I think that once we start seeing driverless cars become mainstream, we'll see a development where it can avoid a pack of dumbasses with a spray can as well.
That would be a wonderful solution to the parking problem, especially for people with non-autonomous vehicles. When you get where you are going and can't find a parking space, pull a can of spray paint out of the glove box and all the autonomous cars parked nearby run away, leaving you a lot of spaces to park in.
No crashes and no natural disasters? Combine them and the premiums should reduce by far more than 80%.
You said "self evacuate from cyclones" would reduce premiums by more than 80%. Cyclones aren't the cause of all crashes and they aren't the only natural disaster. Yes, if you reduce all claims by 80% by reducing accidents, then it is irrelevant to talk about self evacuation from cyclones, which is a tiny tiny fraction of all claims. "Self evacuation" from anything is going to prevent a tiny fraction of all damage and create a huge amount of liability when the owner of the car needs to evacuate and his car has already done so.
Call it back with your phone?:P
Don't stick your tongue out at me. The cyclone warnings are going off, you're going to have time to call your car BACK to where you left it and where it SHOULD be? Sure.
Or just make it a manual thing so if you know your car is in danger you can order it away if you aren't near it.
Then it isn't "self evacuation", its just more of the same autonomous movement.
TFA says that 35% would "take the money". It says that 90% would consider it. Part of "considering it" is "would I let the car take the kids to school", and 75% say "no". That 75% have at least three options: don't buy an autonomous car, buy an autonomous car as a second vehicle (so they own two cars) and take the kids to school in the manual car, or replace their existing car with an autonomous car and home school.
The rich ones will have two cars. That won't save them on their insurance, it will actually go up. The poor ones will not be able to afford to have two, they'll have to pick -- and they'll probably keep the car they have because it is paid off and they can't afford a new one.
At the most extreme disjoint of the two sets, that means that 50% of people believe that letting a car drive their children to school would put them at higher risk, and yet they'd do it anyway for money.
Yeah but a car that could self evacuate from a cyclone would certainly lower premiums by a lot more than 80%.
Do you have a citation that shows that such a large percentage of auto insurance claims comes from cars that are damaged in cyclones? For cyclone avoidance to cause such a large decrease in premiums, cyclones would have to create 80% of the damage.
You also might want to consider the liability created by an autonomous vehicle that "self evacuates" from any dangerous situation. The people it leaves behind when it decides to scoot out of danger may feel like suing the auto manufacturer for damages to them. You know how bad it will look for the big bad auto company when someone goes to court and testifies "When the warning horns started going off we picked up to leave. That stinking car had its own NOAA receiver, got the SAME alert before we did, and when the family and I went to the garage to evacuate that bugger had already left..."
Most days, I'll want the automated put-put, but on weekends, I'll want to dust off the sports car.
In other words, you are rich enough to be a two-car "family". Many people aren't.
TFA says that 34% would "hand over the keys". This is not "most" as the headline reports it. It's 90% who would consider it. But 75% say they would not let an autonomous car take their kids to school. Ergo, those 75% would NOT hand the keys over, or they, too, would have to be rich enough to be a two car family. They'll let the car take them to work, but they'll "dust off the sports car" to haul the kids to and from school.
I don't know how that differs from typical enterprise software, but plane crashes are rarely blamed on flight-control software bugs. (I know they do happen, but are pretty rare in comparison to the number of annual flight hours)
The failures of "flight control software" don't often result in "plane crashes" mainly because there is a licensed pilot who is highly trained in detection of those failures and how to deal with emergencies of all kinds while in flight sitting in the pilot's seat monitoring the operation. The recurrent training that commercial/ATP pilots must go through to keep their jobs focuses very little on normal flight operations and very much on dealing with multiple system failures simultaneously. Some are on the Kobyashi Maru level -- he's not intended to walk away from it, but learn how to better manage what he's doing.
He's usually not "texting" or playing video games or reading a book or sleeping, and the failures that happen when he is doing one of those things do result in plane crashes.
Contrast that with the level of recurrent training a driver must go through to keep his license: fill out a form and send in a check. Compare the experience requirements for autonomous vehicle drivers and ATP: the former can go without driving for 8 years and legally hop into a car and drive somewhere. The ATP cannot legally carry passengers if he's gone more than 90 days without flying, and cannot legally fly at all if he goes more than two years. Actually, since commercial air carriers all operate under IFR, he can't fly for his job if he goes more than six months without flying.
Trying to use existing aircraft software flight systems as proof that autonomous vehicles will be safe when they finally reach the user is simply ridiculous. The level of user training in the former so vastly exceeds the level of user training for the latter that they are simply not the same category of problem. Add in the fact that a flight system failure at the flight levels rarely means death within 10 seconds, while veering into a bridge abutment or oncoming semi truck at 70MPH on the freeway does.
Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?
If the game is less than 17 years old (18 in some jurisdictions), consent is not an issue. It will be statutory.
Once the game is 17 years old, yes, it has to consent to you unwrapping it. However, the fact that the game was selling itself on the store shelves provides implied consent to completion of the act. At that point you and the game will both be open to charges of prostitution and related.
That means you can bonk Duke Nukem and Zelda all you want, if they agree and you didn't pay for them. I'm waiting until next year when Lara Croft becomes legal...
Which part of "candidate" means random jackass who just wants money and isn't actually running of office -- e.g. isn't a candidate.
If someone hasn't filed the paperwork to be a candidate he isn't a candidate. So by definition he won't be getting money. Any "random jackass" can file the paperwork, and that makes "Random Jackass" a candidate. Under your proposal, either you give "Random Jackass, candidate" the same money you give "Nonrandom Jackass" because they are both candidates, or you start picking and choosing and putting politics back into the system.
You are the sort of person who would be unable to pass a law against murder...
Oh, please. You can't tell the difference between being a political candidate and murder?
because you'd get too mired in trying to define what a person was,
There is already a definition for candidate.
You are paying for political speech you don't agree with now by having a portion of your cable bill go towards comcasts lobbying
So let's make the problem worse. Gotcha.
If you have a better idea I'm all ears, but what we have now is worse.
Yeah, it's pretty well known that democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others. Freedom of speech is such a terrible thing to allow some people to have, so let's take it away from everyone. Ok.
If you like what that politician is saying, tell people that.
So your theory is that if you can fractionalize the speech you don't like enough, it won't ever be effective. I can't afford to buy airtime on the local TV station, but I can afford to give the politician I like $100, and that will allow him to expand his speech. You're saying that if I want to tell the same people he's speaking to that I agree with him, I should have to spend tens of thousands of dollars creating an ad and paying for airtime.
But what you're really saying is that I should be limited to telling my friends over morning coffee and otherwise I don't have the right to help the guy who is saying what I want others to hear.
I'm not proposing to impinge on your right to speak freely.
By saying I cannot add my voice to the politician I agree with, yes you certainly are.
I am proposing to impinge on your current ability to PURCHASE.
So you're one of the people who doesn't think the first amendment covers the right to have effective unfettered speech. You don't get the fact that free speech on today's world requires money to pay for it. I can say whatever I want just as long as I don't join with others to pay for speech that anyone might actually hear. I understand.
If you like what a prostitute has done to your genitalia, you are not (currently) permitted to (legally) give her money.
And now you're a nut who tries to equate sex and free speech. Or you're stuck trying to argue about a fictional statement that money is identical to speech. Get over it. Money isn't identical to speech, but money is a requirement for effective speech. By passing a law that tries to make other people speech ineffective you are indeed infringing on their right to free speech.
And prohibiting that amplification is an infringement on the right to free speech, since clearly the intent of the founders was to promote free speech that actually was hearable, not just lock people up in small rooms and say "say anything you want here where nobody can hear you." Certainly the founders did not intend on prohibiting people from associating with each other to make their speech more effective.
You are permitted by law and by my suggestion to speak all you wish.
"Here's your small rubber room. Speak all you wish".
If it was a universal right, money wouldn't be required
The first amendment doesn't cover the cost of effective speech, it is a statement that the government cannot create laws which infringe upon that right. A law that says that I cannot purchase airtime, or freely associate with others to purchase airtime, is a clear and undeniable infringement upon my right to free speech. But it's not FAIR if some people have money and can spend it to make themselves heard! Well, the freedom to pursue happiness isn't a guarantee that you'll find it, either. Life isn't fair. The Constitution wasn't written to make life fair, it was written to put limits on the government.
The latter is bribery that flies under the radar because some lawyers baked just the right logic pretzel so, "money is speech".
Nonsense. It flies under the radar because the money was not given on the condition that the congressman would vote to build the dam, it was given prior to any consideration of the dam. The only reason it approaches any lines in the sand is not because of the money being given, it is because of the order to do something. I can give $100,000 every day to some politician ("money is speech") and if I never demand he do anything I've never come close to bribing him.
Simply saying "money is speech" is what constitutes bribery is ignoring the necessary act of actually getting something in return for the money.
You're just jealous because our corporate citizens can buy more and better politicians than you.
The solution to that "problem" is for you to join with your fellow citizens of like mind to create your own "corporation" and pool your money to create more effective speech. Not for you to try to strip first amendment rights from people who have joined together (right of free association, anyone?) to do that already.
The solution to the "problem" of speech you don't like has never been "let's ban it", the solution has always been for more speech to present the countering positions, and that's what the founders intended. The right to free speech isn't there to protect stuff you like and to be used as a hammer against stuff you don't. It is there solely to protect stuff you don't like. That means the solution to "hate speech" is not "ban hate speech", it is to create more "love speech". The solution to "political speech" is not "ban political speech", it is to have more political speech. And the moment you say "I can't afford to", you've admitted that having effective free speech isn't free and money is a requirement.
5000 signatures first please, and remember we'll call a sampling of them, so they better be real.
Which part of "equal parts for all candidates" means "equal parts for only those popular candidates I decide deserve it"?
What you thought you could say you were a candidate and then buy a boat?
What, you thought you could say "equal parts for all candidates" taken from all taxpayers (even those who don't support what any of the candidates are saying, thus forcing them to pay for someone else's speech) and then think you get to decide who the candidates really are based on initial popularity contests? In most places, being a candidate requires only filing the paperwork to run for office. Either you mean "equal for all" or you mean "I pick who gets the money based on arbitrary criteria that probably only the candidates I like will be able to meet."
Once you've done that, you turned the process back into a political one, and are forcing people to pay for speech they oppose. Not even the unions are supposed to be able to do that. And yes, "equal for all" means there will be candidates there only for the money, which means it is a really bad idea to start with. Sugar coating a dung doughnut still leaves you with a dung doughnut.
What is being talked about is removing your right to stuff the envelope full of money.
I like what that politician is saying, therefore I am supporting him in using his right to free speech, and by doing so, essentially saying the same things he is. I have that right.
If you think that the right to free speech means you have only the right to stand on the streetcorner and pontificate using your own vocal cords at passersby, then you are sorely mistaken. Free speech is free as in unfettered, not free as in doesn't cost money. Effective unfettered speech requires money.
Not necessarily; to me, it sound like he wants to get rid of this stupid concepts that corporation == a person, and that money == speech.
Except those "stupid concepts" are facts of life. There would be no corporations without the people that create them, and if you want any kind of effective speech in today's society it requires money.
Besides, according to the Constitution money cannot equal speech,
Nobody says money is identical to speech. Money is a requirement for effective speech. If you ban using money to pay for speech, you might as well ban the speech to begin with. For example, I have a great movie I've made about Hilary Clinton. I want to show it to people. That's my right under the first amendment. But wait -- showing it to people requires money. How can I exercise my right to free speech if you prohibit me from spending the money I need to spend so people can see my movie? (And guess what -- that is CU in a nutshell.)
and having more money than other people is not supposed to mean you have more free speech than they do.
I don't know where you see this in the constitution. You have the same right to free speech. The first amendment says nothing about the quantity of free speech, so there is no "more" or "less" to it. It doesn't say one person can only have as much free speech as someone else is able to pay for.
Many of the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights require money to exercise. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that guns are free because people who have more money have the ability to buy more guns.
I don't even understand how such a thing could make sense to anyone.
You want to speak publicly against a ballot proposal. You want your message to be heard and not just echo off the walls of your empty basement. That takes money. You can send letters to the editor, but the editor may choose not to run them. If he does, they are limited in length. You can't make a full, reasonable argument in 250 words that may never appear. That editor is fully in control of your "right" to speak freely, in both senses of the word.
You can stand on the street corner, but the only people who might hear you are anyone stupid enough to walk withing hearing distance of a nut standing on a soap box on the street corner, and once they walk away from you they may not remember what it was you were saying.
Face it, money is a requirement for any ability to have effective free speech. If you don't think effective free speech is a right, then you must be all for the "free speech zones" that political parties set up at conventions to herd all the opposing voices of where they won't be heard by anyone but themselves. They are exercising a right to free speech, but it isn't effective.
I don't know why that doesn't make sense to some people.
Flight profile for a 737 typically means reducing throttle at 10,000 feet... thus the climb becomes more shallow...
Which isn't "level at 10,000". And "becomes more shallow" doesn't even mean "climb slower". A lower angle of attack means less drag and higher airspeed, and higher airspeed translates into more available lift. You can actually climb faster with a shallower angle of attack if you are going faster. It will take you more ground distance to make that climb, but you're still going up faster. It's the difference between Vx and Vy -- best angle vs. best rate.
if you're heavy, you're going to want to build up whatever speed you lost getting to 10,000 feet
You didn't lose airspeed getting to 10,000 feet, you started at 0 on the ground and went to 250 knots... and then stayed there. Until 10,000 when you can go faster.
As I read it, as far as the FCC is concerned, IF you got permission from the pilot in command, you were permitted to operate.
IF the PIC was allowed to give you permission. He can't for air carrier operations. I cited the regulation.
but just like before your lawful operation of an amateur station aboard an aircraft requires permission from the pilot in command.
It's the operator who has to decide. The FCC rules say you have to get permission from someone who cannot legally give you permission. Clearly the rules imply that there is a way to get permission, but the FAA has said that the permission comes from the operator and not the PIC.
I have a suspicion that with the new rule changes, the requisite permission will now be granted pretty much just like before.
Once the operator has cleared the PED operation that's the permission required since that's the legal source of the determination.
Why would I die if I put a computer in vacuum? In fact, I'll do that all the time...
You won't, but it will sure screw up your vacuum. Even one of those that they show on TV sucking up ball bearings will choke on a laptop. Imagine a Cyclone with your computer going round and round and round....
Here. What the airline operator has not determined will not cause interference is prohibited. Your airline decided you could, but most do not. And bt and wifi start out as prohibited until proven safe, so claiming they were never prohibited is a bit overstatement in both fact and intention.
And what's the point of wi-fi unless there's a nearby access point?
It's called "ad hoc" networking, and it is used by printers and other equipment for connections longer distance than bluetooth or where bluetooth hardware is not installed. Also "bridging".
And the only access point available at high altitude is necessarily provided by the airline, which they've already been doing for years.
I have an access point in my pocket. It's called my cell phone. The airline did not provide it to me. And not all airlines are providing a pay for network wifi.
Relatively recent? Like 2010?
Since this is only 2013, yes, relatively recent. The prohibition on electronic devices has been around for decades.
It was a direct response to your snarky tone implying I hadn't actually RTFA.
It wasn't an insult, and it wasn't calling you a name.
Again, bluetooth and wi-fi have been allowed previously.
In some cases. There has never been a blanket approval.
I hadn't considered GPS receivers, but for those who follow with them, well, cool.
This is yet another example that counters your "no change" claim.
The main change I see here is the allowance of PEDs below 10k feet.
Which by itself is a major change in policy, and when combined with bt, wifi, and all the other changes, is yet another counter to "no change".
This was never a big issue for me, really,... I still don't see this as some grand revolutionary rule change, more of a minor increment.
You don't care, so it doesn't change anything. Ok.
Once they allow actual cell connections (even if only for texting and not voice calls) and LTE/EVDO data connections, I'll throw my hands in the air and cheer with everyone else.
Not everyone will be cheering that change.
And then hope that the technical hurdles can be overcome...
That change will not happen until the technical hurdles are overcome.
Are you serious? Could you imagine a world where it was legal to eavesdrop on cell phones?
Can imagine it, lived it. That's how it used to be. Life was good. Life got better after the ban on cell-capable radios. Stupid people with cell phones thought their conversations really were private and they said even more interesting things. I can't tell you what I've heard because divulging the content was and is against the law. Let's just say that the local married car dealer was sleeping with the receptionist and they planned some very interesting activities.
People complain about warrantless government wiretapping today...
Yes, they complain about many things. It isn't "wiretapping" if you pick up an FRS radio and start talking about your latest criminal exploits and where you plan to strike next and the cops are listening in. That's what using an analog cell phone was like. And some people who thought there was magic involved in the process argued that the fact that they were transmitting an unencoded audio signal via radio was irrelevant, what was more important was that their ignorance of the process and lies from the cell companies left them with a sense of "privacy" that should be enforced on others.
if your perverse fantasy world were to come to fruition, every cell phone call would be "a matter of the public record" just like a posting on an internet forum,
Been there, reality is different than your fiction. It wasn't perverse, it wasn't a fantasy. Calls were not a matter of public record. They weren't posted to the closest BBS. As far as I know, cops didn't spend their days tuning in to the cell bands to see what nefarious activities they could arrest people for.
The only major public release of a cell call was someone who recorded one of Newt Gingrich's calls and promptly divulged it to the press. Because it was against a Republican in a position of power, nobody bothered prosecuting the eavesdropper for first listening in (which was then illegal) or disclosing the contents (which was also illegal.)
Or perhaps our friendly neighborhood postmen should be able to take a peek inside our mail?
Postmen read your postcards all the time. That's the closest analogy in the snail mail world to an analog cell phone call. The solution to this problem is simple: put your letter in an envelope, or use a wireline phone.
I would think the right solution is to have no ban on them and tell the FCC to encforce their own regulations.
This would result in one branch of the government saying it is ok to do something while another says it isn't. Now, in the real world this may be common, but it is nice that sometimes they pay attention to this, and we should encourage such reasonable behavior whenever we can.
By having no ban on cell phones, they'd also have to make a specific exclusion for that device, and it is just easier to keep the blanket prohibition. They're also regulating their own jurisdiction (use on an aircraft), so they can be stricter than FCC rules (but not looser).
Yep. I missed that when looking for cites. Good catch. It's one of those things that I just do anyway, so I don't keep track of which rule says I have to. Kind of like which rule limits airspeed to 250 knots below 10,000 feet? For me, physics and the limited power available in the C182 engine. The FAA is trumped on that matter.
But then I guess that might force them to actually pay attention to what's going on around them. and (gasp) maybe actually talk to the person next to them.
You might want to consider that the fellow next to you with his BOSE QC3 headset on and plugged into the aircraft audio system is actually better able to pay attention to what is going on because he is better able to hear any announcements that are made. That's especially true when the plane is taking off and engines are at full noise output.
Well, the FAA limits your climb velocity to 250 knots for all aircraft.
The FAA regulations limit airspeed below 10,000 feet to 250 knots. The limit below Class B airspace is 200 knots. They do not limit "climb velocity".
Then level at 10,000 feet and build up to about 300 knots or so before beginning the final climb...
Aircraft that have sufficient power do not "level at 10,000" during their climb, and ATC does not expect them to. That would include just about any aircraft that was already going 250 knots during the climb. ATC does expect, and pilots may have to, temporarily suspend descent before going below 10,000 feet so they can meet the 250 knot limit.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that once we start seeing driverless cars become mainstream, we'll see a development where it can avoid a pack of dumbasses with a spray can as well.
That would be a wonderful solution to the parking problem, especially for people with non-autonomous vehicles. When you get where you are going and can't find a parking space, pull a can of spray paint out of the glove box and all the autonomous cars parked nearby run away, leaving you a lot of spaces to park in.
No crashes and no natural disasters? Combine them and the premiums should reduce by far more than 80%.
You said "self evacuate from cyclones" would reduce premiums by more than 80%. Cyclones aren't the cause of all crashes and they aren't the only natural disaster. Yes, if you reduce all claims by 80% by reducing accidents, then it is irrelevant to talk about self evacuation from cyclones, which is a tiny tiny fraction of all claims. "Self evacuation" from anything is going to prevent a tiny fraction of all damage and create a huge amount of liability when the owner of the car needs to evacuate and his car has already done so.
Call it back with your phone? :P
Don't stick your tongue out at me. The cyclone warnings are going off, you're going to have time to call your car BACK to where you left it and where it SHOULD be? Sure.
Or just make it a manual thing so if you know your car is in danger you can order it away if you aren't near it.
Then it isn't "self evacuation", its just more of the same autonomous movement.
... and yet 75% would still take the money.
TFA says that 35% would "take the money". It says that 90% would consider it. Part of "considering it" is "would I let the car take the kids to school", and 75% say "no". That 75% have at least three options: don't buy an autonomous car, buy an autonomous car as a second vehicle (so they own two cars) and take the kids to school in the manual car, or replace their existing car with an autonomous car and home school.
The rich ones will have two cars. That won't save them on their insurance, it will actually go up. The poor ones will not be able to afford to have two, they'll have to pick -- and they'll probably keep the car they have because it is paid off and they can't afford a new one.
At the most extreme disjoint of the two sets, that means that 50% of people believe that letting a car drive their children to school would put them at higher risk, and yet they'd do it anyway for money.
TFA does not support that conclusion.
Yeah but a car that could self evacuate from a cyclone would certainly lower premiums by a lot more than 80%.
Do you have a citation that shows that such a large percentage of auto insurance claims comes from cars that are damaged in cyclones? For cyclone avoidance to cause such a large decrease in premiums, cyclones would have to create 80% of the damage.
You also might want to consider the liability created by an autonomous vehicle that "self evacuates" from any dangerous situation. The people it leaves behind when it decides to scoot out of danger may feel like suing the auto manufacturer for damages to them. You know how bad it will look for the big bad auto company when someone goes to court and testifies "When the warning horns started going off we picked up to leave. That stinking car had its own NOAA receiver, got the SAME alert before we did, and when the family and I went to the garage to evacuate that bugger had already left..."
Most days, I'll want the automated put-put, but on weekends, I'll want to dust off the sports car.
In other words, you are rich enough to be a two-car "family". Many people aren't.
TFA says that 34% would "hand over the keys". This is not "most" as the headline reports it. It's 90% who would consider it. But 75% say they would not let an autonomous car take their kids to school. Ergo, those 75% would NOT hand the keys over, or they, too, would have to be rich enough to be a two car family. They'll let the car take them to work, but they'll "dust off the sports car" to haul the kids to and from school.
I don't know how that differs from typical enterprise software, but plane crashes are rarely blamed on flight-control software bugs. (I know they do happen, but are pretty rare in comparison to the number of annual flight hours)
The failures of "flight control software" don't often result in "plane crashes" mainly because there is a licensed pilot who is highly trained in detection of those failures and how to deal with emergencies of all kinds while in flight sitting in the pilot's seat monitoring the operation. The recurrent training that commercial/ATP pilots must go through to keep their jobs focuses very little on normal flight operations and very much on dealing with multiple system failures simultaneously. Some are on the Kobyashi Maru level -- he's not intended to walk away from it, but learn how to better manage what he's doing. He's usually not "texting" or playing video games or reading a book or sleeping, and the failures that happen when he is doing one of those things do result in plane crashes.
Contrast that with the level of recurrent training a driver must go through to keep his license: fill out a form and send in a check. Compare the experience requirements for autonomous vehicle drivers and ATP: the former can go without driving for 8 years and legally hop into a car and drive somewhere. The ATP cannot legally carry passengers if he's gone more than 90 days without flying, and cannot legally fly at all if he goes more than two years. Actually, since commercial air carriers all operate under IFR, he can't fly for his job if he goes more than six months without flying.
Trying to use existing aircraft software flight systems as proof that autonomous vehicles will be safe when they finally reach the user is simply ridiculous. The level of user training in the former so vastly exceeds the level of user training for the latter that they are simply not the same category of problem. Add in the fact that a flight system failure at the flight levels rarely means death within 10 seconds, while veering into a bridge abutment or oncoming semi truck at 70MPH on the freeway does.
Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?
If the game is less than 17 years old (18 in some jurisdictions), consent is not an issue. It will be statutory.
Once the game is 17 years old, yes, it has to consent to you unwrapping it. However, the fact that the game was selling itself on the store shelves provides implied consent to completion of the act. At that point you and the game will both be open to charges of prostitution and related.
That means you can bonk Duke Nukem and Zelda all you want, if they agree and you didn't pay for them. I'm waiting until next year when Lara Croft becomes legal...
People can freely associate. They shouldn't expect their liability to be limited though.
If you think that Citizens United was about a corporation trying to avoid liability, you really don't know what CU was about.
Which part of "candidate" means random jackass who just wants money and isn't actually running of office -- e.g. isn't a candidate.
If someone hasn't filed the paperwork to be a candidate he isn't a candidate. So by definition he won't be getting money. Any "random jackass" can file the paperwork, and that makes "Random Jackass" a candidate. Under your proposal, either you give "Random Jackass, candidate" the same money you give "Nonrandom Jackass" because they are both candidates, or you start picking and choosing and putting politics back into the system.
You are the sort of person who would be unable to pass a law against murder...
Oh, please. You can't tell the difference between being a political candidate and murder?
because you'd get too mired in trying to define what a person was,
There is already a definition for candidate.
You are paying for political speech you don't agree with now by having a portion of your cable bill go towards comcasts lobbying
So let's make the problem worse. Gotcha.
If you have a better idea I'm all ears, but what we have now is worse.
Yeah, it's pretty well known that democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all the others. Freedom of speech is such a terrible thing to allow some people to have, so let's take it away from everyone. Ok.
If you like what that politician is saying, tell people that.
So your theory is that if you can fractionalize the speech you don't like enough, it won't ever be effective. I can't afford to buy airtime on the local TV station, but I can afford to give the politician I like $100, and that will allow him to expand his speech. You're saying that if I want to tell the same people he's speaking to that I agree with him, I should have to spend tens of thousands of dollars creating an ad and paying for airtime.
But what you're really saying is that I should be limited to telling my friends over morning coffee and otherwise I don't have the right to help the guy who is saying what I want others to hear.
I'm not proposing to impinge on your right to speak freely.
By saying I cannot add my voice to the politician I agree with, yes you certainly are.
I am proposing to impinge on your current ability to PURCHASE.
So you're one of the people who doesn't think the first amendment covers the right to have effective unfettered speech. You don't get the fact that free speech on today's world requires money to pay for it. I can say whatever I want just as long as I don't join with others to pay for speech that anyone might actually hear. I understand.
If you like what a prostitute has done to your genitalia, you are not (currently) permitted to (legally) give her money.
And now you're a nut who tries to equate sex and free speech. Or you're stuck trying to argue about a fictional statement that money is identical to speech. Get over it. Money isn't identical to speech, but money is a requirement for effective speech. By passing a law that tries to make other people speech ineffective you are indeed infringing on their right to free speech.
Strongly disagree. Amplified unfettered speech requires money.
And prohibiting that amplification is an infringement on the right to free speech, since clearly the intent of the founders was to promote free speech that actually was hearable, not just lock people up in small rooms and say "say anything you want here where nobody can hear you." Certainly the founders did not intend on prohibiting people from associating with each other to make their speech more effective.
You are permitted by law and by my suggestion to speak all you wish.
"Here's your small rubber room. Speak all you wish".
If it was a universal right, money wouldn't be required
The first amendment doesn't cover the cost of effective speech, it is a statement that the government cannot create laws which infringe upon that right. A law that says that I cannot purchase airtime, or freely associate with others to purchase airtime, is a clear and undeniable infringement upon my right to free speech. But it's not FAIR if some people have money and can spend it to make themselves heard! Well, the freedom to pursue happiness isn't a guarantee that you'll find it, either. Life isn't fair. The Constitution wasn't written to make life fair, it was written to put limits on the government.
The latter is bribery that flies under the radar because some lawyers baked just the right logic pretzel so, "money is speech".
Nonsense. It flies under the radar because the money was not given on the condition that the congressman would vote to build the dam, it was given prior to any consideration of the dam. The only reason it approaches any lines in the sand is not because of the money being given, it is because of the order to do something. I can give $100,000 every day to some politician ("money is speech") and if I never demand he do anything I've never come close to bribing him.
Simply saying "money is speech" is what constitutes bribery is ignoring the necessary act of actually getting something in return for the money.
You're just jealous because our corporate citizens can buy more and better politicians than you.
The solution to that "problem" is for you to join with your fellow citizens of like mind to create your own "corporation" and pool your money to create more effective speech. Not for you to try to strip first amendment rights from people who have joined together (right of free association, anyone?) to do that already.
The solution to the "problem" of speech you don't like has never been "let's ban it", the solution has always been for more speech to present the countering positions, and that's what the founders intended. The right to free speech isn't there to protect stuff you like and to be used as a hammer against stuff you don't. It is there solely to protect stuff you don't like. That means the solution to "hate speech" is not "ban hate speech", it is to create more "love speech". The solution to "political speech" is not "ban political speech", it is to have more political speech. And the moment you say "I can't afford to", you've admitted that having effective free speech isn't free and money is a requirement.
5000 signatures first please, and remember we'll call a sampling of them, so they better be real.
Which part of "equal parts for all candidates" means "equal parts for only those popular candidates I decide deserve it"?
What you thought you could say you were a candidate and then buy a boat?
What, you thought you could say "equal parts for all candidates" taken from all taxpayers (even those who don't support what any of the candidates are saying, thus forcing them to pay for someone else's speech) and then think you get to decide who the candidates really are based on initial popularity contests? In most places, being a candidate requires only filing the paperwork to run for office. Either you mean "equal for all" or you mean "I pick who gets the money based on arbitrary criteria that probably only the candidates I like will be able to meet."
Once you've done that, you turned the process back into a political one, and are forcing people to pay for speech they oppose. Not even the unions are supposed to be able to do that. And yes, "equal for all" means there will be candidates there only for the money, which means it is a really bad idea to start with. Sugar coating a dung doughnut still leaves you with a dung doughnut.
What is being talked about is removing your right to stuff the envelope full of money.
I like what that politician is saying, therefore I am supporting him in using his right to free speech, and by doing so, essentially saying the same things he is. I have that right.
If you think that the right to free speech means you have only the right to stand on the streetcorner and pontificate using your own vocal cords at passersby, then you are sorely mistaken. Free speech is free as in unfettered, not free as in doesn't cost money. Effective unfettered speech requires money.
Not necessarily; to me, it sound like he wants to get rid of this stupid concepts that corporation == a person, and that money == speech.
Except those "stupid concepts" are facts of life. There would be no corporations without the people that create them, and if you want any kind of effective speech in today's society it requires money.
Besides, according to the Constitution money cannot equal speech,
Nobody says money is identical to speech. Money is a requirement for effective speech. If you ban using money to pay for speech, you might as well ban the speech to begin with. For example, I have a great movie I've made about Hilary Clinton. I want to show it to people. That's my right under the first amendment. But wait -- showing it to people requires money. How can I exercise my right to free speech if you prohibit me from spending the money I need to spend so people can see my movie? (And guess what -- that is CU in a nutshell.)
and having more money than other people is not supposed to mean you have more free speech than they do.
I don't know where you see this in the constitution. You have the same right to free speech. The first amendment says nothing about the quantity of free speech, so there is no "more" or "less" to it. It doesn't say one person can only have as much free speech as someone else is able to pay for.
Many of the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights require money to exercise. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that guns are free because people who have more money have the ability to buy more guns.
I don't even understand how such a thing could make sense to anyone.
You want to speak publicly against a ballot proposal. You want your message to be heard and not just echo off the walls of your empty basement. That takes money. You can send letters to the editor, but the editor may choose not to run them. If he does, they are limited in length. You can't make a full, reasonable argument in 250 words that may never appear. That editor is fully in control of your "right" to speak freely, in both senses of the word.
You can stand on the street corner, but the only people who might hear you are anyone stupid enough to walk withing hearing distance of a nut standing on a soap box on the street corner, and once they walk away from you they may not remember what it was you were saying.
Face it, money is a requirement for any ability to have effective free speech. If you don't think effective free speech is a right, then you must be all for the "free speech zones" that political parties set up at conventions to herd all the opposing voices of where they won't be heard by anyone but themselves. They are exercising a right to free speech, but it isn't effective.
I don't know why that doesn't make sense to some people.
Flight profile for a 737 typically means reducing throttle at 10,000 feet... thus the climb becomes more shallow...
Which isn't "level at 10,000". And "becomes more shallow" doesn't even mean "climb slower". A lower angle of attack means less drag and higher airspeed, and higher airspeed translates into more available lift. You can actually climb faster with a shallower angle of attack if you are going faster. It will take you more ground distance to make that climb, but you're still going up faster. It's the difference between Vx and Vy -- best angle vs. best rate.
if you're heavy, you're going to want to build up whatever speed you lost getting to 10,000 feet
You didn't lose airspeed getting to 10,000 feet, you started at 0 on the ground and went to 250 knots ... and then stayed there. Until 10,000 when you can go faster.
As I read it, as far as the FCC is concerned, IF you got permission from the pilot in command, you were permitted to operate.
IF the PIC was allowed to give you permission. He can't for air carrier operations. I cited the regulation.
but just like before your lawful operation of an amateur station aboard an aircraft requires permission from the pilot in command.
It's the operator who has to decide. The FCC rules say you have to get permission from someone who cannot legally give you permission. Clearly the rules imply that there is a way to get permission, but the FAA has said that the permission comes from the operator and not the PIC.
I have a suspicion that with the new rule changes, the requisite permission will now be granted pretty much just like before.
Once the operator has cleared the PED operation that's the permission required since that's the legal source of the determination.
Surely you'd want to download a movie through your camera, not your speaker, wouldn't you? ;-)
You'll need 5.1 speakers if you want the true Dolby 5.1 surround sound copy.
Why would I die if I put a computer in vacuum? In fact, I'll do that all the time...
You won't, but it will sure screw up your vacuum. Even one of those that they show on TV sucking up ball bearings will choke on a laptop. Imagine a Cyclone with your computer going round and round and round ....
Citation needed.
Here. What the airline operator has not determined will not cause interference is prohibited. Your airline decided you could, but most do not. And bt and wifi start out as prohibited until proven safe, so claiming they were never prohibited is a bit overstatement in both fact and intention.
And what's the point of wi-fi unless there's a nearby access point?
It's called "ad hoc" networking, and it is used by printers and other equipment for connections longer distance than bluetooth or where bluetooth hardware is not installed. Also "bridging".
And the only access point available at high altitude is necessarily provided by the airline, which they've already been doing for years.
I have an access point in my pocket. It's called my cell phone. The airline did not provide it to me. And not all airlines are providing a pay for network wifi.
Relatively recent? Like 2010?
Since this is only 2013, yes, relatively recent. The prohibition on electronic devices has been around for decades.
It was a direct response to your snarky tone implying I hadn't actually RTFA.
It wasn't an insult, and it wasn't calling you a name.
Again, bluetooth and wi-fi have been allowed previously.
In some cases. There has never been a blanket approval.
I hadn't considered GPS receivers, but for those who follow with them, well, cool.
This is yet another example that counters your "no change" claim.
The main change I see here is the allowance of PEDs below 10k feet.
Which by itself is a major change in policy, and when combined with bt, wifi, and all the other changes, is yet another counter to "no change".
This was never a big issue for me, really, ... I still don't see this as some grand revolutionary rule change, more of a minor increment.
You don't care, so it doesn't change anything. Ok.
Once they allow actual cell connections (even if only for texting and not voice calls) and LTE/EVDO data connections, I'll throw my hands in the air and cheer with everyone else.
Not everyone will be cheering that change.
And then hope that the technical hurdles can be overcome...
That change will not happen until the technical hurdles are overcome.
Are you serious? Could you imagine a world where it was legal to eavesdrop on cell phones?
Can imagine it, lived it. That's how it used to be. Life was good. Life got better after the ban on cell-capable radios. Stupid people with cell phones thought their conversations really were private and they said even more interesting things. I can't tell you what I've heard because divulging the content was and is against the law. Let's just say that the local married car dealer was sleeping with the receptionist and they planned some very interesting activities.
People complain about warrantless government wiretapping today...
Yes, they complain about many things. It isn't "wiretapping" if you pick up an FRS radio and start talking about your latest criminal exploits and where you plan to strike next and the cops are listening in. That's what using an analog cell phone was like. And some people who thought there was magic involved in the process argued that the fact that they were transmitting an unencoded audio signal via radio was irrelevant, what was more important was that their ignorance of the process and lies from the cell companies left them with a sense of "privacy" that should be enforced on others.
if your perverse fantasy world were to come to fruition, every cell phone call would be "a matter of the public record" just like a posting on an internet forum,
Been there, reality is different than your fiction. It wasn't perverse, it wasn't a fantasy. Calls were not a matter of public record. They weren't posted to the closest BBS. As far as I know, cops didn't spend their days tuning in to the cell bands to see what nefarious activities they could arrest people for.
The only major public release of a cell call was someone who recorded one of Newt Gingrich's calls and promptly divulged it to the press. Because it was against a Republican in a position of power, nobody bothered prosecuting the eavesdropper for first listening in (which was then illegal) or disclosing the contents (which was also illegal.)
Or perhaps our friendly neighborhood postmen should be able to take a peek inside our mail?
Postmen read your postcards all the time. That's the closest analogy in the snail mail world to an analog cell phone call. The solution to this problem is simple: put your letter in an envelope, or use a wireline phone.
I would think the right solution is to have no ban on them and tell the FCC to encforce their own regulations.
This would result in one branch of the government saying it is ok to do something while another says it isn't. Now, in the real world this may be common, but it is nice that sometimes they pay attention to this, and we should encourage such reasonable behavior whenever we can.
By having no ban on cell phones, they'd also have to make a specific exclusion for that device, and it is just easier to keep the blanket prohibition. They're also regulating their own jurisdiction (use on an aircraft), so they can be stricter than FCC rules (but not looser).
Yep. I missed that when looking for cites. Good catch. It's one of those things that I just do anyway, so I don't keep track of which rule says I have to. Kind of like which rule limits airspeed to 250 knots below 10,000 feet? For me, physics and the limited power available in the C182 engine. The FAA is trumped on that matter.
But then I guess that might force them to actually pay attention to what's going on around them. and (gasp) maybe actually talk to the person next to them.
You might want to consider that the fellow next to you with his BOSE QC3 headset on and plugged into the aircraft audio system is actually better able to pay attention to what is going on because he is better able to hear any announcements that are made. That's especially true when the plane is taking off and engines are at full noise output.
Well, the FAA limits your climb velocity to 250 knots for all aircraft.
The FAA regulations limit airspeed below 10,000 feet to 250 knots. The limit below Class B airspace is 200 knots. They do not limit "climb velocity".
Then level at 10,000 feet and build up to about 300 knots or so before beginning the final climb ...
Aircraft that have sufficient power do not "level at 10,000" during their climb, and ATC does not expect them to. That would include just about any aircraft that was already going 250 knots during the climb. ATC does expect, and pilots may have to, temporarily suspend descent before going below 10,000 feet so they can meet the 250 knot limit.