I'm not arguing about the "tax" that some justice pulled out of his ass - constitutionality is settled, for better or for worse.
Nor was I. I simply pointed out that your claim that everyone has to buy car insurance is factually incorrect, and that the mandate for that insurance comes from a different level of government.
in practice, we have a proven working system for insuring high risk people with minimal government involvement.
Yes, this "working system" works very well for the insurance companies. They are making money selling high-rate insurance to people that are "high risk", even if that "high risk" is an artificial category created by those insurance companies.
"The General" doesn't sell insurance out of the goodness of his heart, and he doesn't target his ads at the good drivers. He aims his ads for the high risk people who need proof of insurance today so they can renew (or get) their license plates, and then can't afford to keep it.
This is your "minimal government involvement". The only reason these people buy insurance is because the government demands it. Minimal is what this is called today?
This "working system" also leaves us with a lot of uninsured drivers. Those who cannot afford the rates a high-risk policy demand, and yet need to go to work to pay for food and clothing for their families.
If you think this last group is insignificant, then you should be aware that in Oregon, at least, the problem of UNLICENSED drivers is significant enough that we've now passed a law that undocumented aliens (those here in violation of federal law) can get a "driver's card" to allow them to drive legally. These drivers who are working below-subsistence wage jobs for the most part are going to be able to afford car insurance from a high-risk insurer, for anything longer than their short interaction with DMV (if it's even an issue at that time)? I don't think so.
These facilities always have security to prevent vandalism and stupid, irresponsible people doing stupid, irresponsible things on them. We're not going to risk our monuments especially at a time when there's a lot of hostility towards this shutdown.
Security of national monuments is a law enforcement function. The fact that the various government agencies have furloughed their law enforcement personnel means that law enforcement is not considered an essential function at any of those agencies. Think about it.
The local lighthouse is a BLM operation. The gates are closed and locked. There is plenty of parking outside the gates, and people can easily walk past the gates to access the lighthouse and the other facilities. Bikes could get past those gates easily. I've heard the rumor (unsubstantiated) that the state police and local cops are stopping by every so often. I was there for a couple of hours and saw neither, nor were any of the cars towed or ticketed.
On their best day, the BLM rangers wouldn't catch anyone vandalizing a lot of the facility. They run the interp center. They stand at the lighthouse telling people they can't go in. They take the money at the front gate. Of all the places they are supposed to be, the only one you can be sure they are at is the front gate.
So we don't need any taxes, then? Heck, we don't even need any government bonds for funding!
So, this "debt ceiling crisis" we're coming up on soon? You do realize that raising the debt ceiling is the authorization for the government to print more T-bills, which is what they sell to people to get money to spend. That is, in effect, printing money, since they print T-bills (or create electronic ones) and then immediately exchange them for cash.
It's not an unknown phenomena. Some companies have "cash cow" products. They aren't really made of cash, and they aren't really cows, but the idea is they can produce something that is readily exchanged for cash.
I bet most of them don't have a drivers license or know their SSN number. You have to some kind of mailing address or permanent residence for these things.
Most homeless people aren't born that way. They had an address where they could get their SSN when they were young.
54 Democrats voted along party lines to "pass" a modified continuing resolution that they knew in advance would not pass the House. So no, not ~30, more like 54.
We HAD a national referendum on Obamacare, i.e. the last presidential election,
I voted in the last presidential election. I don't recall seeing any ballot entry for "support ACA". What "national referendum"? Trying to claim that every vote for Obama was a vote in favor of the ACA is as meaningless as trying to claim that every person who goes to McDonalds does so because they like the fine urban atmosphere and prompt friendly service.
Those Republicans who added the amendment to the CR did so because THEIR referendum told them to. Either you claim that an elected official has a "referendum" on a specific item and has to follow that and accept that the Republicans are doing what they promised they'd do, or stop pretending.
If you really want to talk "national referenda", let's talk Gitmo (still open). Iraq. Afghanistan. Open and transparent government (one way mirror -- NSA sees us, we don't see them). Hope AND Change (not "Hope FOR a change".) There certainly must have been an overwhelming mandate in the national referendum, and yet these are delayed or forgotten.
As for the ACA itself, and delaying the individual mandate. Keep very centered in your mind that Obama has delayed the mandate for corporate compliance by a year on his sayso alone. People who donate money got a delay. People who vote don't deserve a delay. Why is this corporate voice in the process now irrelevant, when it is so unethical in everything else?
The point is that states implemented their own systems and none of them have been declared a disaster. You don't hear about any of them because they are working as intended.
Sadly, this is simply not true.
Oregon had been running ads for CoverOregon for months prior to Oct. 1. Cute ads, catchy music, but no indication of exactly what "Cover Oregon" was. Unicorns and pixie dust.
Come Oct. 1, the website went live. Unfortunately, they hadn't yet implemented the details of how to sign up, ignoring the basics of "how much will you have to pay" based on income, etc. That part of the website is, to this day "Coming Soon".
You can sign up, but you have to contact a "Community Partner" (new name for "Insurance Agent") on your own. They'll point you at one, but interestingly, the law doesn't require that "partner" to tell you about anything other than the plans his company sells. Lowest rate? Well, look here at my glossy brochure,...
And no, this isn't how it was intended to be. It just wasn't finished, and still isn't. It did make the news, but only in Oregon media. Who cares about failures of the health care exchanges in someone else's state?
BTW, Gov. Kitzhaber is a Democrat and a physician who is fully behind taxpayer-funded health care for all.
The simplest method would be to brick your device -- or more to the point, to get Samsung to do it to you.
You really are creating a fictional world of misery for yourself, aren't you? Sony Reader store is going to brick my device because they... umm, how did they know a copy of something I bought from them is on it, again? And they're going to be able to do that how? They're going to be able to find my device how? And Samsung? How do you imagine Samsung will do that?
When I asked for specifics, that's what I expected. So far, nothing but wild speculation and nonsense.
Samsung is in a position to know, and if Samsung knows, Samsung can tell.
You really think that my Tab is sending the contents of every file I put onto my Tab to Samsung so they can try to match it up against potential content from hundreds of thousands of different sources?
I think you are confusing using an alternative reader app, which you seem to think counts as taking control of your content,
It is. If the app doesn't know about the vendor, it can't call home to mommy to say "mother may I".
with blocking the manufacturer's backdoor access to the file system, which is what I mean.
Wow. Simply wow. You really do believe that Samsung is copying everyone's content so they can browse through it and determine what content users are putting on their devices, and that Samsung has a backdoor into the device so it can delete anything it wants at any time. And that nobody in the world with a Tab has noticed this happening, even once.
This would be good for everyone but the shareholders.
Good for the shareholders, too. It costs money to design and produce new versions of product with each new set of bells and whistles.
An issue that most companies seem to forget is brand loyalty. Even when such loyalty is as simple as "I had brand X model Y for several years and now it has failed. I need a new one. I'd buy the same thing because I am used to it and know how it works, but I can't because the company doesn't make it anymore." There are uncounted times I've gone through this process, having to go find a replacement device for something I've used and has worked well for a long time, eventually deciding on a different brand because I was forced to.
Or even just a standard CD-ROM. That will last long enough, and even 'koan' cannot come up with a system where nasty book dealers could delete open ePubs from that.
And do you realize that they must then be displayed on a screen to read, or printed out which means connection to a computer.
Now I'll let you warm up your imagination, and think your way through it.
This repeated attitude that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just to stupid to have thought things through is getting pretty tiring. You can keep making pithy one-liner insults, or you can answer the issues that are being discussed here.
Now, particularly, so fucking what if a "computer" is used to look at content on a USB stick? That computer doesn't need to be connected to the Internet to do that, and even if it is connected to the Internet there is no requirement for the user to connect to the vendor's website when reading that book.
I've got "computers" in my pocket that need no connection to the Internet to read books (a smartphone with Aldiko, for one), and several tablets with three or four ePub readers on them.
I've asked this already, but I'll ask again. Tell me EXACTLY how the publisher of any of the books I have would find those books on those devices to be able to modify or remove them. Just saying "it's a computer, use your imagination" won't cut it. That's a cop out and disingenuous beyond imagination.
Now, yes, if you CHOOSE to deal with vendors that require you to use their reader and their reader alone to read their books, then you've made the choice to let them control your bookshelf. The person you are replying to, however, made it pretty clear that he had made a different choice (by referring to calibre), so your non-answer is ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst.
No, and shame on you for trying to trivialize a serious concept. That book dealer if free to choose what he will and will not sell, just as you are free to deal with him or not.
Tell that to Lavabit. (http://lavabit.com/)
Exactly which books was Lavabit told to sell to you by a government? The answer, before you come up with some nonsequitor, is "none". Lavabit has nothing to do with this, simply because the bookstores in question here didn't get a notice from the NSA or any other government to do or not do anything. They used their right to decide for themselves what they won't sell.
but anyone else blocking content from being sold or read is also censoring that content, whether it's because of the government or not.
And thus a valuable word useful for describing a generally unacceptable activity on the part of a suppressive government became a useless word that conveys nothing about the activity, useful only when some aggrieved party wishes to whip up a row by calling upon a memory of the previous more specific negative connotations of that word.
Censorship used to mean something. Now it applies to almost every business decision anyone makes that someone doesn't like. Like a book vendor choosing not to sell a book. But it doesn't apply to a librarian who chooses not to buy a specific book for the library.
A definite loss to the language. A trivialization of the concept of censorship, as well, so a loss to anyone suffering from real censorship.
He did touch on the point but he didn't seem to grasp its implications. For example, he thought only DRM-enabled ebooks are susceptible to remote destruction -- any device on the network is susceptible to malicious tampering.
Please tell me how Sony Reader Store or Barnes and Noble are going to modify or remove content I've bought from them that has been handed to calibre to manage. Is Kovid Goyal in the pocket of the large ebook dealers? How will they reach onto my Galaxy Tab and modify or remove the copy I have put there? How will they even KNOW I put a copy there?
If I have a copy of an ebook, that copy is the publisher's property and if I tamper with the device to prevent the publisher deleting the book, it is I who commit a felony.
How have I "tampered" with my Galaxy Tab (or my Xoom, or my LG phone) when the publisher never knew it existed and has never communicated with it in the first place? A felony, you say?
This is what digital books are going to get you , censorship, on the fly redactions and corrections to appeal to current political climates, and a simple refusal to sell anything that in anyway displeases the power elite.
I see later that "koan" is busy insulting someone for not seeing how this differs from printed books. "One person" and "millions" seems to be the key phrases in his mind.
How is Jeff Bezos deciding not to sell paper copies of a book different than Jeff Bezos deciding not to sell electronic versions of the book? How is Jeff Bezos deciding to sell a modified version of a paper book different than Jeff Bezos deciding to sell a modified version of the electronic book? Yes, it is easier to modify an electronic version (perhaps), but he's selling a modified version nonetheless. I've seen enough cases of him selling older versions of a book without specifying age that I am certain nobody would know it were he selling modified versions of his own.
The only difference is how easy it is for your bookshelf to be under someone else's control once you've bought a book. If you let someone else control what you own, who made that choice? It is easy enough to avoid that situation if you care that it shouldn't be a huge issue. Yes, the first time it happened was a surprise to many, but we've learned.
As for "censorship", where do you cross the line from a simple business decision not to sell something into "censorship"? Is a book dealer refusing to carry a particular book really "censorship"? Back when there was a lot of talk about libraries and government getting checkout lists and such, one of our local librarians spoke out about the attempt at government censorship of libraries. I asked in an online forum how her decision not to carry certain books was different than censorship -- a government run library refusing to make certain titles available to lower income citizens -- and never got an answer. Apparently it isn't censorship because she said so. Why is Jeff Bezos deciding not to carry a title any different?One situation disadvantages the poor, the other the more affluent.
and a simple refusal to sell anything that in anyway displeases the power elite.
One of the freedoms of being a businessman is the right to decide what you will or will not sell. Is the argument really that your right to buy X supersedes the right of someone not to be forced to sell X at all?
Regarding simple modifications to electronic books. Not long ago I "bought" two books from Sony Reader store. They use Adobe DRM. Neither book would download properly. They both reported the same "E_AUTH" error. I had Sony technical support on the phone for a long time trying different things. They claimed it was my change of Adobe username, version of reader, etc. Finally they accepted that the DRM on the file was screwed. "Well, fix it, I'll wait." It took them about six weeks to get the publisher to change the DRM. Since I assume the content is covered by DRM signatures, it would seem that Sony would have a hard time making unilateral changes to content to meet their political or social tastes.
I'll disagree. At night depth perception is lost (there are plenty of articles available on this), so queues to your AGL height are lost.
You don't have a queue of AGLs, you have just one. And your depth perception isn't lost, you just might not be able to judge absolute distances well. That's normal during the daytime, too. That's why a sensitive altimeter is a requirement for VFR flight. That's only if you really care what your altitude is and not just "somewhere above ground". The guy who was being coached into this landing didn't need to know his absolute height.
It really isn't that hard to keep a plane at night above 0 AGL. Really. I've done it. And when I want to keep it at 2000 MSL, I never do it by reference to the ground.
I have a few hundred daytime landings under my belt, and the nighttime lands definitely raise the pucker factor.
Yes, nighttime landings are more interesting, but landings are only a part of flying. Flying at night, in general, is easier, for the reasons I gave.
I get that they have oil, but come on already. This sort of crap should simply not be tolerated by the west. We should not sell them arms or have diplomatic relations with these kinds of states. They abuse women, have a cave man's idea of a criminal justice system, are a theocracy and fund terrorism. What else do they need to do before we decide to stop tolerating their shit?
What would you like "us" to do? Invade the country and install democracy by fiat? I thought that wasn't acceptable to decent human beings.
If you're saying we should just stop trading with them and diplomatic stuff, then that's a form of tolerance. "We won't stop you from doing that, but we'll wag our fingers your direction and say 'tsk tsk tsk...'."
Are all ATC's certified on small plane operations?
ATC certifications are by type of position and not aircraft size. Tower, enroute, etc. Not like pilots who get type ratings to cover the larger aircraft. About the only issue a controller has with size of airplane is when they need to sequence them for approach and he needs to remember that your C172 is going 100 knots or so and the big iron behind you is going 180 or so. At the top end, he has to know a heavy so he can issue wake turbulence warnings to everyone else. Fortunately, heavies are supposed to identify as heavy ("United seven forty-six heavy...") so we can all remember to look out for ourselves.
I thought the whole point of those big bright landing landing lights was to illuminate the ground when you're near touch down (and for taxi/takeoff).
In a C172, those "bright" landing lights aren't that bright. They may give you a hint where the ground is, but it is better to refer to the runway lights for that reference.
Taxiing at night, perhaps. But take-off? The main function of landing lights during take off is to make you very visible to anyone in the vicinity of the airport, especially at an uncontrolled airport with a potential for someone to be landing the opposite direction on your runway.
Yes, C172s can have autopilots. It depends on how much money you want to spend. The "display upgrade" you refer to might be called the G1000, a glass cockpit flight system that replaces a large number of other instruments on the panel. Combined with an autopilot, this turns flying the airplane into a full-scale video game.
Untrained landings under pressure are heroic feats as it is. Doing so as it's getting progressively darker outside turns it up to 11.
Actually, flying at night is much easier than in the day, if you're anywhere near civilization and the lights they bring with them. It only becomes really hazardous if you're over a large patch of unlit terrain and you lose spatial awareness.
It is SO much easier to find the airport at night when it is all lit up like a Christmas tree. You aren't looking at every empty space trying to determine if it is an airport or not. When you're lined up with the runway, you know you're lined up with the runway. It's unmistakable. If the ground controller turns on the rabbits (instrument approach lights) there is NO chance you will not find the airport. That's what those lights are there for -- to help pilots flying in the soup find the airport. In the clear at night, it's lovely and simply amazing.
Yes, there is a tendency to descend early and smack the ground before the runway starts. This guy had 1) someone on the radio telling him when to descend, he wasn't using his own judgement, and 2) he had a long runway for a small plane. It doesn't matter if he landed deliberately long.
Privacy is a very good reason for avoiding speculation and not reporting all the details immediately. And avoiding speculation is a very good way to avoid piss-poor reporting in the first place.
The fact that the reporter didn't immediately satisfy your every burning question about what happened to other people doesn't automatically make it piss-poor reporting, either.
Slashdot Mirror
But Mr. Obama promised that anyone who liked his current insurance plan would be able to keep it. I don't understand. Exactly what are you saying?
I'm not arguing about the "tax" that some justice pulled out of his ass - constitutionality is settled, for better or for worse.
Nor was I. I simply pointed out that your claim that everyone has to buy car insurance is factually incorrect, and that the mandate for that insurance comes from a different level of government.
in practice, we have a proven working system for insuring high risk people with minimal government involvement.
Yes, this "working system" works very well for the insurance companies. They are making money selling high-rate insurance to people that are "high risk", even if that "high risk" is an artificial category created by those insurance companies. "The General" doesn't sell insurance out of the goodness of his heart, and he doesn't target his ads at the good drivers. He aims his ads for the high risk people who need proof of insurance today so they can renew (or get) their license plates, and then can't afford to keep it.
This is your "minimal government involvement". The only reason these people buy insurance is because the government demands it. Minimal is what this is called today?
This "working system" also leaves us with a lot of uninsured drivers. Those who cannot afford the rates a high-risk policy demand, and yet need to go to work to pay for food and clothing for their families.
If you think this last group is insignificant, then you should be aware that in Oregon, at least, the problem of UNLICENSED drivers is significant enough that we've now passed a law that undocumented aliens (those here in violation of federal law) can get a "driver's card" to allow them to drive legally. These drivers who are working below-subsistence wage jobs for the most part are going to be able to afford car insurance from a high-risk insurer, for anything longer than their short interaction with DMV (if it's even an issue at that time)? I don't think so.
These facilities always have security to prevent vandalism and stupid, irresponsible people doing stupid, irresponsible things on them. We're not going to risk our monuments especially at a time when there's a lot of hostility towards this shutdown.
Security of national monuments is a law enforcement function. The fact that the various government agencies have furloughed their law enforcement personnel means that law enforcement is not considered an essential function at any of those agencies. Think about it.
The local lighthouse is a BLM operation. The gates are closed and locked. There is plenty of parking outside the gates, and people can easily walk past the gates to access the lighthouse and the other facilities. Bikes could get past those gates easily. I've heard the rumor (unsubstantiated) that the state police and local cops are stopping by every so often. I was there for a couple of hours and saw neither, nor were any of the cars towed or ticketed.
On their best day, the BLM rangers wouldn't catch anyone vandalizing a lot of the facility. They run the interp center. They stand at the lighthouse telling people they can't go in. They take the money at the front gate. Of all the places they are supposed to be, the only one you can be sure they are at is the front gate.
So we don't need any taxes, then? Heck, we don't even need any government bonds for funding!
So, this "debt ceiling crisis" we're coming up on soon? You do realize that raising the debt ceiling is the authorization for the government to print more T-bills, which is what they sell to people to get money to spend. That is, in effect, printing money, since they print T-bills (or create electronic ones) and then immediately exchange them for cash.
It's not an unknown phenomena. Some companies have "cash cow" products. They aren't really made of cash, and they aren't really cows, but the idea is they can produce something that is readily exchanged for cash.
to simply make the site work to, you know, helps people get access to healthcare insurance?
You realize that the IRS will be tracking who has and has not obtained insurance, and you're worried that Google is tracking your clicks?
but in return everyone is required to buy insurance.
Only if you want to drive a motor vehicle on the public streets, and the mandate is at the state level. Two critical differences.
I bet most of them don't have a drivers license or know their SSN number. You have to some kind of mailing address or permanent residence for these things.
Most homeless people aren't born that way. They had an address where they could get their SSN when they were young.
So ~30 hostage-takers
54 Democrats voted along party lines to "pass" a modified continuing resolution that they knew in advance would not pass the House. So no, not ~30, more like 54.
We HAD a national referendum on Obamacare, i.e. the last presidential election,
I voted in the last presidential election. I don't recall seeing any ballot entry for "support ACA". What "national referendum"? Trying to claim that every vote for Obama was a vote in favor of the ACA is as meaningless as trying to claim that every person who goes to McDonalds does so because they like the fine urban atmosphere and prompt friendly service.
Those Republicans who added the amendment to the CR did so because THEIR referendum told them to. Either you claim that an elected official has a "referendum" on a specific item and has to follow that and accept that the Republicans are doing what they promised they'd do, or stop pretending.
If you really want to talk "national referenda", let's talk Gitmo (still open). Iraq. Afghanistan. Open and transparent government (one way mirror -- NSA sees us, we don't see them). Hope AND Change (not "Hope FOR a change".) There certainly must have been an overwhelming mandate in the national referendum, and yet these are delayed or forgotten.
As for the ACA itself, and delaying the individual mandate. Keep very centered in your mind that Obama has delayed the mandate for corporate compliance by a year on his sayso alone. People who donate money got a delay. People who vote don't deserve a delay. Why is this corporate voice in the process now irrelevant, when it is so unethical in everything else?
The point is that states implemented their own systems and none of them have been declared a disaster. You don't hear about any of them because they are working as intended.
Sadly, this is simply not true.
Oregon had been running ads for CoverOregon for months prior to Oct. 1. Cute ads, catchy music, but no indication of exactly what "Cover Oregon" was. Unicorns and pixie dust.
Come Oct. 1, the website went live. Unfortunately, they hadn't yet implemented the details of how to sign up, ignoring the basics of "how much will you have to pay" based on income, etc. That part of the website is, to this day "Coming Soon".
You can sign up, but you have to contact a "Community Partner" (new name for "Insurance Agent") on your own. They'll point you at one, but interestingly, the law doesn't require that "partner" to tell you about anything other than the plans his company sells. Lowest rate? Well, look here at my glossy brochure, ...
And no, this isn't how it was intended to be. It just wasn't finished, and still isn't. It did make the news, but only in Oregon media. Who cares about failures of the health care exchanges in someone else's state? BTW, Gov. Kitzhaber is a Democrat and a physician who is fully behind taxpayer-funded health care for all.
The simplest method would be to brick your device -- or more to the point, to get Samsung to do it to you.
You really are creating a fictional world of misery for yourself, aren't you? Sony Reader store is going to brick my device because they ... umm, how did they know a copy of something I bought from them is on it, again? And they're going to be able to do that how? They're going to be able to find my device how? And Samsung? How do you imagine Samsung will do that?
When I asked for specifics, that's what I expected. So far, nothing but wild speculation and nonsense.
Samsung is in a position to know, and if Samsung knows, Samsung can tell.
You really think that my Tab is sending the contents of every file I put onto my Tab to Samsung so they can try to match it up against potential content from hundreds of thousands of different sources?
I think you are confusing using an alternative reader app, which you seem to think counts as taking control of your content,
It is. If the app doesn't know about the vendor, it can't call home to mommy to say "mother may I".
with blocking the manufacturer's backdoor access to the file system, which is what I mean.
Wow. Simply wow. You really do believe that Samsung is copying everyone's content so they can browse through it and determine what content users are putting on their devices, and that Samsung has a backdoor into the device so it can delete anything it wants at any time. And that nobody in the world with a Tab has noticed this happening, even once.
This would be good for everyone but the shareholders.
Good for the shareholders, too. It costs money to design and produce new versions of product with each new set of bells and whistles.
An issue that most companies seem to forget is brand loyalty. Even when such loyalty is as simple as "I had brand X model Y for several years and now it has failed. I need a new one. I'd buy the same thing because I am used to it and know how it works, but I can't because the company doesn't make it anymore." There are uncounted times I've gone through this process, having to go find a replacement device for something I've used and has worked well for a long time, eventually deciding on a different brand because I was forced to.
So we do it your way and only call it censorship when the government personally comes down and burns the books.
Hyperbole much? I only ask because you are very bad at it.
Or even just a standard CD-ROM. That will last long enough, and even 'koan' cannot come up with a system where nasty book dealers could delete open ePubs from that.
And do you realize that they must then be displayed on a screen to read, or printed out which means connection to a computer. Now I'll let you warm up your imagination, and think your way through it.
This repeated attitude that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just to stupid to have thought things through is getting pretty tiring. You can keep making pithy one-liner insults, or you can answer the issues that are being discussed here.
Now, particularly, so fucking what if a "computer" is used to look at content on a USB stick? That computer doesn't need to be connected to the Internet to do that, and even if it is connected to the Internet there is no requirement for the user to connect to the vendor's website when reading that book.
I've got "computers" in my pocket that need no connection to the Internet to read books (a smartphone with Aldiko, for one), and several tablets with three or four ePub readers on them.
I've asked this already, but I'll ask again. Tell me EXACTLY how the publisher of any of the books I have would find those books on those devices to be able to modify or remove them. Just saying "it's a computer, use your imagination" won't cut it. That's a cop out and disingenuous beyond imagination.
Now, yes, if you CHOOSE to deal with vendors that require you to use their reader and their reader alone to read their books, then you've made the choice to let them control your bookshelf. The person you are replying to, however, made it pretty clear that he had made a different choice (by referring to calibre), so your non-answer is ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst.
Yes, and shame on you for having to ask.
No, and shame on you for trying to trivialize a serious concept. That book dealer if free to choose what he will and will not sell, just as you are free to deal with him or not.
Tell that to Lavabit. (http://lavabit.com/)
Exactly which books was Lavabit told to sell to you by a government? The answer, before you come up with some nonsequitor, is "none". Lavabit has nothing to do with this, simply because the bookstores in question here didn't get a notice from the NSA or any other government to do or not do anything. They used their right to decide for themselves what they won't sell.
but anyone else blocking content from being sold or read is also censoring that content, whether it's because of the government or not.
And thus a valuable word useful for describing a generally unacceptable activity on the part of a suppressive government became a useless word that conveys nothing about the activity, useful only when some aggrieved party wishes to whip up a row by calling upon a memory of the previous more specific negative connotations of that word.
Censorship used to mean something. Now it applies to almost every business decision anyone makes that someone doesn't like. Like a book vendor choosing not to sell a book. But it doesn't apply to a librarian who chooses not to buy a specific book for the library.
A definite loss to the language. A trivialization of the concept of censorship, as well, so a loss to anyone suffering from real censorship.
He did touch on the point but he didn't seem to grasp its implications. For example, he thought only DRM-enabled ebooks are susceptible to remote destruction -- any device on the network is susceptible to malicious tampering.
Please tell me how Sony Reader Store or Barnes and Noble are going to modify or remove content I've bought from them that has been handed to calibre to manage. Is Kovid Goyal in the pocket of the large ebook dealers? How will they reach onto my Galaxy Tab and modify or remove the copy I have put there? How will they even KNOW I put a copy there?
If I have a copy of an ebook, that copy is the publisher's property and if I tamper with the device to prevent the publisher deleting the book, it is I who commit a felony.
How have I "tampered" with my Galaxy Tab (or my Xoom, or my LG phone) when the publisher never knew it existed and has never communicated with it in the first place? A felony, you say?
This is what digital books are going to get you , censorship, on the fly redactions and corrections to appeal to current political climates, and a simple refusal to sell anything that in anyway displeases the power elite.
I see later that "koan" is busy insulting someone for not seeing how this differs from printed books. "One person" and "millions" seems to be the key phrases in his mind.
How is Jeff Bezos deciding not to sell paper copies of a book different than Jeff Bezos deciding not to sell electronic versions of the book? How is Jeff Bezos deciding to sell a modified version of a paper book different than Jeff Bezos deciding to sell a modified version of the electronic book? Yes, it is easier to modify an electronic version (perhaps), but he's selling a modified version nonetheless. I've seen enough cases of him selling older versions of a book without specifying age that I am certain nobody would know it were he selling modified versions of his own.
The only difference is how easy it is for your bookshelf to be under someone else's control once you've bought a book. If you let someone else control what you own, who made that choice? It is easy enough to avoid that situation if you care that it shouldn't be a huge issue. Yes, the first time it happened was a surprise to many, but we've learned.
As for "censorship", where do you cross the line from a simple business decision not to sell something into "censorship"? Is a book dealer refusing to carry a particular book really "censorship"? Back when there was a lot of talk about libraries and government getting checkout lists and such, one of our local librarians spoke out about the attempt at government censorship of libraries. I asked in an online forum how her decision not to carry certain books was different than censorship -- a government run library refusing to make certain titles available to lower income citizens -- and never got an answer. Apparently it isn't censorship because she said so. Why is Jeff Bezos deciding not to carry a title any different?One situation disadvantages the poor, the other the more affluent.
and a simple refusal to sell anything that in anyway displeases the power elite.
One of the freedoms of being a businessman is the right to decide what you will or will not sell. Is the argument really that your right to buy X supersedes the right of someone not to be forced to sell X at all?
Regarding simple modifications to electronic books. Not long ago I "bought" two books from Sony Reader store. They use Adobe DRM. Neither book would download properly. They both reported the same "E_AUTH" error. I had Sony technical support on the phone for a long time trying different things. They claimed it was my change of Adobe username, version of reader, etc. Finally they accepted that the DRM on the file was screwed. "Well, fix it, I'll wait." It took them about six weeks to get the publisher to change the DRM. Since I assume the content is covered by DRM signatures, it would seem that Sony would have a hard time making unilateral changes to content to meet their political or social tastes.
I'll disagree. At night depth perception is lost (there are plenty of articles available on this), so queues to your AGL height are lost.
You don't have a queue of AGLs, you have just one. And your depth perception isn't lost, you just might not be able to judge absolute distances well. That's normal during the daytime, too. That's why a sensitive altimeter is a requirement for VFR flight. That's only if you really care what your altitude is and not just "somewhere above ground". The guy who was being coached into this landing didn't need to know his absolute height.
It really isn't that hard to keep a plane at night above 0 AGL. Really. I've done it. And when I want to keep it at 2000 MSL, I never do it by reference to the ground.
I have a few hundred daytime landings under my belt, and the nighttime lands definitely raise the pucker factor.
Yes, nighttime landings are more interesting, but landings are only a part of flying. Flying at night, in general, is easier, for the reasons I gave.
I get that they have oil, but come on already. This sort of crap should simply not be tolerated by the west. We should not sell them arms or have diplomatic relations with these kinds of states. They abuse women, have a cave man's idea of a criminal justice system, are a theocracy and fund terrorism. What else do they need to do before we decide to stop tolerating their shit?
What would you like "us" to do? Invade the country and install democracy by fiat? I thought that wasn't acceptable to decent human beings.
If you're saying we should just stop trading with them and diplomatic stuff, then that's a form of tolerance. "We won't stop you from doing that, but we'll wag our fingers your direction and say 'tsk tsk tsk...'."
Are all ATC's certified on small plane operations?
ATC certifications are by type of position and not aircraft size. Tower, enroute, etc. Not like pilots who get type ratings to cover the larger aircraft. About the only issue a controller has with size of airplane is when they need to sequence them for approach and he needs to remember that your C172 is going 100 knots or so and the big iron behind you is going 180 or so. At the top end, he has to know a heavy so he can issue wake turbulence warnings to everyone else. Fortunately, heavies are supposed to identify as heavy ("United seven forty-six heavy ...") so we can all remember to look out for ourselves.
I thought the whole point of those big bright landing landing lights was to illuminate the ground when you're near touch down (and for taxi/takeoff).
In a C172, those "bright" landing lights aren't that bright. They may give you a hint where the ground is, but it is better to refer to the runway lights for that reference.
Taxiing at night, perhaps. But take-off? The main function of landing lights during take off is to make you very visible to anyone in the vicinity of the airport, especially at an uncontrolled airport with a potential for someone to be landing the opposite direction on your runway.
Yes, C172s can have autopilots. It depends on how much money you want to spend. The "display upgrade" you refer to might be called the G1000, a glass cockpit flight system that replaces a large number of other instruments on the panel. Combined with an autopilot, this turns flying the airplane into a full-scale video game.
Untrained landings under pressure are heroic feats as it is. Doing so as it's getting progressively darker outside turns it up to 11.
Actually, flying at night is much easier than in the day, if you're anywhere near civilization and the lights they bring with them. It only becomes really hazardous if you're over a large patch of unlit terrain and you lose spatial awareness.
It is SO much easier to find the airport at night when it is all lit up like a Christmas tree. You aren't looking at every empty space trying to determine if it is an airport or not. When you're lined up with the runway, you know you're lined up with the runway. It's unmistakable. If the ground controller turns on the rabbits (instrument approach lights) there is NO chance you will not find the airport. That's what those lights are there for -- to help pilots flying in the soup find the airport. In the clear at night, it's lovely and simply amazing.
Yes, there is a tendency to descend early and smack the ground before the runway starts. This guy had 1) someone on the radio telling him when to descend, he wasn't using his own judgement, and 2) he had a long runway for a small plane. It doesn't matter if he landed deliberately long.
The fact that the reporter didn't immediately satisfy your every burning question about what happened to other people doesn't automatically make it piss-poor reporting, either.