that's why you evac. and who cares about trophy mansions in the forest?
And when there's a fire in a city, just evac and let it burn. Who cares about trophy mansions in a city?
How about "the people who live in them, and have paid their money to build them?" When did a house in a wooded area become a "trophy mansion"? A lot of the houses out in the woods are lived in by people who don't have a lot of money and have moved away from the cities because they prefer a different lifestyle. They're hardly "mansions". Sometimes they're barely livable by most people's standards. Sometimes it's an old mobile home. Sometimes it's not even that.
But it is someone's home. And their children live there. What arrogance to ask "who cares".
If they deleted it from their drafts folder, I would expect it to be clobbered from the backup system after the expired time
What is the "expired time"? Is there an RFC that defines this term?
simply because it is only in backed up files of the entire email database.
Drafts are not email, and are not necessarily in the "email database". I've written plenty of drafts that really are "just files", imported to the email client later.
So...it is in a separate database just for drafts (or all non-sent, non-received data)?
You mean, like, "files"? I think people want their files backed up. Yes, I'm pretty sure that most people would be unhappy were the server to crash and their files are all lost.
So it must be verified at the server end too, anyhow.
Most people are not going to know how to modify the javascript, and it isn't trivial anyway. The code isn't verifying the address, it is validating the syntax. You can't verify an address without actually trying to send to it.
It's not for the sender to decide what's valid.
If you can properly manage RFC5322, there is no reason not to flag invalid syntax as soon as possible. The failure is people who ignore the standards, or are working in a job where knowledge of the standards is critical and they just don't care.
In those cases, I have always wondered why the devs try to do this in the first place. In almost all cases, you can ask the e-mail server whether it's a valid address.
The web page designers are pushing the test onto the client so 1) there is immediate response as the user types it in and he can fix it if it truly is a mistake before moving on, and 2) it puts the computation onto the client and doesn't waste a PUT and their server's time with what may be invalid data.
I've looked at the javascript source for this on several pages. It's all the same. And I've given the correct code to at least one site, telling them "add the following lines". It's a virus coming from somewhere that they are copying and assuming it must be right and their customer (who has done this kind of thing for more than two decades) must be wrong.
It can't be pushed onto a mail server, because the javascript has no standard way of asking one. There is no way to even guarantee that the client system is running a mail server to ask.
It's not doing the routing or delivery and has no business telling anyone what's valid e-mail or not.
I have had lengthy email exchanges with the support people at such websites, and it is always fun for them to tell me that "+" is not a valid character in an email address when they are happily conversing with someone who has a "+" in his email address. Obviously it is valid; obviously they are idiots.
It's generally done by some dead-end user that CC's instead of BCC's
You should be aware that BCC is not a guarantee that others will not see addresses. RFC5322 says: " The "Bcc:" field (where the "Bcc" means "Blind Carbon Copy") contains
addresses of recipients of the message whose addresses are not to be
revealed to other recipients of the message." This SOUNDS like it should be safe to use for sending messages to a lot of people without anyone knowing who else got it, but it isn't. RFC5322 talks about three common ways that mail systems deal with BCC, and says:
In the second
case, recipients specified in the "To:" and "Cc:" lines each are sent
a copy of the message with the "Bcc:" line removed as above, but the
recipients on the "Bcc:" line get a separate copy of the message
containing a "Bcc:" line. (When there are multiple recipient
addresses in the "Bcc:" field, some implementations actually send a
separate copy of the message to each recipient with a "Bcc:"
containing only the address of that particular recipient.)
The last sentence implies that some mail systems contain the full BCC line in copies sent to those BCC addresses. (Only "some" create individual BCC lines.) It does not use the mandates of "MUST" or "MUST NOT", so conforming implementations can actually show you, as a BCC recipient, the entire list of other BCC recipients. And I've seen that behaviour.
This is one of those areas where people assume the standards say one thing but actually don't. Like idiot web page designers who think they know the list of acceptable characters in an email address and yet they prohibit "+".
I'd say a draft is an email that just hasn't been sent yet.
Drafts do not need to meet any of the standards for Internet messaging, and therefore are not "email". They might contain enough header information to meet the standard, but they don't have to, and many of the drafts I've written certainly do not.
would you argue that what I wrote isn't actually a letter because it's still sitting on my desk?
Would you argue that the federal laws regarding US Mail attach to a piece of paper that you are thinking about maybe someday sending through the US Mail system? I.e., yes, I would say that your piece of paper is not yet mail because it has no stamp, has no address, and hasn't been deposited into a mailbox for sending.
Every sent and received email is also "just a file,"
No, it may be saved in a file, but it is also email. "Just" is an important word here. It conveys the concept of "only". How they are stored is irrelevant when determining "email" status. Your system may save all email as files, but that does not make all files email.
If you give your email to a data broker company such as Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, LinkedIn, or whoever... then they have it.
Or even your local Mom and Pop ISP. My ISP decided to outsource email to Google. The day they did that, email I had deleted THREE YEARS PRIOR showed up again.
There is simply no more excuse for not having even the most basic comprehension of how it works.
Of course there is. Because of Eternal September there is a huge number of people who are using at tool without the need or desire to know how it works under the hood. And that analogy is deliberate, both because of the slashdot car meme and the fact that the vast majority of people who use automobiles have no clue how they work under the hood.
Yahoo says this is impossible, then Yahoo does what they claimed was impossible.
It wasn't an email, it was a draft of what could have become an email. As such, it was just a file.
One word: backup. I have tapes on the shelf of files from a decade or more ago. Long deleted from the computer. Still recoverable.
Especially if I was innocent and Yahoo faked emails
It wasn't an email. And there appears (at least in TFS) to be any claim it was faked. In fact, "the means by which Yahoo recovered the emails in question" wouldn't be "recovered email" if they simply faked a file.
Once you hand your files, any files, over to a second party, you have to know that you have lost control of them. And if you expect them to be able to recover your files from a hardware or software failure, then you KNOW they have copies of them in safe places that you don't have direct access to.
I'm in an Indian call center returning your call to my employer who has a US-based customer support number.
Too many idiots ignore the explicit telephone number they are told to call and simply use the caller ID as the callback. Do you think corporations who are trying to honestly provide good customer service should be forced to provide an international callback number? Will it be better for those who are trying to resolve a product issue to wind up calling an expensive international number if the call from customer support drops for some reason and they "call back"?
Remove the 31-day wait when a number is added (Seriously, WTF? I'm not buying a gun here. I don't need a cooling-off period.)
The 30 day wait is not for you. It's to keep the system from being overly onerous for legitimate users. You can't make the addition effective immediately because that forces the people you WANT to use the list to look at it every five minutes or so. There has to be some time delay between being added to the list the government manages and it being used by the callers to filter their lists. You can argue that 31 days is too long and that ten days is better, but you can't call for the removal of any wait.
And crank up the penalties for violations such that it will hurt even a SuperPAC... maybe add in some criminal penalties too.
Robocallers are ignoring laws against credit card fraud, unauthorized computer access ("your computer has a virus, type the following command..."), and other federal crimes. They're already ignoring laws regarding the DNC list. What new law would they suddenly decide to honor when their entire operation is a violation of many other laws already?
Unfortunately, there are valid reasons for "faked" caller IDs. A company that has 100 outgoing lines will want to put the main incoming number on all the outgoing lines so any morons who use the caller ID to return the call will be directed to the right place. A shelter may want to use a faked caller ID so that calls will get past any "anonymous" blocking but not give out the fact that the call is coming from a battered woman's shelter, for example.
if legit companies were required to prove that their contractors followed ALL laws (with epic fines for violations) then these boiler room companies would go "POOF".
How would they prove that? You can only prove when they DON'T. And most of the time, you can't prove they are breaking the law because you can't identify who it is that is breaking the law. Either the predictive dialer dumps the call after you've answered and you have no information about the call (other than the faked called ID), or you get a recorded message with no information about the caller, or you "press 3" to talk to someone who refuses to identify who they actually work for.
For those who think it's huge amounts of fun to waste the time of the scammer by talking to him, just remember that when he finally disconnects he's pressing the "contact failed" button that puts your number back into the system for another call and you get to talk to him again. He gets paid, you don't, you lose.
Yes, there are a few morons who use such tactics as part of their real marketing operations, but by doing so they leave the realm of "legit". The number of truly legit operations is already very small, so making every one of the legit ones go "poof" will do nothing to solve the problem. And that ignores the issue of the loopholes that still allow robocalling for some users.
It's kinda like putting more gun control laws in place. The law abiding gun owners are already obeying the law and the criminals just ignore them. "One more law" isn't a solution there, and it won't be a solution to robocalling.
...and who doesn't even know what commerce is? "Commercially owned" != "commercial."
Commercially owned and operated aircraft are civil aviation. It doesn't matter how much money Facebook is making by flying that UAS. The question wasn't begged, it was answered straight up. It's the "microwave in a break room" nonsense that is the problem, and that was answered directly, too.
There's three classes of regulation. If it ain't hobby, and it ain't public, guess what that leaves?
Military aircraft are owned by the US Government. Aircraft owned by the US Government are not commercial aircraft. They are public. What citation do you need to tell you that simple fact? Here, I'll google it for you, and spell it out.
This is just one cite. It took five seconds by googling "public aircraft definition". (And before you put another foot in it, "commercial" is one kind of "civil" aviation, which is what the FAA refers to.)
I guess according to you, the people in the US Army at Yuma don't know how to run their own facility.
Now you are being stupid, because you know I didn't say that. I replied to your asinine claim that FAA has no control over MOA. Quote from you: "The FAA does not control airspace in military operating areas (MOAs), which Yuma is one of. " That's ridiculous.
Your "cite" is called the FAR -- Federal Aviation Regulations, and the Aeronautical Information Manual. For example, AIM 3-4-5, Military Operations Areas: "a.
MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical
and lateral limits established for the purpose of
separating certain military training activities from
IFR traffic." IF, as you ignorantly claim, FAA has no regulatory authority over a MOA, there could be no IFR (or VFR) traffic therein. It would be (and is, according to you) uncontrolled. A civil aircraft could simply wander about the MOA in IMC as they desired because FAA has no authority to control them there.
Before you start to yammer that the military has regulatory control over MOA, consider AIM 3-4-5 (c): "Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots
should contact the controlling agency for traffic
advisories." Notice that it does not say they MUST contact someone for permission to enter, it says they SHOULD (recommended) contact the "controlling agency" (which is an FAA facility, usually the encompassing center), for traffic advisories.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and SS91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) have nothing to do with military (public) aircraft, and (a) does not exempt public aircraft. It refers only to "aircraft". The word "military" appears 11 times in 14CFR91, none in the context of "MOA" or exclusion of certain special use airspace from FAA regulation. There are specific exemptions from certain FAA regulations for military aircraft in 14CFR91, but no blanket one that would remove MOA from FAA controlled airspace.
You have no clue about FAA regulations or authority, so please stop. Yes, Yuma has authorizations to operate UAS, but that does not remove FAA control from that MOA. MOA are not isolated from controlled airspace in any way -- they are non-regulatory and have no different rules than the airspace they are a part of.
So, when a Facebook employee microwaves their lunch at work, Facebook becomes subject to the regulations which apply to commercial restaurants?
Don't be stupid. Nothing in the law defines a microwave in a break room as "commercial restaurant."
Operating a commercially owned aircraft in the US airspace requires adherence to FAA regulations. Something with a wingspan on the order of a 747 isn't a hobby aircraft, and until Facebook becomes a government agency it's not public. That leaves one category of rules to follow.
So, if it's a research aircraft which has no current role in the exchange of goods/services/money, what makes it commercial?
It is owned and operated by a commercial venture.
It's not a public aircraft. It's not being operated for "hobby", and it is much larger than the hobby rules permit. It is much larger than the part 107 rules will allow. It requires either a 333 or COA.
The easiest solution was for Facebook to hire out the "research" to one of the many true research facilities who already have COA or 333 to cover them.
Yes, "my in-laws turned their cellphone off to save battery" is a bit different than "they turned their cellphone off because they were axe murderers." It sounds like it shouldn't have been annoying at all to you that they were unreachable; it was a Good Thing.
It was more that they expected us to answer our cell phones when they needed us
Because you are using your phone as a way for everyone to contact you. Pity they expected you to use the phone in the way you were trying to use it.
but left their phones off so they couldn't be reached if they were needed.
Previously you told us they left it off to conserve battery. Which is it? They were deliberately trying to duck your calls, or they wanted the phone to be usable when they needed it, without having to worry about charging it every day?
If they're turning the mobile off, then it's a pretty good bet they have a landline that they expect people to call them on. Just guessing. That's how I expect people to contact me. And that's how my mother used to use her cell phone. It was there for HER to make calls when in need, and people who wanted to talk to her called the POTS line with the answering machine. I don't recall anyone being pissed that she was trying to duck their calls because the cell was for her convenience and not theirs. I certainly didn't care that I couldn't call her wherever she was at any moment of the day or night. I was much happier that she had a phone that she could forget to hook up to a charger every time she got home and forget to pick up on the way out the door when she left, instead leaving it in her purse for emergencies.
and it helped me make the case that my wife's parents where just users of us
You wanted to prove the result, and thus assumed the motives that would make you a winner of that argument.
It was damn annoying since it made the phone only useful for them.
Unless you were paying for your in-law's phone, I bet they didn't care that it wasn't useful for you. Why should they? I know I don't pay that much money to make other people's lives more convenient. They can pay for their own phones.
Congratulations on failing to notice - or deliberately ignoring - that my first sentence answered your facetious response to my second.
I said you had to consider the collection system, not just propose an unworkable one. No, taxes will not be able to keep up with UBI. Others have already admitted that "the vast majority" will see their taxes go up at least as much as their UBI payments would be. To make that statement true, that means that people who pay zero income tax today will be handling ALL of their UBI back to the government as taxes. ALL of it. And people who do pay taxes today will pay MORE than their UBI.
So, what does UBI accomplish? Nothing really. Nothing that a more targeted welfare system cannot achieve for less money.
Because I see a lot of selfish and/or ignorant assholes in this thread who are all too happy to bash UBI and claim society can't support it without even explaining why,
You have yet to explain why it can be supported, and I've been pretty clear in saying that taxes cannot do so. That's why it won't work. Why will it work? Where will the free money come from?
but what I'm not seeing is anyone with a better idea
So you think that nobody can show you the obvious failure modes in your proposals unless they come up with an even more hairbrained scheme that what you support? Sorry. When something is as bad for everyone as UBI is, it doesn't require anything but pointing out the bad assumptions to deal with it.
but your own self-entitlement, confirmation bias and tunnel vision are neither appreciated nor desired.
You mean the tunnel vision of those who keep claiming that UBI is a panacea without considering the damage it will do to everyone? Is that the tunnel vision you are complaining about?
I firmly believe we cannot have a significant UBI and a high minimum wage.
And I firmly believe that we cannot have a sustainable, successful UBI. So it is pretty clear that "I firmly believe" isn't a valid arguing point. The question is, why would we expect minimum wage to go down instead of remain where it is headed now? There is no reason to expect it to drop.
UBI is partially a replacement of the minimum wage and can probably only work with a drastic reduction of our current minimum wage.
Unions and "working people" will never accept a drop in the minimum wage. Once there is an entitlement, it is an entitlement in their minds. And then they seek the next entitlement to go with that one. Like we're now seeing people think they are entitled to a permanent universal income from the government just because they are alive and consuming oxygen.
What you've just admitted is that UBI cannot work. "It can only work if" something that will never happen, happens.
As I said in my original comment, the vast majority of people receiving UBI would have their taxes raised by an amount equal to or greater than their UBI payments.
So you admit it will be a loss for the vast majority of people today. And no, it cannot be "a vast majority", because there is no "vast majority" who pay taxes. Only 50% of households pay income taxes. That's because 50% have a low AGI. Are you admitting that a large number of people who pay no taxes today will be paying more than $10k in taxes when they are handed $10k per year?
Other than to use more inflammatory language what was the purpose of typing this?
There was nothing inflammatory in what I wrote. I asked a question. Where does all this free money come from?
Slashdot Mirror
that's why you evac. and who cares about trophy mansions in the forest?
And when there's a fire in a city, just evac and let it burn. Who cares about trophy mansions in a city?
How about "the people who live in them, and have paid their money to build them?" When did a house in a wooded area become a "trophy mansion"? A lot of the houses out in the woods are lived in by people who don't have a lot of money and have moved away from the cities because they prefer a different lifestyle. They're hardly "mansions". Sometimes they're barely livable by most people's standards. Sometimes it's an old mobile home. Sometimes it's not even that.
But it is someone's home. And their children live there. What arrogance to ask "who cares".
If they deleted it from their drafts folder, I would expect it to be clobbered from the backup system after the expired time
What is the "expired time"? Is there an RFC that defines this term?
simply because it is only in backed up files of the entire email database.
Drafts are not email, and are not necessarily in the "email database". I've written plenty of drafts that really are "just files", imported to the email client later.
So...it is in a separate database just for drafts (or all non-sent, non-received data)?
You mean, like, "files"? I think people want their files backed up. Yes, I'm pretty sure that most people would be unhappy were the server to crash and their files are all lost.
So it must be verified at the server end too, anyhow.
Most people are not going to know how to modify the javascript, and it isn't trivial anyway. The code isn't verifying the address, it is validating the syntax. You can't verify an address without actually trying to send to it.
It's not for the sender to decide what's valid.
If you can properly manage RFC5322, there is no reason not to flag invalid syntax as soon as possible. The failure is people who ignore the standards, or are working in a job where knowledge of the standards is critical and they just don't care.
In those cases, I have always wondered why the devs try to do this in the first place. In almost all cases, you can ask the e-mail server whether it's a valid address.
The web page designers are pushing the test onto the client so 1) there is immediate response as the user types it in and he can fix it if it truly is a mistake before moving on, and 2) it puts the computation onto the client and doesn't waste a PUT and their server's time with what may be invalid data.
I've looked at the javascript source for this on several pages. It's all the same. And I've given the correct code to at least one site, telling them "add the following lines". It's a virus coming from somewhere that they are copying and assuming it must be right and their customer (who has done this kind of thing for more than two decades) must be wrong.
It can't be pushed onto a mail server, because the javascript has no standard way of asking one. There is no way to even guarantee that the client system is running a mail server to ask.
It's not doing the routing or delivery and has no business telling anyone what's valid e-mail or not.
I have had lengthy email exchanges with the support people at such websites, and it is always fun for them to tell me that "+" is not a valid character in an email address when they are happily conversing with someone who has a "+" in his email address. Obviously it is valid; obviously they are idiots.
It's generally done by some dead-end user that CC's instead of BCC's
You should be aware that BCC is not a guarantee that others will not see addresses. RFC5322 says: " The "Bcc:" field (where the "Bcc" means "Blind Carbon Copy") contains addresses of recipients of the message whose addresses are not to be revealed to other recipients of the message." This SOUNDS like it should be safe to use for sending messages to a lot of people without anyone knowing who else got it, but it isn't. RFC5322 talks about three common ways that mail systems deal with BCC, and says:
The last sentence implies that some mail systems contain the full BCC line in copies sent to those BCC addresses. (Only "some" create individual BCC lines.) It does not use the mandates of "MUST" or "MUST NOT", so conforming implementations can actually show you, as a BCC recipient, the entire list of other BCC recipients. And I've seen that behaviour.
This is one of those areas where people assume the standards say one thing but actually don't. Like idiot web page designers who think they know the list of acceptable characters in an email address and yet they prohibit "+".
I'd say a draft is an email that just hasn't been sent yet.
Drafts do not need to meet any of the standards for Internet messaging, and therefore are not "email". They might contain enough header information to meet the standard, but they don't have to, and many of the drafts I've written certainly do not.
would you argue that what I wrote isn't actually a letter because it's still sitting on my desk?
Would you argue that the federal laws regarding US Mail attach to a piece of paper that you are thinking about maybe someday sending through the US Mail system? I.e., yes, I would say that your piece of paper is not yet mail because it has no stamp, has no address, and hasn't been deposited into a mailbox for sending.
Every sent and received email is also "just a file,"
No, it may be saved in a file, but it is also email. "Just" is an important word here. It conveys the concept of "only". How they are stored is irrelevant when determining "email" status. Your system may save all email as files, but that does not make all files email.
If you give your email to a data broker company such as Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, LinkedIn, or whoever... then they have it.
Or even your local Mom and Pop ISP. My ISP decided to outsource email to Google. The day they did that, email I had deleted THREE YEARS PRIOR showed up again.
There is simply no more excuse for not having even the most basic comprehension of how it works.
Of course there is. Because of Eternal September there is a huge number of people who are using at tool without the need or desire to know how it works under the hood. And that analogy is deliberate, both because of the slashdot car meme and the fact that the vast majority of people who use automobiles have no clue how they work under the hood.
Yahoo says this is impossible, then Yahoo does what they claimed was impossible.
It wasn't an email, it was a draft of what could have become an email. As such, it was just a file.
One word: backup. I have tapes on the shelf of files from a decade or more ago. Long deleted from the computer. Still recoverable.
Especially if I was innocent and Yahoo faked emails
It wasn't an email. And there appears (at least in TFS) to be any claim it was faked. In fact, "the means by which Yahoo recovered the emails in question" wouldn't be "recovered email" if they simply faked a file.
Once you hand your files, any files, over to a second party, you have to know that you have lost control of them. And if you expect them to be able to recover your files from a hardware or software failure, then you KNOW they have copies of them in safe places that you don't have direct access to.
Too many idiots ignore the explicit telephone number they are told to call and simply use the caller ID as the callback. Do you think corporations who are trying to honestly provide good customer service should be forced to provide an international callback number? Will it be better for those who are trying to resolve a product issue to wind up calling an expensive international number if the call from customer support drops for some reason and they "call back"?
How about some variation on holding the telephone company responsible for the falsified CallerID information?
I, for one, welcome US regulation of my telephone company. Will you be sending in the SEALS, or just a predator with a warhead, to enforce your rules?
Signed, N'gtanga Achmed G'wan N'try, CEO, Big Angolan Telephone Exchange And Coffe Shop, LTD.
Remove the 31-day wait when a number is added (Seriously, WTF? I'm not buying a gun here. I don't need a cooling-off period.)
The 30 day wait is not for you. It's to keep the system from being overly onerous for legitimate users. You can't make the addition effective immediately because that forces the people you WANT to use the list to look at it every five minutes or so. There has to be some time delay between being added to the list the government manages and it being used by the callers to filter their lists. You can argue that 31 days is too long and that ten days is better, but you can't call for the removal of any wait.
And crank up the penalties for violations such that it will hurt even a SuperPAC... maybe add in some criminal penalties too.
Robocallers are ignoring laws against credit card fraud, unauthorized computer access ("your computer has a virus, type the following command..."), and other federal crimes. They're already ignoring laws regarding the DNC list. What new law would they suddenly decide to honor when their entire operation is a violation of many other laws already?
Unfortunately, there are valid reasons for "faked" caller IDs. A company that has 100 outgoing lines will want to put the main incoming number on all the outgoing lines so any morons who use the caller ID to return the call will be directed to the right place. A shelter may want to use a faked caller ID so that calls will get past any "anonymous" blocking but not give out the fact that the call is coming from a battered woman's shelter, for example.
if legit companies were required to prove that their contractors followed ALL laws (with epic fines for violations) then these boiler room companies would go "POOF".
How would they prove that? You can only prove when they DON'T. And most of the time, you can't prove they are breaking the law because you can't identify who it is that is breaking the law. Either the predictive dialer dumps the call after you've answered and you have no information about the call (other than the faked called ID), or you get a recorded message with no information about the caller, or you "press 3" to talk to someone who refuses to identify who they actually work for.
For those who think it's huge amounts of fun to waste the time of the scammer by talking to him, just remember that when he finally disconnects he's pressing the "contact failed" button that puts your number back into the system for another call and you get to talk to him again. He gets paid, you don't, you lose.
Yes, there are a few morons who use such tactics as part of their real marketing operations, but by doing so they leave the realm of "legit". The number of truly legit operations is already very small, so making every one of the legit ones go "poof" will do nothing to solve the problem. And that ignores the issue of the loopholes that still allow robocalling for some users.
It's kinda like putting more gun control laws in place. The law abiding gun owners are already obeying the law and the criminals just ignore them. "One more law" isn't a solution there, and it won't be a solution to robocalling.
...and who doesn't even know what commerce is? "Commercially owned" != "commercial."
Commercially owned and operated aircraft are civil aviation. It doesn't matter how much money Facebook is making by flying that UAS. The question wasn't begged, it was answered straight up. It's the "microwave in a break room" nonsense that is the problem, and that was answered directly, too.
There's three classes of regulation. If it ain't hobby, and it ain't public, guess what that leaves?
I guess according to you, the people in the US Army at Yuma don't know how to run their own facility.
Now you are being stupid, because you know I didn't say that. I replied to your asinine claim that FAA has no control over MOA. Quote from you: "The FAA does not control airspace in military operating areas (MOAs), which Yuma is one of. " That's ridiculous.
Your "cite" is called the FAR -- Federal Aviation Regulations, and the Aeronautical Information Manual. For example, AIM 3-4-5, Military Operations Areas: "a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR traffic." IF, as you ignorantly claim, FAA has no regulatory authority over a MOA, there could be no IFR (or VFR) traffic therein. It would be (and is, according to you) uncontrolled. A civil aircraft could simply wander about the MOA in IMC as they desired because FAA has no authority to control them there.
Before you start to yammer that the military has regulatory control over MOA, consider AIM 3-4-5 (c): "Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic advisories." Notice that it does not say they MUST contact someone for permission to enter, it says they SHOULD (recommended) contact the "controlling agency" (which is an FAA facility, usually the encompassing center), for traffic advisories.
Further, FAR 91.1 says, in part:
Paragraphs (b) and (c) have nothing to do with military (public) aircraft, and (a) does not exempt public aircraft. It refers only to "aircraft". The word "military" appears 11 times in 14CFR91, none in the context of "MOA" or exclusion of certain special use airspace from FAA regulation. There are specific exemptions from certain FAA regulations for military aircraft in 14CFR91, but no blanket one that would remove MOA from FAA controlled airspace.
You have no clue about FAA regulations or authority, so please stop. Yes, Yuma has authorizations to operate UAS, but that does not remove FAA control from that MOA. MOA are not isolated from controlled airspace in any way -- they are non-regulatory and have no different rules than the airspace they are a part of.
Operating a commercially owned aircraft in the US airspace requires adherence to FAA regulations.
Actually, no, it does not. Military aircraft are not subject to FAA regulations in any way.
Military aircraft are not commercially owned. Read all the words.
The FAA does not control airspace in military operating areas (MOAs), which Yuma is one of.
You are wrong.
So, when a Facebook employee microwaves their lunch at work, Facebook becomes subject to the regulations which apply to commercial restaurants?
Don't be stupid. Nothing in the law defines a microwave in a break room as "commercial restaurant."
Operating a commercially owned aircraft in the US airspace requires adherence to FAA regulations. Something with a wingspan on the order of a 747 isn't a hobby aircraft, and until Facebook becomes a government agency it's not public. That leaves one category of rules to follow.
So, if it's a research aircraft which has no current role in the exchange of goods/services/money, what makes it commercial?
It is owned and operated by a commercial venture.
It's not a public aircraft. It's not being operated for "hobby", and it is much larger than the hobby rules permit. It is much larger than the part 107 rules will allow. It requires either a 333 or COA.
The easiest solution was for Facebook to hire out the "research" to one of the many true research facilities who already have COA or 333 to cover them.
Yes, "my in-laws turned their cellphone off to save battery" is a bit different than "they turned their cellphone off because they were axe murderers." It sounds like it shouldn't have been annoying at all to you that they were unreachable; it was a Good Thing.
It was more that they expected us to answer our cell phones when they needed us
Because you are using your phone as a way for everyone to contact you. Pity they expected you to use the phone in the way you were trying to use it.
but left their phones off so they couldn't be reached if they were needed.
Previously you told us they left it off to conserve battery. Which is it? They were deliberately trying to duck your calls, or they wanted the phone to be usable when they needed it, without having to worry about charging it every day?
If they're turning the mobile off, then it's a pretty good bet they have a landline that they expect people to call them on. Just guessing. That's how I expect people to contact me. And that's how my mother used to use her cell phone. It was there for HER to make calls when in need, and people who wanted to talk to her called the POTS line with the answering machine. I don't recall anyone being pissed that she was trying to duck their calls because the cell was for her convenience and not theirs. I certainly didn't care that I couldn't call her wherever she was at any moment of the day or night. I was much happier that she had a phone that she could forget to hook up to a charger every time she got home and forget to pick up on the way out the door when she left, instead leaving it in her purse for emergencies.
and it helped me make the case that my wife's parents where just users of us
You wanted to prove the result, and thus assumed the motives that would make you a winner of that argument.
As I posted below, it helped us weed them out of our lives.
No, it was a convenient excuse for "weed[ing] them out", but I doubt they bought the phone for that reason.
You couldn't have called them on their landline phone, of course.
It was damn annoying since it made the phone only useful for them.
Unless you were paying for your in-law's phone, I bet they didn't care that it wasn't useful for you. Why should they? I know I don't pay that much money to make other people's lives more convenient. They can pay for their own phones.
Inside fiber, it is pretty harmless.
Perhaps you missed the fact that this system is intended for wireless (i.e. fiberless, too) data transmission.
Congratulations on failing to notice - or deliberately ignoring - that my first sentence answered your facetious response to my second.
I said you had to consider the collection system, not just propose an unworkable one. No, taxes will not be able to keep up with UBI. Others have already admitted that "the vast majority" will see their taxes go up at least as much as their UBI payments would be. To make that statement true, that means that people who pay zero income tax today will be handling ALL of their UBI back to the government as taxes. ALL of it. And people who do pay taxes today will pay MORE than their UBI.
So, what does UBI accomplish? Nothing really. Nothing that a more targeted welfare system cannot achieve for less money.
Because I see a lot of selfish and/or ignorant assholes in this thread who are all too happy to bash UBI and claim society can't support it without even explaining why,
You have yet to explain why it can be supported, and I've been pretty clear in saying that taxes cannot do so. That's why it won't work. Why will it work? Where will the free money come from?
but what I'm not seeing is anyone with a better idea
So you think that nobody can show you the obvious failure modes in your proposals unless they come up with an even more hairbrained scheme that what you support? Sorry. When something is as bad for everyone as UBI is, it doesn't require anything but pointing out the bad assumptions to deal with it.
but your own self-entitlement, confirmation bias and tunnel vision are neither appreciated nor desired.
You mean the tunnel vision of those who keep claiming that UBI is a panacea without considering the damage it will do to everyone? Is that the tunnel vision you are complaining about?
I firmly believe we cannot have a significant UBI and a high minimum wage.
And I firmly believe that we cannot have a sustainable, successful UBI. So it is pretty clear that "I firmly believe" isn't a valid arguing point. The question is, why would we expect minimum wage to go down instead of remain where it is headed now? There is no reason to expect it to drop.
UBI is partially a replacement of the minimum wage and can probably only work with a drastic reduction of our current minimum wage.
Unions and "working people" will never accept a drop in the minimum wage. Once there is an entitlement, it is an entitlement in their minds. And then they seek the next entitlement to go with that one. Like we're now seeing people think they are entitled to a permanent universal income from the government just because they are alive and consuming oxygen.
What you've just admitted is that UBI cannot work. "It can only work if" something that will never happen, happens.
As I said in my original comment, the vast majority of people receiving UBI would have their taxes raised by an amount equal to or greater than their UBI payments.
So you admit it will be a loss for the vast majority of people today. And no, it cannot be "a vast majority", because there is no "vast majority" who pay taxes. Only 50% of households pay income taxes. That's because 50% have a low AGI. Are you admitting that a large number of people who pay no taxes today will be paying more than $10k in taxes when they are handed $10k per year?
Other than to use more inflammatory language what was the purpose of typing this?
There was nothing inflammatory in what I wrote. I asked a question. Where does all this free money come from?