The policy manual where I work spells out all kinds of things; like not doing illegal things on company computers, not stealing, not sexually harassing or bullying people. What the hell is your problem with that?
What's my problem with your policy manual? Well, for YOUR manual, nothing, because I don't care about how they treat you. If it were a policy manual I was subject to, I'd have a problem with a manual that includes so much stuff that it doesn't need to that it hides the stuff it does need to include.
For example: not stealing. Do'h. By putting that stuff into a company policy manual, they're treating you like a child.
The closest any policy manual I've seen comes is when it tells people that certain things that would be legal using a regular company's resources is illegal because this is a state university and then leaves it to the intelligence of the user to know that they aren't supposed to do those things BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL.
Any policy manual that hides actual company policies between such obvious things as "don't steal", "play well with others", "don't rape your co-workers", etc, is just a waste of time.
The whole point of policies, whether they cover unwanted illegal activities or unwanted and yet legal activities, is to make clear the organization's priorities and desires for the workplace.
I don't know that I'd want to work at a company that has to say explicitly that it desires that I not do illegal things on company time, and that it has a priority that I stick to legal stuff.
Before satellites we had these things called thermometers. They were invented around 1638.
Yes, thermometers were invented around that time. But to record GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, you need two thing: 1) an accurate thermometer. Yes, they existed prior to 1980. But you also need 2) global measurements. Prior to satellite measurements, there were very large parts of this globe that didn't have any measurements at all. There were accurate thermometers, they just weren't located all over the place.
You do know that satellites can't measure global temperature - they can't see above +85 or below -85 degrees.
In a qualitative sense, not getting the small area over the poles is MUCH different than not getting the vast majority of the planet at all. Most people would accept the term "global" (as in GPS) even through there are small areas that it doesn't cover, compared to the improper use of the term "global" when there are much much larger (and physically important) areas that aren't.
The global ocean is a critical player in global climate, and yet very little of it had recorded temperatures prior to satellites.
After all, who wouldn't want a highly accurate manometer to check blood pressure.
Someone who wants a portable device that can go to the patient wherever he is, doesn't contain a liquid, reasonably volatile poison, and doesn't require a hazmat response when dropped on the floor, as well as anyone who realizes that "highly accurate" isn't necessary when dealing with numbers that can change by 10% just by thinking about it. Be honest, is there a real difference between 121/76 and 122/74? No.
Or as every doctor I've run across put's it "more accurate than the cheap chunk of plastic that stops working all the time, while being highly inaccurate."
False dichotomy. "Not a mercury manometer" doesn't necessarily mean "cheap chunk of plastic". In fact, I've not see any "cheap chunk of plastic" blood pressure cuffs in use anywhere I've been. Yes, you can buy a cheap home unit, but then you've created your own problem if you try to use units intended for home use in a professional medical practice.
Oh and in most cases, they use one on the end of your finger.
I don't seem to have "one on the end of [my] finger". I don't know of a blood pressure cuff that goes on the end of a finger. I know of pulse oxymeters that clip on there, are you perhaps confusing the two?
But they still use mercury thermometers for a reason.
I still use a mercury thermometer at home for a reason: because I already own it and don't see a need to replace it. It is, however, less accurate than an electronic device, harder to read, takes longer to use, and requires more care in cleaning and more cleaning. It's also a hazard if broken, especially if broken while in use. Let it slip while "resetting" it and you've got a mess to clean up. Those are the reasons I've not seen one in use in a medical facility for decades, at least in the US. If they still use them in the EU and Canada, then the EU and Canada don't have the quality of medical care that everyone claims. They're focusing on "highly accurate" measurements of transient values instead of treating the patient.
Another honesty check: does it really make a difference in patient care if the patient's temperature is just 100.3F instead of 100.4F? What does that "highly accurate" get you?
Data probably came from many places, on weather underground I see that thigh for my location was set in 1934. But how do they know that, thats unpossible!!!!!
Who was running a temperature monitoring station at your location in 1934? Unless you live at the airport, I'm going to guess that nobody was. I'm going to guess that when you say "my location", you actually mean "somewhere within twenty miles of here and we're calling that close enough" when it comes to 1934 data, even though "my location" would imply where you are now, not just the general vicinity.
Today, Weather Underground uses data collected by many volunteers with networked weather stations. You may very well have such a station at your location. I have a station at my home, too. I've never bothered networking it to any presumably serious collection effort simply because I know how unreliable that kind of data can be. For example, my outdoor temperature sensor is mounted under a shelter and the clothes dryer vent would dump warm air there to make the readings high. It's good enough for what I need. My barometer has been stuck on 31.00" for the last two days for some reason (the thermometer and hygrometer work fine).
I say all that because even the professionals don't always bother to do it right. NWS has (and probably still has) weather stations installed in or near blacktop parking lots, and painted colors other than the official white. Jeffery Kooistra documented this problem in an Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact article a few years ago, and as I recall, he even reported that some of the stations were installed near HVAC cooling vents.
Global climate data (you know, for the globe) will include data from all regions of the globe
Given that global temperature data wasn't available before there were satellites to measure it, and had to be recalibrated around 1998 because they discovered an error in the satellite-based sea surface temperature processing, it would be hard to have a plot of mean global temperature anomalies prior to 1980 or so.
Prior to the satellite age, ocean measurements were sparse and hard to come by, and even measurements from unpopulated areas were limited. The term "global" meant something different back then compared to now.
Better let the medical community know this, the gold standard for measurements whether for blood pressure, or temperature is still mercury filled devices.
Better let the medical community know this. I haven't seen a mercury-filled blood pressure cuff in several decades, and when they take my temperature they stick a little electronic thing in my ear. The former is much more portable than the old manometer nailed to the wall, and the latter is much faster and more accurate.
Or did you mean by "gold standard" the idea that "it will cost us a lot of gold if someone breaks one of these damn mercury filled dinguses and a patient sues for mercury poisoning"?
It's just that in a 6MHz channel, most OTA stations only broadcast one channel, so it gets the full 20Mbps available of that channel.
Every OTA in this area that I know of has at least two, and usually three, streams on one channel. Why wouldn't they? With relatively moderate compression the bandwidth becomes free and they can charge advertisers double or more.
In a cable system, each 6MHz channel also gives around 20Mbps. however, instead of just having one channel take the entire bandwidth, they squeeze in three, four or more HD channels in that slot, so they get 6, 5 or less Mbps each.
I've seen typically 2 or three HD per "channel", so they're doing as well as or better than most of the OTA.
In one, he tells people to stop worrying about the ozone layer because "the Sun makes ozone." A half-truth: yes,
Not a "half truth", it is a fact. And since about 2000, the "size" of the ozone hole as gotten smaller and the minimum amount of ozone in the hole has gone slightly up. Data here. That's telling us that, indeed, the sun is making it faster than the CFCs that are still there are breaking it down. It also ignores the ozone levels over the rest of the planet, focusing on just one area.
It's interesting to note that the definition of the "hole" is not where there is zero ozone, but is just below an arbitrary limit set based on 1979 ozone levels.
Another similar fallacy: he says there are more trees in the USA now than when the first settlers arrived, so stop worrying about trees. I don't know, maybe that's true,
HE'S WRONG!!! but maybe he's right?
but he ignores the fact that we are cutting these trees down at a much higher rate than the settlers ever did.
And you ignore the fact that those clearcuts get replanted, so we're also planting trees at a rate much higher than the settlers ever did. Those trees that are cut down to go into building houses sequester a lot of carbon, and the growing trees suck up a lot of the carbon dioxide you exhale with every breath.
Forestry management is about ensuring rates of growth are higher than rates of depletion,
No, forestry management is about a sustainable use of forest resources. That's why harvests get replanted. By the way, I live in an area where logging is a large part of the economy (but not my employer) so I've seen both the cuts and the replants.
I'm always amazed at how many people that outright reject Rush Limbaugh still listen to his show.
What's more amazing is how many people who have never listened to his show who happily tell everyone what he's saying and thinking.
On a serious note, the summary provides a link to "the raw data", a table which has a title "Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)" and columns of "Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean".
Climate scientists shoot themselves in the foot when they produce such highly processed data and call it "raw". The data are actually the difference of the annual and five year temperature means (from an unspecified set of sites and with unspecified filtering to remove outliers) from a "baseline" average of... well, the text claims 1951-1980, but the plot in the original article says 1981-2010.
The plot in the fine article also shows a simple linear fit to all the "anomaly" data, when by eye it is pretty easy to see at least two different trend lines, one from 1920 to 1975, and then 1975 on. That kind of simplistic processing creates questions about how the statistics are being created and used.
There is also an unexplained large dip around 1910, and a spike around 1942. Apparently there are existing processes that can cause relatively rapid cooling as well as heating, and that maybe points to causes for the remainder that is more than AGW.
That's a great idea. People could pre-order, pre-pay online with a credit card. The machine would give them an estimated pick-up time.
Accountant: Home Depot called, your order of 39 pink dildos has been waiting for pickup for a week. And why are you buying this using the company credit card?
Exec: Oh, crap. The company card must have been hacked again. That's it.
It's like asking whether the electric company provides light in your home.
When the electric company sells CFL at a huge discount, I think the answer to this question can honestly be "yes". See here for a $0.99 bulb that appears on Amazon.com for $6.50 (0.01 plus $6.49 shipping).
That is Comcast should never make Netflix (or Hulu, or Youtube, or AT&T U-verse media) have lower performance than other equivalent services from Comcast (except of course in cases where the Comcast media is stored relatively local and thus can be provided more efficiently for technical reasons).
The problem with that is that Comcast's "equivalent service" (On-Demand) uses technically different delivery mechanisms than Netflix service. On Demand appears as a regular cable channel to the end user. In fact, until a few months ago, Comcast in this area delivered it as an unencrypted channel, and anyone with an ATV with clearQAM could view it. This was after they changed to encrypting all but a very few cable channels.
So, that's why a clogged pipe to Netflix wasn't also a clogged pipe to On Demand. And net neutrality won't change that at all. Nor would forcing Comcast to divest of the ISP part of the service.
I believe all the regulations state that one should not endanger other air traffic, which means both sides should give way,
The rule in the US is that the unmanned "model aircraft", if being flown under the exemption, must give way to manned aircraft.
This is actually an issue I'm the UK were you can get a commercial licence to operate unmanned aircraft and it's registered to a specific aircraft with proficiency test on operation of that aircraft being done at an airfield.
Could you imagine the uproar in the US if people were told they needed to take a test to be able to fly their toys?
And you would be completely correct....except for SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT, which effectively exempts the FAA from almost any authority over anything that could legitimately be called a model aircraft used in a legitimate way.
The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned
aircraft;
Making a 180 and flying above a manned helicopter is interference with that helicopter, and is certainly not giving way to them. Further, the definition of "model aircraft" requires that it be:
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft
Two miles away is not "visual line of sight" of something the size of a Phantom. If you think the pilot was maintaining "visual line of sight" as his craft was flying between buildings to get away from the cops, you're wrong.
Further, it would be interesting to find out if any of the neighborhoods he'd been flying this thing in were closer than 5 miles to any airport, or if he even considered that problem.
Effectively it puts the AMA in charge of regulating model aircraft,
As long as those model aircraft meet the definition of model aircraft and operate in according with that law. Which is one way of saying that the AMA is not in total control of model aircraft, just a limited subset.
No commercial operations? The government shouldn't be blocking the testing or development of new technologies without a strong reason for doing so.
They aren't. I've already cited the UAS information from the FAA.
There is a big difference between testing and development using the existing production system and using limited areas and tight control. The latter is the correct way of testing and development, as any software engineer should be able to tell you.
Frankly, if the drones stay outside of controlled airspace
That's going to be very hard for a 50 MPH Amazon delivery drone to do, and even the toys can wind up there without much trouble at all. Given that Amazon has a strong presence in Seattle, and downtown Seattle has Boeing field, that means the controlled airspace extends from the surface up. SeaTac has even more restricted airspace, which includes a surface up for a distance of 30 miles.
and don't cross state borders,
You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.
I read TFA. It was a Phantom. Yes, it's a toy. BUT, the exemption applies only to toys that are flown with visual contact. I.e., a tiny thing like this, two miles away, isn't being flown under visual control. The camera that it carries points only one way, and if the police helicopter approached from the rear the operators would not have seen it. It is quite possible that they did a 180 and flew back over the police helicopter (as the transcript from ATC says). If they did that, while not under visual control, and could have been sucked down into the chopper blades, it was reckless. It wasn't the police fault that they turned and flew back over, it was theirs, and it was only because they didn't actually have their aircraft in sight the whole time.
Also, the statement by the chopper pilot that he didn't know what to charge them with is irrelevant. He's not the one who arrested them, and he may not know the exact crime that was committed. He doesn't have to.
Unfortunately, we didn't have any openings for reactionless engine technicians or 4th order energy engineers.
You misunderstood. It was the aliens looking for cheap human labor that could be exploited. I mean, you go all the way to Alma Crematoria to take a job and it turns out you're becoming an indentured servant, what are you gonna do? Are you going to be able to afford a ticket back to the Earth? You think you'll find another job there, without good language skills and a degree from an Alma Crematorium university? You may wind up picking cabbage... or working at Walmart. By the time you get there they'll have stores.
Ballsy is banning it without any intent to develop regulations or to even consider if regulations are necessary.
So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.
I'm using the term that was used in the summary, which was almost certainly a quote from TFA.
Is a quad, hex, or octo copter a helicopter?
If this thing was large enough to be hovering near the bridge and visible to the pilot of the police helicopter, it was almost certainly not a toy or model aircraft, so yes, in this case, it was a helicopter.
FAA is already trying to impose some pretty severe restrictions against modelers.
There is no indication that this was a "toy" or "model" aircraft. I would also appreciate a citation from the other commenter who said that toys were exempted from this, to see if the exemption covers something as large as this apparently was.
Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think...
It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:
1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.
That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:
Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.
The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones.
And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.
But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?
Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.
So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.
Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:
91.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 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.
Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".
And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:
91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.
(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:
That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.
There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent f
Just because there are no law that forbids flying RC aircraft over a populated area
But there is. 14CFR91 is the basic regulation of aviation. It applies to:
Â91.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 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.
No exemption for unmanned aircraft. And aircraft are defined as:
Â1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.
That includes "drones". As for the "VFR separation rules" some others keep mentioning, here it is:
Â91.111 Operating near other aircraft.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
Now, if the drone operator did a 180 to fly back over the helicopter, then the drone pilot broke this rule. Was he breaking any other rules prior to that?
Â91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
The bridge is a pretty tall structure, and I think New York City constitutes a congested area. If the drone was not higher than the bridge by at least 1000 feet, he's breaking this rule.
What about the helicopter? Continuing:
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surfaceâ"
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA
Since the helicopter pilot was in contact with ATC, one can assume that the FAA was ok with this.
In short, helicopters have a different set of rules than other aircraft, and drones are covered by exiting regulations.
Just as there are no explicit law text forbidding reversing in ones car in a parking space -
I really can't figure out what you are referring to here. What is "reversing in ones car"? Sitting backwards? Or parking on-street opposite the flow of traffic?
With google maps, a phone number change might not be apparently a bad edit until you call it, and even then if it was setup with the sole purpose of misrepresenting a business, then it will be difficult to verify.
Even worse, if the information is a website to reserve a room at a hotel, the only people who will know that the link that takes you to Booking.com or some other reseller is bogus is the hotel itself. Did I just get sent to booking.com when I clicked on "reserve a room" because this hotel wants me to go through booking.com, or did some nefarious bad guy point me to his website so he can scam a commission?
Slashdot Mirror
The policy manual where I work spells out all kinds of things; like not doing illegal things on company computers, not stealing, not sexually harassing or bullying people. What the hell is your problem with that?
What's my problem with your policy manual? Well, for YOUR manual, nothing, because I don't care about how they treat you. If it were a policy manual I was subject to, I'd have a problem with a manual that includes so much stuff that it doesn't need to that it hides the stuff it does need to include.
For example: not stealing. Do'h. By putting that stuff into a company policy manual, they're treating you like a child. The closest any policy manual I've seen comes is when it tells people that certain things that would be legal using a regular company's resources is illegal because this is a state university and then leaves it to the intelligence of the user to know that they aren't supposed to do those things BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL.
Any policy manual that hides actual company policies between such obvious things as "don't steal", "play well with others", "don't rape your co-workers", etc, is just a waste of time.
The whole point of policies, whether they cover unwanted illegal activities or unwanted and yet legal activities, is to make clear the organization's priorities and desires for the workplace.
I don't know that I'd want to work at a company that has to say explicitly that it desires that I not do illegal things on company time, and that it has a priority that I stick to legal stuff.
Before satellites we had these things called thermometers. They were invented around 1638.
Yes, thermometers were invented around that time. But to record GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, you need two thing: 1) an accurate thermometer. Yes, they existed prior to 1980. But you also need 2) global measurements. Prior to satellite measurements, there were very large parts of this globe that didn't have any measurements at all. There were accurate thermometers, they just weren't located all over the place.
You do know that satellites can't measure global temperature - they can't see above +85 or below -85 degrees.
In a qualitative sense, not getting the small area over the poles is MUCH different than not getting the vast majority of the planet at all. Most people would accept the term "global" (as in GPS) even through there are small areas that it doesn't cover, compared to the improper use of the term "global" when there are much much larger (and physically important) areas that aren't.
The global ocean is a critical player in global climate, and yet very little of it had recorded temperatures prior to satellites.
After all, who wouldn't want a highly accurate manometer to check blood pressure.
Someone who wants a portable device that can go to the patient wherever he is, doesn't contain a liquid, reasonably volatile poison, and doesn't require a hazmat response when dropped on the floor, as well as anyone who realizes that "highly accurate" isn't necessary when dealing with numbers that can change by 10% just by thinking about it. Be honest, is there a real difference between 121/76 and 122/74? No.
Or as every doctor I've run across put's it "more accurate than the cheap chunk of plastic that stops working all the time, while being highly inaccurate."
False dichotomy. "Not a mercury manometer" doesn't necessarily mean "cheap chunk of plastic". In fact, I've not see any "cheap chunk of plastic" blood pressure cuffs in use anywhere I've been. Yes, you can buy a cheap home unit, but then you've created your own problem if you try to use units intended for home use in a professional medical practice.
Oh and in most cases, they use one on the end of your finger.
I don't seem to have "one on the end of [my] finger". I don't know of a blood pressure cuff that goes on the end of a finger. I know of pulse oxymeters that clip on there, are you perhaps confusing the two?
But they still use mercury thermometers for a reason.
I still use a mercury thermometer at home for a reason: because I already own it and don't see a need to replace it. It is, however, less accurate than an electronic device, harder to read, takes longer to use, and requires more care in cleaning and more cleaning. It's also a hazard if broken, especially if broken while in use. Let it slip while "resetting" it and you've got a mess to clean up. Those are the reasons I've not seen one in use in a medical facility for decades, at least in the US. If they still use them in the EU and Canada, then the EU and Canada don't have the quality of medical care that everyone claims. They're focusing on "highly accurate" measurements of transient values instead of treating the patient.
Another honesty check: does it really make a difference in patient care if the patient's temperature is just 100.3F instead of 100.4F? What does that "highly accurate" get you?
Data probably came from many places, on weather underground I see that thigh for my location was set in 1934. But how do they know that, thats unpossible!!!!!
Who was running a temperature monitoring station at your location in 1934? Unless you live at the airport, I'm going to guess that nobody was. I'm going to guess that when you say "my location", you actually mean "somewhere within twenty miles of here and we're calling that close enough" when it comes to 1934 data, even though "my location" would imply where you are now, not just the general vicinity.
Today, Weather Underground uses data collected by many volunteers with networked weather stations. You may very well have such a station at your location. I have a station at my home, too. I've never bothered networking it to any presumably serious collection effort simply because I know how unreliable that kind of data can be. For example, my outdoor temperature sensor is mounted under a shelter and the clothes dryer vent would dump warm air there to make the readings high. It's good enough for what I need. My barometer has been stuck on 31.00" for the last two days for some reason (the thermometer and hygrometer work fine).
I say all that because even the professionals don't always bother to do it right. NWS has (and probably still has) weather stations installed in or near blacktop parking lots, and painted colors other than the official white. Jeffery Kooistra documented this problem in an Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact article a few years ago, and as I recall, he even reported that some of the stations were installed near HVAC cooling vents.
Global climate data (you know, for the globe) will include data from all regions of the globe
Given that global temperature data wasn't available before there were satellites to measure it, and had to be recalibrated around 1998 because they discovered an error in the satellite-based sea surface temperature processing, it would be hard to have a plot of mean global temperature anomalies prior to 1980 or so.
Prior to the satellite age, ocean measurements were sparse and hard to come by, and even measurements from unpopulated areas were limited. The term "global" meant something different back then compared to now.
Better let the medical community know this, the gold standard for measurements whether for blood pressure, or temperature is still mercury filled devices.
Better let the medical community know this. I haven't seen a mercury-filled blood pressure cuff in several decades, and when they take my temperature they stick a little electronic thing in my ear. The former is much more portable than the old manometer nailed to the wall, and the latter is much faster and more accurate.
Or did you mean by "gold standard" the idea that "it will cost us a lot of gold if someone breaks one of these damn mercury filled dinguses and a patient sues for mercury poisoning"?
It's just that in a 6MHz channel, most OTA stations only broadcast one channel, so it gets the full 20Mbps available of that channel.
Every OTA in this area that I know of has at least two, and usually three, streams on one channel. Why wouldn't they? With relatively moderate compression the bandwidth becomes free and they can charge advertisers double or more.
In a cable system, each 6MHz channel also gives around 20Mbps. however, instead of just having one channel take the entire bandwidth, they squeeze in three, four or more HD channels in that slot, so they get 6, 5 or less Mbps each.
I've seen typically 2 or three HD per "channel", so they're doing as well as or better than most of the OTA.
In one, he tells people to stop worrying about the ozone layer because "the Sun makes ozone." A half-truth: yes,
Not a "half truth", it is a fact. And since about 2000, the "size" of the ozone hole as gotten smaller and the minimum amount of ozone in the hole has gone slightly up. Data here. That's telling us that, indeed, the sun is making it faster than the CFCs that are still there are breaking it down. It also ignores the ozone levels over the rest of the planet, focusing on just one area.
It's interesting to note that the definition of the "hole" is not where there is zero ozone, but is just below an arbitrary limit set based on 1979 ozone levels.
Another similar fallacy: he says there are more trees in the USA now than when the first settlers arrived, so stop worrying about trees. I don't know, maybe that's true,
HE'S WRONG!!! but maybe he's right?
but he ignores the fact that we are cutting these trees down at a much higher rate than the settlers ever did.
And you ignore the fact that those clearcuts get replanted, so we're also planting trees at a rate much higher than the settlers ever did. Those trees that are cut down to go into building houses sequester a lot of carbon, and the growing trees suck up a lot of the carbon dioxide you exhale with every breath.
Forestry management is about ensuring rates of growth are higher than rates of depletion,
No, forestry management is about a sustainable use of forest resources. That's why harvests get replanted. By the way, I live in an area where logging is a large part of the economy (but not my employer) so I've seen both the cuts and the replants.
I'm always amazed at how many people that outright reject Rush Limbaugh still listen to his show.
What's more amazing is how many people who have never listened to his show who happily tell everyone what he's saying and thinking.
On a serious note, the summary provides a link to "the raw data", a table which has a title "Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)" and columns of "Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean".
Climate scientists shoot themselves in the foot when they produce such highly processed data and call it "raw". The data are actually the difference of the annual and five year temperature means (from an unspecified set of sites and with unspecified filtering to remove outliers) from a "baseline" average of ... well, the text claims 1951-1980, but the plot in the original article says 1981-2010.
The plot in the fine article also shows a simple linear fit to all the "anomaly" data, when by eye it is pretty easy to see at least two different trend lines, one from 1920 to 1975, and then 1975 on. That kind of simplistic processing creates questions about how the statistics are being created and used.
There is also an unexplained large dip around 1910, and a spike around 1942. Apparently there are existing processes that can cause relatively rapid cooling as well as heating, and that maybe points to causes for the remainder that is more than AGW.
That's a great idea. People could pre-order, pre-pay online with a credit card. The machine would give them an estimated pick-up time.
Accountant: Home Depot called, your order of 39 pink dildos has been waiting for pickup for a week. And why are you buying this using the company credit card?
Exec: Oh, crap. The company card must have been hacked again. That's it.
But also make it possible to remotely queue jobs and then pick them up at the store later when they're finished.
Minion: Sir, the 3D printer kiosk has been spitting out plastic dildos all day ...
Manager: Just mark them $2.99 and put them in the bin with all the rest.
It's like asking whether the electric company provides light in your home.
When the electric company sells CFL at a huge discount, I think the answer to this question can honestly be "yes". See here for a $0.99 bulb that appears on Amazon.com for $6.50 (0.01 plus $6.49 shipping).
That is Comcast should never make Netflix (or Hulu, or Youtube, or AT&T U-verse media) have lower performance than other equivalent services from Comcast (except of course in cases where the Comcast media is stored relatively local and thus can be provided more efficiently for technical reasons).
The problem with that is that Comcast's "equivalent service" (On-Demand) uses technically different delivery mechanisms than Netflix service. On Demand appears as a regular cable channel to the end user. In fact, until a few months ago, Comcast in this area delivered it as an unencrypted channel, and anyone with an ATV with clearQAM could view it. This was after they changed to encrypting all but a very few cable channels.
So, that's why a clogged pipe to Netflix wasn't also a clogged pipe to On Demand. And net neutrality won't change that at all. Nor would forcing Comcast to divest of the ISP part of the service.
I believe all the regulations state that one should not endanger other air traffic, which means both sides should give way,
The rule in the US is that the unmanned "model aircraft", if being flown under the exemption, must give way to manned aircraft.
This is actually an issue I'm the UK were you can get a commercial licence to operate unmanned aircraft and it's registered to a specific aircraft with proficiency test on operation of that aircraft being done at an airfield.
Could you imagine the uproar in the US if people were told they needed to take a test to be able to fly their toys?
And you would be completely correct....except for SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT, which effectively exempts the FAA from almost any authority over anything that could legitimately be called a model aircraft used in a legitimate way.
The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:
Making a 180 and flying above a manned helicopter is interference with that helicopter, and is certainly not giving way to them. Further, the definition of "model aircraft" requires that it be:
Two miles away is not "visual line of sight" of something the size of a Phantom. If you think the pilot was maintaining "visual line of sight" as his craft was flying between buildings to get away from the cops, you're wrong.
Further, it would be interesting to find out if any of the neighborhoods he'd been flying this thing in were closer than 5 miles to any airport, or if he even considered that problem.
Effectively it puts the AMA in charge of regulating model aircraft,
As long as those model aircraft meet the definition of model aircraft and operate in according with that law. Which is one way of saying that the AMA is not in total control of model aircraft, just a limited subset.
Congress explicitly exempted small radio controlled model aircraft that follow certain guidelines from what you are quoting.
This was not a model aircraft. It was a toy. And one of the guidelines is it must remain in sight of the pilot, which this one didn't.
No commercial operations? The government shouldn't be blocking the testing or development of new technologies without a strong reason for doing so.
They aren't. I've already cited the UAS information from the FAA.
There is a big difference between testing and development using the existing production system and using limited areas and tight control. The latter is the correct way of testing and development, as any software engineer should be able to tell you.
Frankly, if the drones stay outside of controlled airspace
That's going to be very hard for a 50 MPH Amazon delivery drone to do, and even the toys can wind up there without much trouble at all. Given that Amazon has a strong presence in Seattle, and downtown Seattle has Boeing field, that means the controlled airspace extends from the surface up. SeaTac has even more restricted airspace, which includes a surface up for a distance of 30 miles.
and don't cross state borders,
You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.
Also, the statement by the chopper pilot that he didn't know what to charge them with is irrelevant. He's not the one who arrested them, and he may not know the exact crime that was committed. He doesn't have to.
Unfortunately, we didn't have any openings for reactionless engine technicians or 4th order energy engineers.
You misunderstood. It was the aliens looking for cheap human labor that could be exploited. I mean, you go all the way to Alma Crematoria to take a job and it turns out you're becoming an indentured servant, what are you gonna do? Are you going to be able to afford a ticket back to the Earth? You think you'll find another job there, without good language skills and a degree from an Alma Crematorium university? You may wind up picking cabbage ... or working at Walmart. By the time you get there they'll have stores.
Ballsy is banning it without any intent to develop regulations or to even consider if regulations are necessary.
So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.
please stop calling these things drones.
I'm using the term that was used in the summary, which was almost certainly a quote from TFA.
Is a quad, hex, or octo copter a helicopter?
If this thing was large enough to be hovering near the bridge and visible to the pilot of the police helicopter, it was almost certainly not a toy or model aircraft, so yes, in this case, it was a helicopter.
FAA is already trying to impose some pretty severe restrictions against modelers.
There is no indication that this was a "toy" or "model" aircraft. I would also appreciate a citation from the other commenter who said that toys were exempted from this, to see if the exemption covers something as large as this apparently was.
Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think...
It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:
That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:
The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.
But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?
So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.
Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:
Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".
And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:
That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.
There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent f
Must come as quite a shock to the boys in blue. They're probably used to dealing with evidence captured on their dashcam recorders.
They're also quite familiar with the standard recording of all dispatch radio traffic. It is no shock to any pilot, either.
Just because there are no law that forbids flying RC aircraft over a populated area
But there is. 14CFR91 is the basic regulation of aviation. It applies to:
No exemption for unmanned aircraft. And aircraft are defined as:
That includes "drones". As for the "VFR separation rules" some others keep mentioning, here it is:
Now, if the drone operator did a 180 to fly back over the helicopter, then the drone pilot broke this rule. Was he breaking any other rules prior to that?
The bridge is a pretty tall structure, and I think New York City constitutes a congested area. If the drone was not higher than the bridge by at least 1000 feet, he's breaking this rule.
What about the helicopter? Continuing:
Since the helicopter pilot was in contact with ATC, one can assume that the FAA was ok with this.
In short, helicopters have a different set of rules than other aircraft, and drones are covered by exiting regulations.
Just as there are no explicit law text forbidding reversing in ones car in a parking space -
I really can't figure out what you are referring to here. What is "reversing in ones car"? Sitting backwards? Or parking on-street opposite the flow of traffic?
With google maps, a phone number change might not be apparently a bad edit until you call it, and even then if it was setup with the sole purpose of misrepresenting a business, then it will be difficult to verify.
Even worse, if the information is a website to reserve a room at a hotel, the only people who will know that the link that takes you to Booking.com or some other reseller is bogus is the hotel itself. Did I just get sent to booking.com when I clicked on "reserve a room" because this hotel wants me to go through booking.com, or did some nefarious bad guy point me to his website so he can scam a commission?