Splitting hairs? Are you kidding me? And you're using 'google' as an authoritative source? Don't be stupid.
Here's the short version of the answer:
1. Ukraine has never been part of Russia, full stop. Ukraine has been at times part of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE, just as India has been part of the British Empire. Your ignorance of this fact doesn't make it any less true.
2. The term "Kievan Russia" is flat our wrong. By historical accident, the sounds of the words "Rus" (which is usually translated by scholars as "Ruthenia") and "Ros" of "Russia" are similar. However, the etymology is COMPLETELY different. Why then do people call it "Kievan Russia"? Two reasons - one, general ignorance. Two, Russia (or, as the Soviet Union, Czarist state, etc) has over the years involved in a SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN against Ukrainian nationalism. This compaign included: a. purposely confusing and conflating the terms kievan-rus and "Russia" to try to artificially create some common history bullshit story. b. systematically clamping down on ukrainian language and culture. consider how many of the top schools during communism were russian language only. At times under the Czars and Communists, Ukrainian was effectively outlawed and systematically marginalized as a 'peasant language.' This was deliberare. c. moving in Russian speakers into Ukraine while deporting / murdering nationalists.
even if you don't believe me on point a) (and if you do some further research on this matter, you will doubtlessly run into many dead ends which are the result of bad scholarship seeded by agenda'd individuals from the past), points b) and c) are obvious and fairly undenyable historical facts.
By the way, mr Dec 30 poster - the elections ARE over. Yanukovich's appeals are over, and Ukrainians have loudly and clearly said three words to Russia: STEP OFF, BITCH.
Incidentally, I am not Ukrainian, though I do employ a large number of Ukrainain citizens (who happen to be Russians, but Ukrainian citizens and proud of it, nevertheless).
More for groceries? I guess objectively that's maybe true, but in Japan I was glad for the privilige, where the food is nearly uniformly good. M&S or Tesco, on the other hand, appear to base their business models on passing off livestock feed quality shite in packages designed by highly paid designers who have worked to make it look like you're getting more than you actually are and then they spend a lot of money on MBAs who come up with ideas like "let's call it our 'finest' range and charge double!". "Let's spend money on everything but the actual food" seems to be their motto, and as a result even the "good" food in UK supermarkets is often shite.. even the fresh stuff from an in-store butcher or seafood man.
Yes, beer cheaper in the UK. But I don't drink beer. And I'll gladly pay JPY 900 for a gin and tonic in a glass that's fills my hand and is nice and cold and crisp than pay GBP 3.00 for my duly measured 25mm mixed with tesco value tonic (or "britvic"--motto: "highest markups in history of any product anywhere") and maybe a solitary icecube from a warm thimble.
and from what I know of having lived in both for more than four years each within the last decade, you're wrong.
I'm comparing London to Tokyo, by the way. I'm sure you can get good value on the Northern English Inland Riviera somewhere and make good headway by sticking to Tesco Value items, but for real life that's not really the case.
You're probably right on point A, which is the origin of the DNEPR system. I have no expertise in this and bow to your knowledge. At the very least, then the slashdot writer was ignorant (what a surprised).
however, you are totally full of shit on point 2. First of all, there was never anything called "Kievan Russia" - there was something called "Kievan Rus", where Rus != Russia. I'm sure you know this already but were hoping that the readers of slashdot would not. The resulting monologue about how russia is not ukraine i'm sure you've heard a thousand times, but what's the point of repeating it to you, as by using a term like "Kievan Russia" you have already clearly indicated what your actual intention is.
By the way, mr "it's not going anywhere, at least during our lifetime." Catch that election the other day? Good luck with BaikalFinanceGroup, Moskal!
Actually, there are no ukrainian ships named volga or dunab. Anything with clearly russian names has been renamed long ago.
Remember: it's perfectly normal to find a coffee in moscow or raleigh-durham called "amazon." However, it's quite another thing when you name something that has defense and national import, like, say, your nuclear weapons.
Well weren't Soviets mostly Russian and Russians mostly Soviets during the cold war? (Albeit Russians not living in the Soviet and non-Russians living in the USSR's domain like Latvians and other republics?)
I think it's a matter of perception really. In reality the names and governments have changed but not the people.
There's a lot of ignorance on slashdot, but what you wrote above is ignorant by slashdot ignorance standards.
Your post is so clueless, I don't know where to begin, but for one, Khruschev was a Ukrainian.
If it's a relic, then it's not Russian, it's Soviet. If you want to call it current then it could be Russia, but then there would be some irony, as the name DNEPR is the name of the most important river in Ukraine, which is (in case any of you were sleeping while recent news was transpiring), a completely different country (much to Russia's consternation). In fact, if the Russians haven't yet changed the name of the DNEPR system, it only goes to further evidence their thinly veiled ambitions on Ukraine.
You don't "win" against copyright infringers if you simply take them down. This would in effect make it a zero-penalty game - infringe all you want, but if you get caught, you just have to stop the activity without actually paying any sort of actual penalty. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? It seems obvious to most of us that a punishment (or at least a legitimate threat of punishment) is necessary in order to deter the negative behavior. If you just got warnings every time you got pulled over for speeding, there would be little incentive to slow down. It is obvious to most of us that if the only penalty for stealing an item for the store is having to pay the store the cost of the item (though you get to keep the item), there would not be a strong disincentive to steal.
And yet, slashdotters are routinely up in arms about fines being handed out to copyright infringers. We may all agree or disagree whether the amount of the fines is excessive or insufficient or whatever, but remember that the goal of such fines is to discourage illegal activity (and to repay the not insignificant cost of discovering and prosecuting the maldoers).
I'm happy for this guy who got somebody to stop selling his stuff, even though a prima facie the stuff looks like scummy spam-sending software. Alas, the guy who did it is not punished - he's still on the loose and will probably just do it again.
It's aluminum, and is sorta meant to offload data from cameras. It's only 2.5 inches, so that's not totally unreasonable, but I'm still struggling a bit with the 'Why' part of the equation.
Because for my two month trip to Kerbleckistan, I'd rather a) not bring my laptop and b) not buy 40 1gig memory sticks at USD $300 or whatever the heck they cost for the journey despite wanting to take 40gig of photos.
I have a BGA Gold certificate. Is that enough gliding experience for you? Not that I would consider my (or your) soaring experince to be particularly pertinent to judging the aerodynamic merits of airplanes. Why don't we just compare the DA40 to a dumptruck to comment on its soil carrying capabilities, while we're at it? Or, more pertinently, since you mention that the cirrus requires a flat landing (which is absolute nonsense, by the way--it requires no flatter a landing than a Piper Arrow), please do let me know about which one of your favorite gliders allows for that nice generous flare?
That said, you haven't hit a nerve at all with me, and I could care less if you bash the Cirrus. I do it all the time. I think it's a nice plane to fly as long as you're flying on somebody else's dollar... and it does have plenty of faults. I was actually the first to discover a major navigation system bug that, frankly, put me off flying the thing in solid IFR for some itme. However, you really havent evidenced the claim that it is a poorly aerodynamically designed airplane at all. A crash rate could (and in this case can) be explained by other factors besides aerodynamic design, including build quality, pilot training, avionics issues, and so forth.
Do I know of any other airplane which can't recover from a spin without requiring a parachute? Actually, up until this statement, I would have taken you at face value. Now that you said that, I somewhat doubt your claimed flying experience. Try putting any twin into a spin and seeing how far you get without a parachute. Try putting most low-wing Pipers into a spin and see how far you get (you'll recover from most of the non T-tail ones, but you'll never do it again). Remember: the SR22 is PLACARDED AGAINST INTENTIONAL SPINS. It is not an aircraft that is meant to be jerked around with abrupt control maneuvers during slow flight, either. Getting into a spin in an aircraft placarded against intentional spins is gross ineptitude, full stop.
That said, one of the problems with the SR22 is that the sidestick makes it feel to pilots as if it were an aerobatic aircraft and so there is tendency of pilots who have time in stick aircraft to want to muck about with it. Knowing little else, I suggest that this may have been an issue in the accident you speak of.
By the way, neither is a 777 - and you'd hardly claim that it has a poor aerodynamic design!
...the insurance rate on the Cirrus is high due to 24 fatalities since its introduction.
Fair enough--but linked to the speed and complexity of the aircraft.
The DA40 has a 180hp engine and a 600 pound useful load. Apples and oranges. Yes, the accident rate doesn't help, but the original poster essentially claimed that it was because of the BRS system that the insurance is high, which is nonsense.
To claim that the SR22 has poor aerodynamic design is either actual ignorance, or the sort of ignorance that one aquires by hanging around on aviaiton message boards too long listening to self-proclaimed experts spout off. The parachute (when undeployed, obviously) does (next to) nothing to the SR22's flying characteristics.
The fact is that the insurance industry considers the parachute-equipped Cirrus to be a very risky airplane as evidenced by very high insurance rates and restrictive coverage.
Sigh. SR22 has expensive insurance. SR22 has BRS. Therefore, BRS = expensive insurance.
= BULLSHIT.
The Sr22 insurance is expensive beacause it's a fast new airplane with a big engine being bought by low time pilots. The BRS has nothing to do with it.
I have given over 330 hours of SR22 instruction and have over 200 hours in cessna 182s. I know what I'm talking about. The SR22 is aerodynamically very clean and engine management is trivial. Landing speeds are similar. The only tricky bit is that the SR22 is faster in cruise and climb. I've transitioned 60 hour private pilot wonders from piper warriors to SR22s "takeoffs and landings" in a flight or two. Getting a feel for the avionics takes longer.
Since the pilot of the plane is responsible for determining if an airplane is airworthy before flying, you had better know what you are doing before you fly. You do get this kind of training when you get your pilots license (unless your flight school/instructor was an idiot).
BULLSHIT!!!
I am a flight instructor. I also teach on the SR22 (340 hours SR22, 7800 total time).
I am *not* a big fan of the parachute--I don't think it's as cost effective as additional training, but your claims about its use and insurance rates dont stand up to any scrutiny.
First, the insurnace bit: the insurance rates for an SR22 are higher for your Cessna because an SR22 costs about 5-6 times what your cessna 172 does, has an engine with over twice the horsepower, and flies a hell of a lot faster. Plus, the SR20/22, the only aircraft with these included standard, are relatively new airframes, which always make rates higher.
Second: the "instructor idiot" bit. Let me ask you: do you also wear a seat belt / shoulder harness because your instructor was an idiot? Because, the first thing that must be said is that your assinine comment is no smarter than that of the idiots in the 50s who said that seat belts would only encourage reckless driving.
No? then let me ask you another question: when would a good pilot deploy the parachute? say, control system failure due to a control line being snagged at a pully or something? Hmm.. let's see.. no way for a pilot to check this during preflight. So according to your "explanation" this is to be blamed on maintenance. So basically what you're saying is that "we should not install safety devices in aircraft because this will encourage bad maintenance." That is beyond stupid.
Third, there is another MAJOR aspect to the BRS system - a lot of these planes are being bought by 60 year old doctors and lawyers. Doctors and lawywers who have heart attacks. While flying with their wives. 'Nuff said.
I'd write more, but you are a moron and it ain't worth it.
I don't see this being more practical in small planes than simply having individual passenger parachutes in small planes, and letting them bail.
Alas, you are simply ignorant on this matter.
I fly and teach in a Cirrus SR22 with a built in ballistic parachute. Frankly, if you look at the cost/benefit of such a system, it's wasted money - for the vast, vast, VAST bulk of SR20/22 pilots, the money would be much better spent on an additional, say, 160 hours of flight training.
However, there are many many situations where a balistic airplane parachute is a far better choice than an individual parachute.
One is an uncontrolled spin / structural failure situation. Now, mind you that the parachute is not strictly certified to open in all flight regimes, but, frankly, if your airplane starts breaking apart, you may well not be able to make it the door. This is why fighter pilots in WW2 often died despite wearing parachutes.
Two is aerodynamic design. The SR22 is very sleek. The way it is designed, it is damn near impossible to open the doors in flight (not that I've tried - I've done this plenty of times with cessnas and so forth), but since the SR22 is designed for speed and (considernig the speed) economy, making jump-outable doors would be neigh-on impossible.
Aircraft Survivability (at least the chance of) - at least one aircraft where the BRS has been deployed has flown again after not too extensive work. I dont know many bailed out of aircraft that can say the same.
Environmental survivability. These things are going to be pulled often over mountainous terrain. If you land with the airplane, not only do you have a shelter, but you have the survival junk you store in the back. Same can't be said for bailing out. Oh ya, and you're also close to the aircraft's Emergency Locator Transmitter for emergncy purposes.
Travelling Salesman (Santa) problem
on
Ho, Ho, Ho
·
· Score: 1
Go on then, determine the optimum Travelling Salesman problem for Santa Claus.
How do you know it's not the NFL that's screwing EA? For example, if hypothetically EA paid the NFL 100 billion dollars for the licensing rights, then one would argue that it was hardly the NFL's "buckling."
At the end of the day, the NFL was getting X money from EA and Y from others before the deal. the NFL decided that the deal that EA put on the table was worth more than X+Y or they wouldn't have gone for it. EA figures their additional revenues will make up for the additional licensing fees, but certainly they have no guarantee of this (at the very least, before people who bought BOTH games would contribute to both X and Y.. now at most they contribute to just X).
Maybe it wasn't that the NBA didn't "buckle".. maybe just the effective basketball monopoly that is the NBA decided that it could make more bucks without exclusivity.
The following is tongue in cheek. For those of you who need things spelled out very clearly for you: what I am doing in the following is making fun of the idiots on slashdot who try to advance stupid argumetns to justify their own theft/copyright infringement of intellectual property be it in the form of movies, games, music, whatever.
Let's play slashdot word games!
It's not theft--it's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. After all, he didn't deny AOL the right to use the addresses. A list of addresses is not that hard to make! Information must be free! Yadda yadda yadda!.
Say a politician wants to ban HOMEMADE NUCLEAR WEAPONS because they can be used to cause so much death and destruction. Someone wants a list of safe, legal applications for HOMEMADE NUCLEAR WEAPONS . Well, there's paperweight, counterweight, exercize equipment, "sphygmomanometer", etc.
Considering the abundance and usefulness of all the successful and purpose-built functionality HOMEMADE NUCLEAR WEAPONS have, would makes they make a damned fine counterweight for turning a cherry picker into a trebuchet really carry much weight? Probably not, and neither should the failure of Blizzard's awful BitTorrent implimentation.
I'm guessing that postage stamps are now or soon will be sold with built in identifiers that will allow their likely place of sale to be identified (if only by batch number, for example). This will legitimately help law enforcement with a large number of cases, not just high profile "unibomber" ones. While the tin foil hats may have a field day with that, I see it as legitimate.
That said, this does not seem to tbe point of such photo taking, as 30 days is probably an unreasonably short time to hold the photos for such purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the short version of the answer:
1. Ukraine has never been part of Russia, full stop. Ukraine has been at times part of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE, just as India has been part of the British Empire. Your ignorance of this fact doesn't make it any less true.
2. The term "Kievan Russia" is flat our wrong. By historical accident, the sounds of the words "Rus" (which is usually translated by scholars as "Ruthenia") and "Ros" of "Russia" are similar. However, the etymology is COMPLETELY different. Why then do people call it "Kievan Russia"? Two reasons - one, general ignorance. Two, Russia (or, as the Soviet Union, Czarist state, etc) has over the years involved in a SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN against Ukrainian nationalism. This compaign included: a. purposely confusing and conflating the terms kievan-rus and "Russia" to try to artificially create some common history bullshit story. b. systematically clamping down on ukrainian language and culture. consider how many of the top schools during communism were russian language only. At times under the Czars and Communists, Ukrainian was effectively outlawed and systematically marginalized as a 'peasant language.' This was deliberare. c. moving in Russian speakers into Ukraine while deporting / murdering nationalists.
even if you don't believe me on point a) (and if you do some further research on this matter, you will doubtlessly run into many dead ends which are the result of bad scholarship seeded by agenda'd individuals from the past), points b) and c) are obvious and fairly undenyable historical facts.
By the way, mr Dec 30 poster - the elections ARE over. Yanukovich's appeals are over, and Ukrainians have loudly and clearly said three words to Russia: STEP OFF, BITCH.
Incidentally, I am not Ukrainian, though I do employ a large number of Ukrainain citizens (who happen to be Russians, but Ukrainian citizens and proud of it, nevertheless).
Yes, beer cheaper in the UK. But I don't drink beer. And I'll gladly pay JPY 900 for a gin and tonic in a glass that's fills my hand and is nice and cold and crisp than pay GBP 3.00 for my duly measured 25mm mixed with tesco value tonic (or "britvic"--motto: "highest markups in history of any product anywhere") and maybe a solitary icecube from a warm thimble.
I'm comparing London to Tokyo, by the way. I'm sure you can get good value on the Northern English Inland Riviera somewhere and make good headway by sticking to Tesco Value items, but for real life that's not really the case.
Visit England and Iceland first if you want to see expensive.
/ lives in London, Lived in Japan 7 years, Originally from US east coast.
however, you are totally full of shit on point 2. First of all, there was never anything called "Kievan Russia" - there was something called "Kievan Rus", where Rus != Russia. I'm sure you know this already but were hoping that the readers of slashdot would not. The resulting monologue about how russia is not ukraine i'm sure you've heard a thousand times, but what's the point of repeating it to you, as by using a term like "Kievan Russia" you have already clearly indicated what your actual intention is.
By the way, mr "it's not going anywhere, at least during our lifetime." Catch that election the other day? Good luck with BaikalFinanceGroup, Moskal!
Remember: it's perfectly normal to find a coffee in moscow or raleigh-durham called "amazon." However, it's quite another thing when you name something that has defense and national import, like, say, your nuclear weapons.
I think it's a matter of perception really. In reality the names and governments have changed but not the people.
There's a lot of ignorance on slashdot, but what you wrote above is ignorant by slashdot ignorance standards.
Your post is so clueless, I don't know where to begin, but for one, Khruschev was a Ukrainian.
If it's a relic, then it's not Russian, it's Soviet. If you want to call it current then it could be Russia, but then there would be some irony, as the name DNEPR is the name of the most important river in Ukraine, which is (in case any of you were sleeping while recent news was transpiring), a completely different country (much to Russia's consternation). In fact, if the Russians haven't yet changed the name of the DNEPR system, it only goes to further evidence their thinly veiled ambitions on Ukraine.
And yet, slashdotters are routinely up in arms about fines being handed out to copyright infringers. We may all agree or disagree whether the amount of the fines is excessive or insufficient or whatever, but remember that the goal of such fines is to discourage illegal activity (and to repay the not insignificant cost of discovering and prosecuting the maldoers).
I'm happy for this guy who got somebody to stop selling his stuff, even though a prima facie the stuff looks like scummy spam-sending software. Alas, the guy who did it is not punished - he's still on the loose and will probably just do it again.
Because for my two month trip to Kerbleckistan, I'd rather a) not bring my laptop and b) not buy 40 1gig memory sticks at USD $300 or whatever the heck they cost for the journey despite wanting to take 40gig of photos.
That said, you haven't hit a nerve at all with me, and I could care less if you bash the Cirrus. I do it all the time. I think it's a nice plane to fly as long as you're flying on somebody else's dollar... and it does have plenty of faults. I was actually the first to discover a major navigation system bug that, frankly, put me off flying the thing in solid IFR for some itme. However, you really havent evidenced the claim that it is a poorly aerodynamically designed airplane at all. A crash rate could (and in this case can) be explained by other factors besides aerodynamic design, including build quality, pilot training, avionics issues, and so forth.
Do I know of any other airplane which can't recover from a spin without requiring a parachute? Actually, up until this statement, I would have taken you at face value. Now that you said that, I somewhat doubt your claimed flying experience. Try putting any twin into a spin and seeing how far you get without a parachute. Try putting most low-wing Pipers into a spin and see how far you get (you'll recover from most of the non T-tail ones, but you'll never do it again). Remember: the SR22 is PLACARDED AGAINST INTENTIONAL SPINS. It is not an aircraft that is meant to be jerked around with abrupt control maneuvers during slow flight, either. Getting into a spin in an aircraft placarded against intentional spins is gross ineptitude, full stop.
That said, one of the problems with the SR22 is that the sidestick makes it feel to pilots as if it were an aerobatic aircraft and so there is tendency of pilots who have time in stick aircraft to want to muck about with it. Knowing little else, I suggest that this may have been an issue in the accident you speak of.
By the way, neither is a 777 - and you'd hardly claim that it has a poor aerodynamic design!
Fair enough--but linked to the speed and complexity of the aircraft.
The DA40 has a 180hp engine and a 600 pound useful load. Apples and oranges. Yes, the accident rate doesn't help, but the original poster essentially claimed that it was because of the BRS system that the insurance is high, which is nonsense.
To claim that the SR22 has poor aerodynamic design is either actual ignorance, or the sort of ignorance that one aquires by hanging around on aviaiton message boards too long listening to self-proclaimed experts spout off. The parachute (when undeployed, obviously) does (next to) nothing to the SR22's flying characteristics.
But then again, what do I know.
/ 330+ hours SR22 instruction given // 7800 TT /// Gold Seal, Master CFI, ATP, EIEI-O
Sigh. SR22 has expensive insurance. SR22 has BRS. Therefore, BRS = expensive insurance.
= BULLSHIT.
The Sr22 insurance is expensive beacause it's a fast new airplane with a big engine being bought by low time pilots. The BRS has nothing to do with it.
/ I know what I am talking about.
I have given over 330 hours of SR22 instruction and have over 200 hours in cessna 182s. I know what I'm talking about. The SR22 is aerodynamically very clean and engine management is trivial. Landing speeds are similar. The only tricky bit is that the SR22 is faster in cruise and climb. I've transitioned 60 hour private pilot wonders from piper warriors to SR22s "takeoffs and landings" in a flight or two. Getting a feel for the avionics takes longer.
BULLSHIT!!!
I am a flight instructor. I also teach on the SR22 (340 hours SR22, 7800 total time).
I am *not* a big fan of the parachute--I don't think it's as cost effective as additional training, but your claims about its use and insurance rates dont stand up to any scrutiny.
First, the insurnace bit: the insurance rates for an SR22 are higher for your Cessna because an SR22 costs about 5-6 times what your cessna 172 does, has an engine with over twice the horsepower, and flies a hell of a lot faster. Plus, the SR20/22, the only aircraft with these included standard, are relatively new airframes, which always make rates higher.
Second: the "instructor idiot" bit. Let me ask you: do you also wear a seat belt / shoulder harness because your instructor was an idiot? Because, the first thing that must be said is that your assinine comment is no smarter than that of the idiots in the 50s who said that seat belts would only encourage reckless driving.
No? then let me ask you another question: when would a good pilot deploy the parachute? say, control system failure due to a control line being snagged at a pully or something? Hmm.. let's see.. no way for a pilot to check this during preflight. So according to your "explanation" this is to be blamed on maintenance. So basically what you're saying is that "we should not install safety devices in aircraft because this will encourage bad maintenance." That is beyond stupid.
Third, there is another MAJOR aspect to the BRS system - a lot of these planes are being bought by 60 year old doctors and lawyers. Doctors and lawywers who have heart attacks. While flying with their wives. 'Nuff said.
I'd write more, but you are a moron and it ain't worth it.
Alas, you are simply ignorant on this matter.
I fly and teach in a Cirrus SR22 with a built in ballistic parachute. Frankly, if you look at the cost/benefit of such a system, it's wasted money - for the vast, vast, VAST bulk of SR20/22 pilots, the money would be much better spent on an additional, say, 160 hours of flight training.
However, there are many many situations where a balistic airplane parachute is a far better choice than an individual parachute.
One is an uncontrolled spin / structural failure situation. Now, mind you that the parachute is not strictly certified to open in all flight regimes, but, frankly, if your airplane starts breaking apart, you may well not be able to make it the door. This is why fighter pilots in WW2 often died despite wearing parachutes.
Two is aerodynamic design. The SR22 is very sleek. The way it is designed, it is damn near impossible to open the doors in flight (not that I've tried - I've done this plenty of times with cessnas and so forth), but since the SR22 is designed for speed and (considernig the speed) economy, making jump-outable doors would be neigh-on impossible.
Aircraft Survivability (at least the chance of) - at least one aircraft where the BRS has been deployed has flown again after not too extensive work. I dont know many bailed out of aircraft that can say the same.
Environmental survivability. These things are going to be pulled often over mountainous terrain. If you land with the airplane, not only do you have a shelter, but you have the survival junk you store in the back. Same can't be said for bailing out. Oh ya, and you're also close to the aircraft's Emergency Locator Transmitter for emergncy purposes.
Go on then, determine the optimum Travelling Salesman problem for Santa Claus.
At the end of the day, the NFL was getting X money from EA and Y from others before the deal. the NFL decided that the deal that EA put on the table was worth more than X+Y or they wouldn't have gone for it. EA figures their additional revenues will make up for the additional licensing fees, but certainly they have no guarantee of this (at the very least, before people who bought BOTH games would contribute to both X and Y.. now at most they contribute to just X).
Maybe it wasn't that the NBA didn't "buckle".. maybe just the effective basketball monopoly that is the NBA decided that it could make more bucks without exclusivity.
If you call that "civil disobedience" then you are ignorant beyond words.
Let's play slashdot word games!
It's not theft--it's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. After all, he didn't deny AOL the right to use the addresses. A list of addresses is not that hard to make! Information must be free! Yadda yadda yadda!.
Computer guys prove yet again that shortsighted and selfish thinking is not exclusive to lawyers and MBAs.
Don't act shocked. There is a world beyond slashdot, you know.
Considering the abundance and usefulness of all the successful and purpose-built functionality HOMEMADE NUCLEAR WEAPONS have, would makes they make a damned fine counterweight for turning a cherry picker into a trebuchet really carry much weight? Probably not, and neither should the failure of Blizzard's awful BitTorrent implimentation.
Yay real world analogies.
That said, this does not seem to tbe point of such photo taking, as 30 days is probably an unreasonably short time to hold the photos for such purposes.