Okay, so why not just charge more for the fuel, no tracking required whatsoever.
Because the owners of gas-guzzlers are ALREADY paying more for fuel. The inherent value of the fuel does not change depending on how much it takes to go from A to B, but they use more to do that so they PAY more. And they pay more in gas taxes so they pay a disproportionate amount of the road maintenance fees.
Anyone pushing for more active, GPS-based tracking has zero legitimate interest in allocating costs and every interest in having a readily available record of citizens' every movement.
You know, I had a hard time convincing an engineer working on such a project that tracking people was going to be a natural use of her efforts. She just didn't believe it could happen. "But they won't collect..." Sure. They HAVE to collect so they can implement time/location based surcharges.
But then, people pushing for gasoline to cost more for people with less efficient cars are not interested in allocating costs, because the costs are already being allocated based on usage. They want some people to subsidize others, and to coerce other people to do what they want them to because they cannot convince them with reason.
Because when I asked you why you referred to a closed-book test as "timed memorization" and what made you automatically assume it was, you answered by telling me that timed memorization tests don't have to be closed book. "All closed-book is timed memorization" is not the same as "all timed memorization is not closed book".
Perhaps my mistake was assuming that your answer was relevant to the question I asked?
And don't be dishonest. You use things you had to memorize in school every day. You didn't have to learn how to breath by going to school and taking a test.
I have a question for you: Did you ever find yourself stuck in a closed room for 90 minutes where your future career depended
Don't be dishonest. I've also never been stuck in a room for 90 minutes taking a test where my future career depended on knowing a two letter command. and I doubt that you have been. If so, you should have picked a better career.
Also closed book exams do not test understanding in the slightest.
Don't be dishonest. The open or closed nature of a test has nothing to do with whether it tests understanding. The questions on the test determine that. You can have open-book tests that test nothing about understanding, too.
Yeah, there are a lot of evaluation methods that aren't closed-book tests. Some of them take a lot more work and time for both the evaluator and evaluatee, and that sometimes makes them inappropriate or unusable. If you are honest, you'll admit that.
And when was the last time you had to answer a complicated question at work and you weren't allowed to use your technology to figure it out?
Never. But the times when I've had to answer a complicated question and didn't have to say "I don't know I'll get back to you" and then run off to google something -- that my boss could have saved time and money by just googling himself -- are legion. That's because I memorized things.
If all I'm going to do is be a middle-man between my boss and Google, why is he paying me when he can just ask Siri or Amazon's thing instead?
How thoughtful do you need to be on a timed memorization test?
What makes you think a closed-book no-notes test is "timed memorization"? What about a history test where the question is "compare and contrast event X to event Y in the context of international trade"? By the time you've looked up event X and event Y to see what they were, the test is over. And just looking them up doesn't answer the question.
What is the purpose of memorizing something if it doesn't need to be quickly regurgitated in real life?
Because the phrase "those who don't know history tend to repeat it" isn't very useful unless you can remember what it is that is being repeated. And rereading all your history books to find out what it is that you think is being repeated today -- not very efficient.
Wow you can keep your job. If your job is like sitting an exam every day and you enjoy it, more power to you.
I've just spent the last ten minutes writing a response to the GP. Imagine how much longer it would have taken had I needed to look up every word I wanted to use.
Pretty soon I'm going to go try to get a large code package to compile. Imagine how long and hard that task would be if I had to look up every command I needed to use to do that, or to fix the things that aren't working. Hmmm, there seems to be a missing package. What is a "package"? What tool might I use to get the missing package? How do I find out if that package is already there and the problem is something else? Where's my book? It must be in a book somewhere.... nobody could possibly expect me to remember any of those three letter commands to do useful stuff. And shoot, two letter commands are hard enough!
Your complaint that exams aren't real life is true. They aren't intended to be. Never were. They aren't always intended to test skills that you will use directly on a daily basis, but to test your understanding of the skills and how they relate to other things. No, you probably won't ever need to do a cube root by hand on paper. Big deal. That doesn't make knowing how to do it that way useless. And while you think the GP is caught up in the wrong thing, you seem to equate "exam" with "useless concepts", which is quite wrong itself.
But if they had simply handed you a calculator with it programmed in then you would never have learned it in the first place.
This. And you would not have learned when it was appropriate to use and when it was not. I have two examples to make this point.
The first was when I was a TA and a student asked to borrow my calculator for a quiz. I told him it was an HP and asked if he knew how to use it. Sure, he said. So I loaned it to him. One of the answers he turned in was "1.00". This was for the concentration of hydrogen ions in a buffer solution of a weak acid. At some point he had pressed "number enter number enter divide", adding an extra "enter" and thus dividing the second number by itself. This is a common error, and meant nothing, really. But here's the problem: his answer showed me that he knew the equations but had no grasp on the concept of "weak acid" or "buffer solution", or of pH in general, since his answer was about six orders of magnitude wrong.
Several years earlier I had been a student in the same class. We had a quiz problem about pKa and... hydrogen ion concentrations in buffer solutions. There are two different equations you can use to solve this. One is short, simple, and requires an approximation. The other is longer, more complicated, and doesn't. If you just hand someone both equations, you can guess they'll pick the easier one because it's easier, but they'll never learn about the assumption it requires and they'll get the wrong answer. Every time. This tendency to pick the shorter one is so strong that the TA had automatically used the wrong equation when creating the quiz key and he marked my answer, using the long form, wrong. And then I got to point out that the assumption was invalid and my answer was, indeed, the correct one.
Tests to determine mastery of concepts aren't always testing things you're going to do in a direct way in adult life. And even for long division, yes, there have been times when I want to figure something out and don't have a calculator at hand to do the division. I consider the lack of ability of the common person to do simple math like this to be one of the losses of civilization. Even just having to fumble for a calculator when you want to split a check three ways -- that's ridiculous.
If every problem you solve has a reference available for it then you are doing nothing but solving trivial problems.
Not necessarily, but he's going to waste an awful lot of time having to look things up while other people remember stuff and can synthesize new and better things without spending days looking all the details up. His more productive co-workers will get the raises; he'll get to visit the technical library. Yes, I love the fact I can pull out the Perl Quick Reference to refresh myself on perl commands, but it sure does make writing the code a lot slower. And when I learned 68000 assembly language, I got a lot more productive at it as I memorized what the instructions did and didn't have to look up every one every time.
if the answer is not in the book, or computer or neighbor... then your teacher is just a sadistic asshole.
Or he's trying to get you to take the concepts that are in the book and extend them to new situations to demonstrate that you have mastery. It used to be such teachers were called "good" and "creative" and "inspiring". Now they are "sadistic assholes".
the government forces a politician to say 'I approve of this message' about a message they paid for and endorsed
Which is forcing someone to say something specific, just as forcing them to say negative things about their product is forcing them to say specific things that they may not want to say, and may also cause damage to the value of the company. The fact is, the government forces speech in many cases, so saying this isn't allowable because "this forces a company to say something they don't want to" is countered by huge amounts of precedent otherwise.
by requiring Apple to sign the code they are making Apple tell a LIE
Signing a bit of code so it will execute does not mean that the company approves of the activity, only that the code was produced by the claimed source. It is authentication, not approval. If Apple writes the code, then signing it is not a lie.
Computer languages are meant to be read by humans as well as computers.
Signing of code in this context does not sign the original source, it signs the binary machine representation. It is not the source that the iPhone OS/hardware would test for validity and authenticity and authentication, it is the binary version prior to being executed.
You can write a functional equivalent of any program with meaningless identifiers, variables like x, y, z, functions like func1, func2, etc. Yet we don't do that,
Yet for the most part that is exactly the kind of meaningless labels that will be applied to variables that a decompiler creates and would be what a human who wanted to inspect the signed code would see. The wonderful prose that early posters created to show the beauty of the "code language" would be completely destroyed by passing that code through any compiler and then back into source from the object. Much like the joke about the dual translation of "out of sight, out of mind" into "blind drunk".
... as the FBI would in effect be seizing 80% of the value of the company, if not more, to get a backdoor into all iPhones.
Are you seriously claiming that more than 80% of the value of Apple is the ability of users to encrypt data on iPhones? Seriously?
The EFF brief claims that Apple "signing" the code it could write to break into the one phone in question would apply to "hundreds of millions of people". Except hundreds of millions of people would never see or even have access to that code. As for it breaking the trust in Apple, some of us already know that Apple can quite easily break into secured systems on behalf of third parties, so the damage to our trust in Apple would hardly be hurt. It's only the people who have unwarranted trust whose trust would be broken, and is that a bad thing?
You've just destroyed education, the government can control who teaches and what they teach.
Welcome to government control of standardized testing and standards for graduation, along with hiring criteria for teachers. By the way, controlling what they CANNOT teach means you are effectively controlling what they CAN teach, too.
Government can, indeed, force certain "speech" upon corporations against their will. Find a pack of cigarettes and see if you cannot find some "speech" that the cigarette company might not want to put on that package. Or almost anything sold in California, where we learn that almost everything contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer because of the "speech" the companies are forced to include in the packaging.
Observe certain kinds of political speech, where a candidate is required to speak the words "I approve of this message". Observe the extra "speech" that is attached to commercials for nutritional supplements that are required to keep the FDA from filing a lawsuit. ("If you don't say X we'll use the force of government lawyers to sue you" is force.)
Code produced by a company would certainly be "speech" just as any other utterance, but as commercial speech there is long held precedent for restrictions and companies being forced to say things certain ways.
Every time I go in I have to position my arm in a different way. Sometimes it's stretched out, sometimes it's across by chest, once it was straight up. It's not really a surprise that my blood pressure always seems to be different
This is not the fault of the device, it is a problem in training and experience. If your health care professionals are as incompetent at the use of a standard blood pressure cuff as they are with the wrist cuff from Amazon, you'll get "significantly higher or lower" readings using the "traditional method", too.
"Measuring device at heart level" is the rule. Which medical professional do you go to that thinks that your wrist held straight up above your head is "at heart level"?
Wow just wow. It's called commercials - look them up sometime. That's what pays for content on TV.
You can't watch OTA TV without a TV. You have to support some manufacturer by buying a TV, but you don't have to watch the ads.
A more important reason why the "OTA" argument fails is that by forcing the debates to OTA you keep anyone who cannot receive the major networks from seeing the debates. I'm one of them. I get two PBS, two Fox, a CW and something even less mainstream OTA.
Any argument you make for where the debates must be carried leaves some people out.
The people do not even elect their representatives, see the electoral college.
The electoral college applies only to one office, one branch, of the government. That office was not intended to represent the people who elected him, it was to be a check and balance on the people who do represent the citizens, and those who represent the states that make up the union.
The representative part of the government is, indeed, elected by the people, even those who were supposed to represent not the people's but the state's interests. Somewhere along the line the concept of "representation" got twisted into thinking that the only important representation is of the people directly, and so states began holding general elections for senators instead of using a method of appointment that would ensure the senator represented the interests of the state itself.
And this is why we now have what appears to be a dual legislature where one is redundant. And why we have the mistaken impression that there is some "popular vote" that should select the President.
So do it. Nothing is stopping you from trying. You'll need enough money to produce it, and enough media presence to guarantee an audience sufficient to get the candidates to spend their time. Note that those last two requirements, if met, will mean that you, too, will have a vested interest in keeping money in politics because you, too, will be getting your cut of the pie.
One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two.
Thereby eliminating any chance for anyone on a non-mainstream party from ever holding office again. If you can't make the top-two, you don't stand a chance.
It's also pretty easy to create a pathological case where your system results in the worst people being elected, so no, it isn't a solution either.
There is nothing wrong with parties using primaries to choose their candidates and then the election being held to pick which of the several candidates that leaves. You may want to have a way in who the Republican party candidate is because you don't want them to have any chance at getting elected, but if you aren't a Republican (or Democrat for Democrat primaries) you have no business being involved in the primary for the other party. You get to pick YOUR best candidate.
For the OP who wants to complain about the primaries themselves and not just the television shows that are called "debates", there is a place to complain. It's called your own state legislature. Each state's primary system is under the control of the state. If you don't like the way your state does it, talk to your elected state officials.
As for complaining that some television shows are held on cable networks and some on broadcast, well, television is television. I'd really like it if all NHL games were on broadcast TV, but should the FCC force the NHL to sell broadcast rights only to the major networks for OTA use only? I'd consider that a vast overstepping of the authority of the FCC, as would I consider them forcing the debate sponsors into an exclusive OTA rights deal.
This is slashdot, not fark. Some minimal level of civility is common.
I was quite civil. I used humor to point out that relying on a 23 year old FCC bulletin instead of the 2106 regulations is a bad way to determine what is and is not legal.
White space devices need type approval
Are you going to be selling or manufacturing these low power TV transmitting devices? Was that question uncivil?
not that the device doesn't need to be tested and approved prior to sale.
Keep in mind that intermittent transmissions are specifically *not* broadcasts, which are defined (roughly) as sustained transmissions to no particular endpoint.
Along with your confusion between the amateur radio service (Part 97) and unlicensed operation (Part 15), you have an unusual definition of broadcast. Broadcasting is not defined by it's "sustained" nature, but by the intended recipients.
with the sole exception of repeating an amateur transmission from a space station that happens to include some music.
This, too, is not correct. 47CFR97.113(c) permits the retransmission by amateur operators of:
communications, including incidental music, originating on United States Government frequencies between a manned spacecraft and its associated Earth stations. Prior approval for manned spacecraft communications retransmissions must be obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur radio operators.
Note that these transmissions are not "broadcasts" because they are not intended for the general public.
As to the source of the music, there are many "space stations" as defined by 47CFR97.207, but there is no exemption for music for those stations. It is solely for incidental music from or to manned spacecraft on US Government frequencies. AMSAT cannot transmit music on amateur frequencies, even though such a satellite is a space station.
Do you notice that this bulletin is 23 years old, perhaps?
47CFR15 has an entire subpart H that deals with "white space transmitters". That subpart covers an AWFUL lot of Part 15 transmitters that are none of intermittent, periodic, or biomedical telemetry, but live in the TV broadcast bands, all unlicensed.
The times they is a changin', Jeb. Next thing you'll know, they'll have phones that you don't need to jingle Mable to get you connected to someone else. What is the world coming to?
your car's starter motor violates FCC rules when the brushes get old, so you too will join the others in the gulag for violating the rules
The phrase "intentional radiator" has a significance here. Google it if you are confused.
It would be a good question to research if this intentional radiator met the limits of a Part 15 device, like the unlicensed AM and FM broadcast transmitters that you can buy or build.
Once again you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions
And your claim that the bus driver blindly ran over the Google AV is even more of an unwarranted assumption.
You seem to ignore the fact that the bus driver probably had a bus load of passengers to worry about, and making an emergency stop would probably put them either on the floor or potentially through the front window. He didn't have time to think about whether he had straphangers or not. He did know that the car had people in seat belts and other safety equipment, so any injuries to them would be extremely minor, if there were any at all (and there weren't.) The correct response to a car that is pulling over in to him is to not slam on the brakes, not swerve (like the AV was doing to get around the partial obstruction), but to brake in a controlled manner to a safe stop, and let the repairmen fix the damage.
You're also repeatedly ignoring the fact that the bus did not swerve over to hit the car, the car swerved over to hit the bus. The car hit the side of the bus, not the other way around.
As for assumptions, I think it is a very safe assumption that the AV was signalling a right turn, at least until a fraction of a second before it pulled left, and it would be impossible for anyone to determine that the right turn signal was no longer on for at least a second. (Even when it is on, it spends a large amount of time unlit, you know.)
What I don't believe is an assumption is the fact that to the bus driver, the AV looked like a car that had pulled over to the curb and stopped -- because that is what it had done.
You are bringing nothing of value here
All you bring is the AV Uptopianism that ignores the problems that this accident demonstrates. The car "assumed" someone else was going to do the right thing in the split second there was to make a decision and it ignored the fact that a very large vehicle was already in the place it was trying to go.
You're ignoring the fact that the car was programmed to ignore the difference in speeds and stopping times, to ignore that it could stop a lot faster than the bus, that it could stop a lot more safely than the bus, and it chose to take the right of way that the laws (of man) say it might have had. It ignored the laws of physics in preference to an artificial law.
The AV, in this case, chose to act like an arrogant human driver, pushing its way back into moving traffic, into a vehicle that it could not win a game of chicken with, assuming that the other guy would flinch and give way.
trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
If your repeated "you are making assumptions" is the only argument you have, then there has been no reasonable conversation with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so why not just charge more for the fuel, no tracking required whatsoever.
Because the owners of gas-guzzlers are ALREADY paying more for fuel. The inherent value of the fuel does not change depending on how much it takes to go from A to B, but they use more to do that so they PAY more. And they pay more in gas taxes so they pay a disproportionate amount of the road maintenance fees.
Anyone pushing for more active, GPS-based tracking has zero legitimate interest in allocating costs and every interest in having a readily available record of citizens' every movement.
You know, I had a hard time convincing an engineer working on such a project that tracking people was going to be a natural use of her efforts. She just didn't believe it could happen. "But they won't collect ..." Sure. They HAVE to collect so they can implement time/location based surcharges.
But then, people pushing for gasoline to cost more for people with less efficient cars are not interested in allocating costs, because the costs are already being allocated based on usage. They want some people to subsidize others, and to coerce other people to do what they want them to because they cannot convince them with reason.
Perhaps my mistake was assuming that your answer was relevant to the question I asked?
Don't be dense.
And don't be dishonest. You use things you had to memorize in school every day. You didn't have to learn how to breath by going to school and taking a test.
I have a question for you: Did you ever find yourself stuck in a closed room for 90 minutes where your future career depended
Don't be dishonest. I've also never been stuck in a room for 90 minutes taking a test where my future career depended on knowing a two letter command. and I doubt that you have been. If so, you should have picked a better career.
Also closed book exams do not test understanding in the slightest.
Don't be dishonest. The open or closed nature of a test has nothing to do with whether it tests understanding. The questions on the test determine that. You can have open-book tests that test nothing about understanding, too.
Yeah, there are a lot of evaluation methods that aren't closed-book tests. Some of them take a lot more work and time for both the evaluator and evaluatee, and that sometimes makes them inappropriate or unusable. If you are honest, you'll admit that.
All A is B is not the same as All B is A. What makes you think a closed-book test is "timed memorization"?
And when was the last time you had to answer a complicated question at work and you weren't allowed to use your technology to figure it out?
Never. But the times when I've had to answer a complicated question and didn't have to say "I don't know I'll get back to you" and then run off to google something -- that my boss could have saved time and money by just googling himself -- are legion. That's because I memorized things.
If all I'm going to do is be a middle-man between my boss and Google, why is he paying me when he can just ask Siri or Amazon's thing instead?
How thoughtful do you need to be on a timed memorization test?
What makes you think a closed-book no-notes test is "timed memorization"? What about a history test where the question is "compare and contrast event X to event Y in the context of international trade"? By the time you've looked up event X and event Y to see what they were, the test is over. And just looking them up doesn't answer the question.
What is the purpose of memorizing something if it doesn't need to be quickly regurgitated in real life?
Because the phrase "those who don't know history tend to repeat it" isn't very useful unless you can remember what it is that is being repeated. And rereading all your history books to find out what it is that you think is being repeated today -- not very efficient.
Wow you can keep your job. If your job is like sitting an exam every day and you enjoy it, more power to you.
I've just spent the last ten minutes writing a response to the GP. Imagine how much longer it would have taken had I needed to look up every word I wanted to use.
Pretty soon I'm going to go try to get a large code package to compile. Imagine how long and hard that task would be if I had to look up every command I needed to use to do that, or to fix the things that aren't working. Hmmm, there seems to be a missing package. What is a "package"? What tool might I use to get the missing package? How do I find out if that package is already there and the problem is something else? Where's my book? It must be in a book somewhere.... nobody could possibly expect me to remember any of those three letter commands to do useful stuff. And shoot, two letter commands are hard enough!
Your complaint that exams aren't real life is true. They aren't intended to be. Never were. They aren't always intended to test skills that you will use directly on a daily basis, but to test your understanding of the skills and how they relate to other things. No, you probably won't ever need to do a cube root by hand on paper. Big deal. That doesn't make knowing how to do it that way useless. And while you think the GP is caught up in the wrong thing, you seem to equate "exam" with "useless concepts", which is quite wrong itself.
But if they had simply handed you a calculator with it programmed in then you would never have learned it in the first place.
This. And you would not have learned when it was appropriate to use and when it was not. I have two examples to make this point.
The first was when I was a TA and a student asked to borrow my calculator for a quiz. I told him it was an HP and asked if he knew how to use it. Sure, he said. So I loaned it to him. One of the answers he turned in was "1.00". This was for the concentration of hydrogen ions in a buffer solution of a weak acid. At some point he had pressed "number enter number enter divide", adding an extra "enter" and thus dividing the second number by itself. This is a common error, and meant nothing, really. But here's the problem: his answer showed me that he knew the equations but had no grasp on the concept of "weak acid" or "buffer solution", or of pH in general, since his answer was about six orders of magnitude wrong.
Several years earlier I had been a student in the same class. We had a quiz problem about pKa and ... hydrogen ion concentrations in buffer solutions. There are two different equations you can use to solve this. One is short, simple, and requires an approximation. The other is longer, more complicated, and doesn't. If you just hand someone both equations, you can guess they'll pick the easier one because it's easier, but they'll never learn about the assumption it requires and they'll get the wrong answer. Every time. This tendency to pick the shorter one is so strong that the TA had automatically used the wrong equation when creating the quiz key and he marked my answer, using the long form, wrong. And then I got to point out that the assumption was invalid and my answer was, indeed, the correct one.
Tests to determine mastery of concepts aren't always testing things you're going to do in a direct way in adult life. And even for long division, yes, there have been times when I want to figure something out and don't have a calculator at hand to do the division. I consider the lack of ability of the common person to do simple math like this to be one of the losses of civilization. Even just having to fumble for a calculator when you want to split a check three ways -- that's ridiculous.
If every problem you solve has a reference available for it then you are doing nothing but solving trivial problems.
Not necessarily, but he's going to waste an awful lot of time having to look things up while other people remember stuff and can synthesize new and better things without spending days looking all the details up. His more productive co-workers will get the raises; he'll get to visit the technical library. Yes, I love the fact I can pull out the Perl Quick Reference to refresh myself on perl commands, but it sure does make writing the code a lot slower. And when I learned 68000 assembly language, I got a lot more productive at it as I memorized what the instructions did and didn't have to look up every one every time.
if the answer is not in the book, or computer or neighbor... then your teacher is just a sadistic asshole.
Or he's trying to get you to take the concepts that are in the book and extend them to new situations to demonstrate that you have mastery. It used to be such teachers were called "good" and "creative" and "inspiring". Now they are "sadistic assholes".
the government forces a politician to say 'I approve of this message' about a message they paid for and endorsed
Which is forcing someone to say something specific, just as forcing them to say negative things about their product is forcing them to say specific things that they may not want to say, and may also cause damage to the value of the company. The fact is, the government forces speech in many cases, so saying this isn't allowable because "this forces a company to say something they don't want to" is countered by huge amounts of precedent otherwise.
by requiring Apple to sign the code they are making Apple tell a LIE
Signing a bit of code so it will execute does not mean that the company approves of the activity, only that the code was produced by the claimed source. It is authentication, not approval. If Apple writes the code, then signing it is not a lie.
As I recall, those were t-shirts containing the de-css code, not PGP.
Computer languages are meant to be read by humans as well as computers.
Signing of code in this context does not sign the original source, it signs the binary machine representation. It is not the source that the iPhone OS/hardware would test for validity and authenticity and authentication, it is the binary version prior to being executed.
You can write a functional equivalent of any program with meaningless identifiers, variables like x, y, z, functions like func1, func2, etc. Yet we don't do that,
Yet for the most part that is exactly the kind of meaningless labels that will be applied to variables that a decompiler creates and would be what a human who wanted to inspect the signed code would see. The wonderful prose that early posters created to show the beauty of the "code language" would be completely destroyed by passing that code through any compiler and then back into source from the object. Much like the joke about the dual translation of "out of sight, out of mind" into "blind drunk".
... as the FBI would in effect be seizing 80% of the value of the company, if not more, to get a backdoor into all iPhones.
Are you seriously claiming that more than 80% of the value of Apple is the ability of users to encrypt data on iPhones? Seriously?
The EFF brief claims that Apple "signing" the code it could write to break into the one phone in question would apply to "hundreds of millions of people". Except hundreds of millions of people would never see or even have access to that code. As for it breaking the trust in Apple, some of us already know that Apple can quite easily break into secured systems on behalf of third parties, so the damage to our trust in Apple would hardly be hurt. It's only the people who have unwarranted trust whose trust would be broken, and is that a bad thing?
You've just destroyed education, the government can control who teaches and what they teach.
Welcome to government control of standardized testing and standards for graduation, along with hiring criteria for teachers. By the way, controlling what they CANNOT teach means you are effectively controlling what they CAN teach, too.
Government can, indeed, force certain "speech" upon corporations against their will. Find a pack of cigarettes and see if you cannot find some "speech" that the cigarette company might not want to put on that package. Or almost anything sold in California, where we learn that almost everything contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer because of the "speech" the companies are forced to include in the packaging.
Observe certain kinds of political speech, where a candidate is required to speak the words "I approve of this message". Observe the extra "speech" that is attached to commercials for nutritional supplements that are required to keep the FDA from filing a lawsuit. ("If you don't say X we'll use the force of government lawyers to sue you" is force.)
Code produced by a company would certainly be "speech" just as any other utterance, but as commercial speech there is long held precedent for restrictions and companies being forced to say things certain ways.
Every time I go in I have to position my arm in a different way. Sometimes it's stretched out, sometimes it's across by chest, once it was straight up. It's not really a surprise that my blood pressure always seems to be different
This is not the fault of the device, it is a problem in training and experience. If your health care professionals are as incompetent at the use of a standard blood pressure cuff as they are with the wrist cuff from Amazon, you'll get "significantly higher or lower" readings using the "traditional method", too.
"Measuring device at heart level" is the rule. Which medical professional do you go to that thinks that your wrist held straight up above your head is "at heart level"?
If the difference between the words "doing" (your word), and "trying" (my word) confuse you, I suggest a dictionary.
Wow just wow. It's called commercials - look them up sometime. That's what pays for content on TV.
You can't watch OTA TV without a TV. You have to support some manufacturer by buying a TV, but you don't have to watch the ads.
A more important reason why the "OTA" argument fails is that by forcing the debates to OTA you keep anyone who cannot receive the major networks from seeing the debates. I'm one of them. I get two PBS, two Fox, a CW and something even less mainstream OTA.
Any argument you make for where the debates must be carried leaves some people out.
The people do not even elect their representatives, see the electoral college.
The electoral college applies only to one office, one branch, of the government. That office was not intended to represent the people who elected him, it was to be a check and balance on the people who do represent the citizens, and those who represent the states that make up the union.
The representative part of the government is, indeed, elected by the people, even those who were supposed to represent not the people's but the state's interests. Somewhere along the line the concept of "representation" got twisted into thinking that the only important representation is of the people directly, and so states began holding general elections for senators instead of using a method of appointment that would ensure the senator represented the interests of the state itself.
And this is why we now have what appears to be a dual legislature where one is redundant. And why we have the mistaken impression that there is some "popular vote" that should select the President.
So do it. Nothing is stopping you from trying. You'll need enough money to produce it, and enough media presence to guarantee an audience sufficient to get the candidates to spend their time. Note that those last two requirements, if met, will mean that you, too, will have a vested interest in keeping money in politics because you, too, will be getting your cut of the pie.
One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two.
Thereby eliminating any chance for anyone on a non-mainstream party from ever holding office again. If you can't make the top-two, you don't stand a chance.
It's also pretty easy to create a pathological case where your system results in the worst people being elected, so no, it isn't a solution either.
There is nothing wrong with parties using primaries to choose their candidates and then the election being held to pick which of the several candidates that leaves. You may want to have a way in who the Republican party candidate is because you don't want them to have any chance at getting elected, but if you aren't a Republican (or Democrat for Democrat primaries) you have no business being involved in the primary for the other party. You get to pick YOUR best candidate.
For the OP who wants to complain about the primaries themselves and not just the television shows that are called "debates", there is a place to complain. It's called your own state legislature. Each state's primary system is under the control of the state. If you don't like the way your state does it, talk to your elected state officials.
As for complaining that some television shows are held on cable networks and some on broadcast, well, television is television. I'd really like it if all NHL games were on broadcast TV, but should the FCC force the NHL to sell broadcast rights only to the major networks for OTA use only? I'd consider that a vast overstepping of the authority of the FCC, as would I consider them forcing the debate sponsors into an exclusive OTA rights deal.
This is slashdot, not fark. Some minimal level of civility is common.
I was quite civil. I used humor to point out that relying on a 23 year old FCC bulletin instead of the 2106 regulations is a bad way to determine what is and is not legal.
White space devices need type approval
Are you going to be selling or manufacturing these low power TV transmitting devices? Was that question uncivil?
not that the device doesn't need to be tested and approved prior to sale.
And if the device is never sold?
Keep in mind that intermittent transmissions are specifically *not* broadcasts, which are defined (roughly) as sustained transmissions to no particular endpoint.
Along with your confusion between the amateur radio service (Part 97) and unlicensed operation (Part 15), you have an unusual definition of broadcast. Broadcasting is not defined by it's "sustained" nature, but by the intended recipients.
with the sole exception of repeating an amateur transmission from a space station that happens to include some music.
This, too, is not correct. 47CFR97.113(c) permits the retransmission by amateur operators of:
Note that these transmissions are not "broadcasts" because they are not intended for the general public.
As to the source of the music, there are many "space stations" as defined by 47CFR97.207, but there is no exemption for music for those stations. It is solely for incidental music from or to manned spacecraft on US Government frequencies. AMSAT cannot transmit music on amateur frequencies, even though such a satellite is a space station.
FCC OET Bulletin No. 63, October 1993:
Do you notice that this bulletin is 23 years old, perhaps?
47CFR15 has an entire subpart H that deals with "white space transmitters". That subpart covers an AWFUL lot of Part 15 transmitters that are none of intermittent, periodic, or biomedical telemetry, but live in the TV broadcast bands, all unlicensed.
The times they is a changin', Jeb. Next thing you'll know, they'll have phones that you don't need to jingle Mable to get you connected to someone else. What is the world coming to?
your car's starter motor violates FCC rules when the brushes get old, so you too will join the others in the gulag for violating the rules
The phrase "intentional radiator" has a significance here. Google it if you are confused.
It would be a good question to research if this intentional radiator met the limits of a Part 15 device, like the unlicensed AM and FM broadcast transmitters that you can buy or build.
Once again you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions
And your claim that the bus driver blindly ran over the Google AV is even more of an unwarranted assumption.
You seem to ignore the fact that the bus driver probably had a bus load of passengers to worry about, and making an emergency stop would probably put them either on the floor or potentially through the front window. He didn't have time to think about whether he had straphangers or not. He did know that the car had people in seat belts and other safety equipment, so any injuries to them would be extremely minor, if there were any at all (and there weren't.) The correct response to a car that is pulling over in to him is to not slam on the brakes, not swerve (like the AV was doing to get around the partial obstruction), but to brake in a controlled manner to a safe stop, and let the repairmen fix the damage.
You're also repeatedly ignoring the fact that the bus did not swerve over to hit the car, the car swerved over to hit the bus. The car hit the side of the bus, not the other way around.
As for assumptions, I think it is a very safe assumption that the AV was signalling a right turn, at least until a fraction of a second before it pulled left, and it would be impossible for anyone to determine that the right turn signal was no longer on for at least a second. (Even when it is on, it spends a large amount of time unlit, you know.)
What I don't believe is an assumption is the fact that to the bus driver, the AV looked like a car that had pulled over to the curb and stopped -- because that is what it had done.
You are bringing nothing of value here
All you bring is the AV Uptopianism that ignores the problems that this accident demonstrates. The car "assumed" someone else was going to do the right thing in the split second there was to make a decision and it ignored the fact that a very large vehicle was already in the place it was trying to go.
You're ignoring the fact that the car was programmed to ignore the difference in speeds and stopping times, to ignore that it could stop a lot faster than the bus, that it could stop a lot more safely than the bus, and it chose to take the right of way that the laws (of man) say it might have had. It ignored the laws of physics in preference to an artificial law.
The AV, in this case, chose to act like an arrogant human driver, pushing its way back into moving traffic, into a vehicle that it could not win a game of chicken with, assuming that the other guy would flinch and give way.
trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
If your repeated "you are making assumptions" is the only argument you have, then there has been no reasonable conversation with you.