric punishment. I propose having them delete junk mail all day long for the a few years. If they don't behave, a bit of solitary confinement, sorting important message though an inadequate spam filter should do the trick.
Putting a whole elite tactical unit together in prison... in the same stockade... seems like a very bad idea to me. Especially if they believe they do not deserve this fate.
I'd put that in the "what could go wrong" department.
That I cannot say. I would think it would be in the same general area if the flight train is cut soon after Baumgartner jumps. They Probably wait until he is landed before cutting, as they can than monitor the decent from the gondola as well (with cameras, or other measuring equipment).
Like with most balloon payload, the flight train will separate from the balloon. The parachute will open and the gondola (or capsule) will decent at a reasonable speed. Most likely be reused immediately afterwards.
Balloon flights like these cannot be done anywhere. There are reasons for that. Although it comes down relatively slowly (something around 10 m/s I guess from similar payloads), it can still cause damage. Also, you have a 2 football sized (sorry for the journalistic dimensions) balloon coming down... I wouldn't want to be stuck under that.
The nice thing is that once the flight train is separated, the impact points of both balloon and gondola are very predictable. Much more than the actual balloon flight itself. Decent is fast, and only little affected by winds at altitude.
Balloon flights like these (actually not at all like these, but from the balloon type, payload, etc.) are done all the time. Sometimes during stratospheric research campaigns by the dozen. But launches and landings almost always happen in remote desolated areas such as New Mexico, where you can be fairly sure there is nothing but dust in the probable impact zone.
These kinds of comments make me sad. Obviously, the apple product have no appeal for you. You fail to see the interest in them, which is ok. But you also fail to understand others might have other views, other needs, other interests and different values. You fail to see that you fail to see. You believe your view is the only view; a sort of anti-fanboy.
Although you are correct on many points - and I would understand anyone saying "these products are not for me" based on these points - you wave a positions as bad, if not worse, than those "fanboy" you cry about. You have the right to your view. But believing a large consumer group is misled based on your personal view is so arrogant. It makes me sad.
I hate those questions. Seriously. Once I was faced to something like this... had to choose among a list of question at least two in a registration process. It was mandatory.
Question where something like : - where did you spend your honeymoon... : I'm not married. - what is the name of your first child... : I have no children. - what is the name of your first pet... : does that include fake pets? because I never had a pet. - what is the maiden name of your grandmother... : why the hell would I know or remember that? - what was your favorite song in the eighties... : oh! oh! i know. This one....mmmm no that other one... mmm no no this one was better! mmmm that's not going to work. - what is the favorite colour of your oldest child.... : not again with this?
I have honestly no clue what I answer to any of the two question I chose, nor which question I chose.
It may be so, but I have serious doupt about the legallity of this action in light of RF frequency allocation and usage rules. If it is an open and unregulated band for wifi, BT has not right what so ever to ask someone to turn of an access point. If they claim the said access point causes interference on their equipement, which is unlikely for certified devices, they can fill a claim through the proper channels. I doupt running, chansing access points, is the proper channel.
The software checks if person of interest holds a Facebook account. Voilà! If he or she doesn't, it should mean he/she will commit mass murder. Couldn't be easier, I guess...
Exactly. Without being passed out drunk on the office couch, the lawyers would never have allowed such a nice piece of wording. And even then, they probably protested in their unconsciousness by scratching the sharpie art on their forehead...
And by the way, American means someone from America, not someone from the USA.
Please, present me a single person from Canada or Mexico describing himself as "an American". Better, find me a single person from Brazil or Peru that presents himself as "an American". Furthermore, per definition you are correct, but the word "American" is also defined as a citizen of the USA.
Taking into account usage and accepting the fact that this usage definition of "American" is correct, I'd simply say that you are wrong.
Very interesting case! But, I think there are some major differences. I never said I had the intention of committing a criminal act, nor did I said I planed one (an I obviously do not plan to, nor did I at any time. All readers understanding english should have understood that in the context). Furthermore, I believe there is a fundamental difference between admitting in a desire, or in an intention, regardless if they are true or not. This difference is even bigger when both are obviously false.
Paul Chambers tweeted explicitly the intention if committing a criminal act, albeit a false intention. Some understood it this way, but others clearly not. Furthermore, I believe that in his case, the context clearing out any doubt or misunderstanding was missing or rather thin. But the case is interesting and I remember reading about it before. It remembers of all those poor souls joking about having a bomb at airport security checks. Just like Chambers, by saying that, they expose a threat to which authorities are legally and moraly bound to react to.
At that time, my only desire was to be able to here what the tower was saying... We had already enough stress as we were landing though icing conditions with a C-172, not equipped for these.
If their understanding of sarcasm and humour is that bad, I'll gladly facepalm myself all the way to where ever they take authors of bad jokes. Hopefully it's not also where they take bad bands.
Even if you are have no band overlapping, if you are close enough to the transmitter the out of bands harmonics might be strong enough to go through your receiver.
I've had this once while landing at Toronto City Center Airport, right next to the CN Tower and its FM transmitters. On final we suddenly had some stupid Radio show bleeding over the Tower Frequency and I'm quite sure there isn't any Frequency overlapping between FM radio and aviation bands. But I also suspect their might have been an issue with the Receiver. Anyway, it illustrates well that you don't need frequency overlap to have annoying interference.
(and we narrowly avoided our desire to crash into the transmitter, Nickelback was playing).
Slashdot Mirror
This question : "Do we actually need this?" should be asked more often when new technologies are coming up.
If a new technology fails to come forward in today's world, I think the question is even more relevant.
(and sorry to the OP. I accidentally moded you wrong... you know... mouse slipped. Hence this somewhat pointless comment.)
The lift of the ban for 3 minutes on a global scale followed by a new global ban rather than first peek through the software is no surprise. Of course they took a peek through the firewalls first!
This looks much more a well planed statement as a botched trial.
Killing is a barbaric punishment. I propose having them delete junk mail all day long for the a few years. If they don't behave, a bit of solitary confinement, sorting important message though an inadequate spam filter should do the trick.
They might have missed as step as they recycled the paper as confetti.
Yes, most likely the kind of bacteria that metabolize phosphorus.
Regardless who is quoting what, it's still a bad idea.
Putting a whole elite tactical unit together in prison... in the same stockade... seems like a very bad idea to me. Especially if they believe they do not deserve this fate.
I'd put that in the "what could go wrong" department.
That I cannot say. I would think it would be in the same general area if the flight train is cut soon after Baumgartner jumps. They Probably wait until he is landed before cutting, as they can than monitor the decent from the gondola as well (with cameras, or other measuring equipment).
Like with most balloon payload, the flight train will separate from the balloon. The parachute will open and the gondola (or capsule) will decent at a reasonable speed. Most likely be reused immediately afterwards.
Balloon flights like these cannot be done anywhere. There are reasons for that. Although it comes down relatively slowly (something around 10 m/s I guess from similar payloads), it can still cause damage. Also, you have a 2 football sized (sorry for the journalistic dimensions) balloon coming down... I wouldn't want to be stuck under that.
The nice thing is that once the flight train is separated, the impact points of both balloon and gondola are very predictable. Much more than the actual balloon flight itself. Decent is fast, and only little affected by winds at altitude.
Balloon flights like these (actually not at all like these, but from the balloon type, payload, etc.) are done all the time. Sometimes during stratospheric research campaigns by the dozen. But launches and landings almost always happen in remote desolated areas such as New Mexico, where you can be fairly sure there is nothing but dust in the probable impact zone.
These kinds of comments make me sad. Obviously, the apple product have no appeal for you. You fail to see the interest in them, which is ok. But you also fail to understand others might have other views, other needs, other interests and different values. You fail to see that you fail to see. You believe your view is the only view; a sort of anti-fanboy.
Although you are correct on many points - and I would understand anyone saying "these products are not for me" based on these points - you wave a positions as bad, if not worse, than those "fanboy" you cry about. You have the right to your view. But believing a large consumer group is misled based on your personal view is so arrogant. It makes me sad.
As long no one stands there to tell you if the explaination is correct or not, anything goes a long way explaining something you don't understand.
I hate those questions. Seriously. Once I was faced to something like this... had to choose among a list of question at least two in a registration process. It was mandatory.
Question where something like :
- where did you spend your honeymoon... : I'm not married.
- what is the name of your first child... : I have no children.
- what is the name of your first pet... : does that include fake pets? because I never had a pet.
- what is the maiden name of your grandmother... : why the hell would I know or remember that?
- what was your favorite song in the eighties... : oh! oh! i know. This one....mmmm no that other one... mmm no no this one was better! mmmm that's not going to work.
- what is the favorite colour of your oldest child.... : not again with this?
I have honestly no clue what I answer to any of the two question I chose, nor which question I chose.
Assorted Assholes. aka. RIAA, MPAA, GEMA... list is long.
It may be so, but I have serious doupt about the legallity of this action in light of RF frequency allocation and usage rules. If it is an open and unregulated band for wifi, BT has not right what so ever to ask someone to turn of an access point. If they claim the said access point causes interference on their equipement, which is unlikely for certified devices, they can fill a claim through the proper channels. I doupt running, chansing access points, is the proper channel.
The first thing I did after installing no script, was to white list all the ads... the internet is so bland without them.
The software checks if person of interest holds a Facebook account. Voilà! If he or she doesn't, it should mean he/she will commit mass murder. Couldn't be easier, I guess...
Hope they excluded Nickelback from their study... Or they'll have a huge bias towards "all that stuff is the same"...
Exactly. Without being passed out drunk on the office couch, the lawyers would never have allowed such a nice piece of wording.
And even then, they probably protested in their unconsciousness by scratching the sharpie art on their forehead...
Their lawyers must be drunk or something...
And by the way, American means someone from America, not someone from the USA.
Please, present me a single person from Canada or Mexico describing himself as "an American". Better, find me a single person from Brazil or Peru that presents himself as "an American". Furthermore, per definition you are correct, but the word "American" is also defined as a citizen of the USA.
Taking into account usage and accepting the fact that this usage definition of "American" is correct, I'd simply say that you are wrong.
I suspect the former. If another LO interfered, it must have been one of the navigation or com radios. No other receiver was on during the flight.
I hope they don't monitor for that here or anywhere... But I believe they monitor for stuff almost everywhere. Probably here too.
Very interesting case!
But, I think there are some major differences. I never said I had the intention of committing a criminal act, nor did I said I planed one (an I obviously do not plan to, nor did I at any time. All readers understanding english should have understood that in the context). Furthermore, I believe there is a fundamental difference between admitting in a desire, or in an intention, regardless if they are true or not. This difference is even bigger when both are obviously false.
Paul Chambers tweeted explicitly the intention if committing a criminal act, albeit a false intention. Some understood it this way, but others clearly not. Furthermore, I believe that in his case, the context clearing out any doubt or misunderstanding was missing or rather thin. But the case is interesting and I remember reading about it before. It remembers of all those poor souls joking about having a bomb at airport security checks. Just like Chambers, by saying that, they expose a threat to which authorities are legally and moraly bound to react to.
At that time, my only desire was to be able to here what the tower was saying... We had already enough stress as we were landing though icing conditions with a C-172, not equipped for these.
If their understanding of sarcasm and humour is that bad, I'll gladly facepalm myself all the way to where ever they take authors of bad jokes. Hopefully it's not also where they take bad bands.
Even if you are have no band overlapping, if you are close enough to the transmitter the out of bands harmonics might be strong enough to go through your receiver.
I've had this once while landing at Toronto City Center Airport, right next to the CN Tower and its FM transmitters. On final we suddenly had some stupid Radio show bleeding over the Tower Frequency and I'm quite sure there isn't any Frequency overlapping between FM radio and aviation bands. But I also suspect their might have been an issue with the Receiver. Anyway, it illustrates well that you don't need frequency overlap to have annoying interference.
(and we narrowly avoided our desire to crash into the transmitter, Nickelback was playing).