I guess the one thing you need to know about the radio is the international distress channel of 121.5?
In an emergency, the best frequency to use to report that is the frequency you are already talking to ATC on. You don't need to change anything, you have zero chance of screwing up the radio settings, and the guy you're talking to already knows who and where you are (most likely). This guy will know what airports are near you and which way you need to turn to get there. He can pick up a dedicated phone line to neighboring controllers to arrange your clear passage and brief them on your situation if he needs to hand you off.
If you're going to need to land right away, you'll probably be able to stay with the same person all the way to the ground. If not, then at least you started by letting someone who is within the system know you are in trouble and don't have to be so frantic in switching to the right frequency to find someone. You'll also have someone on the other end who can probably instruct you on how to change to another frequency if necessary.
Yes, if you've been flying without any contact with ATC and don't have any clue what frequency to call your closest controller on, by all mean, 121.5 MHz is where to go.
For a more complex aircraft, maybe the next thing is a pencil and paper to copy some checklists?
For a non-pilot, a checklist is worthless. Having to write down instructions is a waste of time and distracts from the task at hand. "When you get to X, push this and then this..." Much better for the guy who is probably watching you on radar, or taking to someone who is watching you, to say "ok, NOW push this..."
That is one of the most asinine statements in that article. It appears from a picture in the article that he landed at night. So, not having "lights on" means he's... flying without lights on. That's about it.
While he's in the air, he's still able to see other planes (they have their lights on) and there really isn't a lot of anything else he might need to see in the air. Blind? Hardly.
And the airport, well, they have these modern spiffy things called... lights. They mark the runway. That's how you can see the runway at night.
One of the things that private pilots get trained in when they want to go night flying is how to land at night without "lights". That would be the landing light, of course. Having one isn't mandatory. I've done it, both with an instructor as part of training and when I wound up getting home later than I planned in a plane where the light had burned out. Yes, I know, this guy isn't a pilot (although the article says he is believed to have flight experience), I'm just pointing out that landing at night without a landing light is far far from being "blind".
The other fascinating statement is that the propeller "hit the floor". And then it "uprighted again". It takes a lot for a small airplane to get in a position where it needs to be uprighted, and most airports don't have floors outside.
"possibly had a stroke"
"had a history of cardiac problems"
"was shot in the head"
"was struck by a bird through the cockpit window"
Isn't it nice when the media refrains from absolute wild-ass random speculation and waits for the facts? Wouldn't it be nice if/. posters could be trained to do the same?
You put all the words together in a large pot, stir it a couple of times, pull them out in a different order, and then highlight them to prove you are right.
The fact that the request has something to do with someone potentially breaking the law doesn't mean it is a "legal demand". A "legal demand" would be "based on this law we are demanding that you do something." They made no claim to legal jurisdiction. There was no demand. A "legal demand" is a cop telling you to turn off the camera you are using to videotape him in action (and note, "legal demand" doesn't mean the demand itself is legal!). Think of it as "a demand made from a legal basis." A foreign police agency asking you to review a customer's adherence to your own "laws" (TOS) is not a "legal demand". It's the same kind of request anyone could make.
If I see my neighbor's kid riding his bike without a helmet on the street (a violation of law in this locale) and I tell my neighbor "could you suggest to your kid that he wear his helmet", even though you'd call it a "legal demand" it really isn't.
They also didn't demand immediate obedience, which is what 'peremptory' means. They weren't "insistent". You forgot to highlight that there are TWO adjectives to "request" in the definition of demand, neither of which apply. A "demand" is more than a "request", otherwise they'd be synonyms and there wouldn't be a need for additional adjectives in the definition.
No, say I legal dare meets it meets demand the literal and true of definition a.
See what I did there? I put all your words in a large pot and stirred them all up and this is what came out. It makes as much sense as what you did with the request from the City of London police. Perhaps you should stop "facepalming" and read what the request actually was. Then you might notice that it is a request for easyDNS to review it's own TOS and if their customer is complying or not. It didn't demand anything. Not a single damn thing.
You're helping whip up the tempest in a teapot. It's fun, but hardly productive or useful.
Do these people have any concept of jurisdiction and courts of law?
Yes. In the request, they refer to UK law, not Canadian.
So a police force in London demands a registrar in Toronto take down a site based in Singapore?
No. There is no demand in what they wrote.
Me, if I got a request like that from a foreign police force, my response would be "fuck you, show me some paperwork from a court in my jurisdiction, until then, you don't matter".
They are asking you to review one of your customers and whether they are violating your own terms of service. Why should it take a court of law for you to do that? If you don't want to enforce your own TOS, why do you have one?
If it isn't a.co.uk domain, the police force of the City of London have no standing.
They have every right to point out a potential violation of your TOS to you and ask that you review it. And they have every right to ask that you let them know what you've decided.
This isn't an e-mail. This is a business making a legal demand.
If you actually read the message, you'll see what it is. It isn't a demand, thus fails the test of "legal demand".
It starts with a simple statement. Paraphrasing, "we believe that someone you are providing registration services for is doing something illegal and has invalid registration data." Then it makes a request. "Please investigate whether your customer is violating your terms of service " Who decides "what is illegal" in this case? easyDNS does. It's interesting that you claim that easyDNS is "above the law", since they are the ones who are making this determination. If easyDNS doesn't think they should be making this kind of determination, they should remove it from their TOS.
They ask for a hold to be put on the DNS registration data, and that if easyDNS does act to cut off service to the client that the domain name be pointed to a certain place. That's if easyDNS decides to act.
And then, most egregiously, they ask "please let us know what you've decided, one way or the other."
Yes, they point out the ICANN rules about correct registration data being a requirement. Big deal. I've pointed out the same requirements to the registrars of spammers many times. I've obviously been overstepping my bounds as a private citizen and demanding people be put in jail. Not.
Last I checked, most people do *not* have enough money set aside for retirement, and most companies/governments are no longer offering "guaranteed benefits" plans.
Neither of which means there aren't a very large number of people (much much more than "a lucky few") who have retirement plans (whether or not they have "enough" set aside to retire) that do include stocks and bonds as a large part. That's the point.
If you want to argue that not enough people have enough set aside to retire, or that many companies no longer offer retirement plans, that's a different matter altogether than what I was replying to. I also noticed that you switched from the "retirement plan" that I said to "guaranteed benefits plan" that I did not.
Or that they're saying the universe doesn't need to do calculations to determine where a falling object is going -- it just falls according to the laws of physics and doesn't need to be calculated.
Sounds like a Schroedinger's Cat of physical computation.
Hold a bowling ball over a cat. Drop the bowling ball. The cat is either a live or dead, the actual state cannot be determined until something decodes the computation done by the falling (or not falling) bowling ball.
"Damn, my printer jammed, we're overrun by half-dead cats." "We're half-overrun by dead cats?"
Yet stock market valuations increase, concentrating wealth in a lucky few.
If by "very few" you mean "a very very large number of people who's retirement plans include stock funds", I'd agree. Let's concentrate the wealth in everyone's retirement plans.
You should read all the words. He said they may not have money to approve "frivolous airshows" (which often dump a ton of money into the local economy, which makes them less than frivolous). And I said "you only need approval if you do something outside the FAR."
"They may not have people to approve..." "You only need approval if..." See how the second sentence covers the first?
What amazing stretches of the imagination people will go to to defend the State of Oregon against claims of incompetence when it shows that ACA exchanges weren't ready to be deployed yet. The fact is, we were supposed to be able to buy online but they couldn't manage to get the system ready even knowing about the need for several years. Three, IIRC.
and those small airports still usually get federal funding,
Small airports usually getting federal funding doesn't mean those small airports are closed during the shutdown, nor does that funding turn any of the private pilots who fly there into government agents.
I've helped organize an air show before, and there's a ton of paperwork that gets shuffled off to the federal government for approval.
You only need approval if you are going to do something that is outside the FAR. NOTAMs need to be processed even during the shutdown. Air traffic control is still staffed.
And Oregon actually opted for a simple solution where you could not actually sign up for a plan online.
No, that's not what we opted for. The exchange is supposed to allow people to sign up, but since the site wasn't completed and couldn't provide information on the prices based on income, they disabled the ability to sign up and have made it "coming soon".
Wrong. The Senate voted on the House's bill and rejected it.
How am I wrong when that's what I said? The Democrats in the Senate toed the party line and refused to pass the House continuing resolution, substituting their own, forcing the matter to a conference committee that they knew wouldn't accept their version. Had the Senate Democrats opted to avoid the shutdown, all they had to do was pass the House bill intact. It really was that simple.
If a web site is rushed into place on October 1st but there's no reason to sign up until January 1st,
Well, if you want to avoid a fine for not having insurance and you want to use the exchange, you need to have signed up by December 15. That would be a good reason not to wait until Jan 1.
I vote we hire you as the government website author. You've proven an ability to inflate simple numbers by a factor of three, which is about a factor of six less than current contractors usually do.
You can architect the system to server only one person at a time.
So if there are just 1 million people who need to sign up for insurance and they take ten minutes each to review the material and decide, that means you'd have all of them "servered" in just 19 years. The CT website that had 100,000 visitors in the first day would have had all of them dealt with by sometime in 2015.
I wonder how exactly one pulls off a "private air" anything, what with the FAA, airports, and various safety groups all being government bodies...
Use of public airspace does not make an airshow produced by private individuals a government function. Obtaining the necessary FAA waivers and TFRs and NOTAMs for an airshow does not make a private airshow a government function. There are private, state, city, and county run airports all over the place. And EAA is a private organization that regularly holds one of the largest aviation events in the world.
All that needs to happen is for Boehner to bring the Senate bill to the floor of the House and BOOM the government will reopen because there are enough moderate Republicans + Democrats to pass it.
All that needed to happen for it not to happen at all is for the Senate Democrats to jump the party line and approve the continuing resolution the House had already passed.
The idea that the Democrats are forcing the Government to close is ludicrous.
They're the ones who control the Senate and decided to force a conference committee which they knew wasn't going to accept their version. They're also the party of the current President, who is refusing to negotiate. From here::
But Democratic leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president reiterated that they would hold firm in their position.
So, no, the Democrats are not the innocent party here. They'd rather see a shutdown than a delay in funding ACA which doesn't prevent the exchanges from opening anyway.
Intuit's online TurboTax is much more complicated..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Intuit's TurboTax that scribbled data into some of the first 63 sectors of the user's hard drive as a primitive means of DRM? Yes, I did remember correctly. They're also the company that runs my credit union's web presence and have arbitrarily decided what characters a valid email address can contain -- in violation of the RFC. Certainly, let's have Intuit do the website for people who need health insurance and must buy it or face penalties.
Typical sensor suites for an autonomous car in addition to GPS include: Inertial Navigation System, high resolution odometry encoders, 2D lasers, 3D lasers,
Give me a million dollars or I'll turn my autonomous car loose upon your streets...
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the one thing you need to know about the radio is the international distress channel of 121.5?
In an emergency, the best frequency to use to report that is the frequency you are already talking to ATC on. You don't need to change anything, you have zero chance of screwing up the radio settings, and the guy you're talking to already knows who and where you are (most likely). This guy will know what airports are near you and which way you need to turn to get there. He can pick up a dedicated phone line to neighboring controllers to arrange your clear passage and brief them on your situation if he needs to hand you off.
If you're going to need to land right away, you'll probably be able to stay with the same person all the way to the ground. If not, then at least you started by letting someone who is within the system know you are in trouble and don't have to be so frantic in switching to the right frequency to find someone. You'll also have someone on the other end who can probably instruct you on how to change to another frequency if necessary.
Yes, if you've been flying without any contact with ATC and don't have any clue what frequency to call your closest controller on, by all mean, 121.5 MHz is where to go.
For a more complex aircraft, maybe the next thing is a pencil and paper to copy some checklists?
For a non-pilot, a checklist is worthless. Having to write down instructions is a waste of time and distracts from the task at hand. "When you get to X, push this and then this..." Much better for the guy who is probably watching you on radar, or taking to someone who is watching you, to say "ok, NOW push this..."
While he's in the air, he's still able to see other planes (they have their lights on) and there really isn't a lot of anything else he might need to see in the air. Blind? Hardly.
And the airport, well, they have these modern spiffy things called ... lights. They mark the runway. That's how you can see the runway at night.
One of the things that private pilots get trained in when they want to go night flying is how to land at night without "lights". That would be the landing light, of course. Having one isn't mandatory. I've done it, both with an instructor as part of training and when I wound up getting home later than I planned in a plane where the light had burned out. Yes, I know, this guy isn't a pilot (although the article says he is believed to have flight experience), I'm just pointing out that landing at night without a landing light is far far from being "blind".
The other fascinating statement is that the propeller "hit the floor". And then it "uprighted again". It takes a lot for a small airplane to get in a position where it needs to be uprighted, and most airports don't have floors outside.
"possibly had a stroke" "had a history of cardiac problems" "was shot in the head" "was struck by a bird through the cockpit window"
Isn't it nice when the media refrains from absolute wild-ass random speculation and waits for the facts? Wouldn't it be nice if /. posters could be trained to do the same?
The fact that the request has something to do with someone potentially breaking the law doesn't mean it is a "legal demand". A "legal demand" would be "based on this law we are demanding that you do something." They made no claim to legal jurisdiction. There was no demand. A "legal demand" is a cop telling you to turn off the camera you are using to videotape him in action (and note, "legal demand" doesn't mean the demand itself is legal!). Think of it as "a demand made from a legal basis." A foreign police agency asking you to review a customer's adherence to your own "laws" (TOS) is not a "legal demand". It's the same kind of request anyone could make.
If I see my neighbor's kid riding his bike without a helmet on the street (a violation of law in this locale) and I tell my neighbor "could you suggest to your kid that he wear his helmet", even though you'd call it a "legal demand" it really isn't.
They also didn't demand immediate obedience, which is what 'peremptory' means. They weren't "insistent". You forgot to highlight that there are TWO adjectives to "request" in the definition of demand, neither of which apply. A "demand" is more than a "request", otherwise they'd be synonyms and there wouldn't be a need for additional adjectives in the definition.
No, say I legal dare meets it meets demand the literal and true of definition a.
See what I did there? I put all your words in a large pot and stirred them all up and this is what came out. It makes as much sense as what you did with the request from the City of London police. Perhaps you should stop "facepalming" and read what the request actually was. Then you might notice that it is a request for easyDNS to review it's own TOS and if their customer is complying or not. It didn't demand anything. Not a single damn thing.
You're helping whip up the tempest in a teapot. It's fun, but hardly productive or useful.
Do these people have any concept of jurisdiction and courts of law?
Yes. In the request, they refer to UK law, not Canadian.
So a police force in London demands a registrar in Toronto take down a site based in Singapore?
No. There is no demand in what they wrote.
Me, if I got a request like that from a foreign police force, my response would be "fuck you, show me some paperwork from a court in my jurisdiction, until then, you don't matter".
They are asking you to review one of your customers and whether they are violating your own terms of service. Why should it take a court of law for you to do that? If you don't want to enforce your own TOS, why do you have one?
If it isn't a .co.uk domain, the police force of the City of London have no standing.
They have every right to point out a potential violation of your TOS to you and ask that you review it. And they have every right to ask that you let them know what you've decided.
This isn't an e-mail. This is a business making a legal demand.
If you actually read the message, you'll see what it is. It isn't a demand, thus fails the test of "legal demand".
It starts with a simple statement. Paraphrasing, "we believe that someone you are providing registration services for is doing something illegal and has invalid registration data." Then it makes a request. "Please investigate whether your customer is violating your terms of service " Who decides "what is illegal" in this case? easyDNS does. It's interesting that you claim that easyDNS is "above the law", since they are the ones who are making this determination. If easyDNS doesn't think they should be making this kind of determination, they should remove it from their TOS.
They ask for a hold to be put on the DNS registration data, and that if easyDNS does act to cut off service to the client that the domain name be pointed to a certain place. That's if easyDNS decides to act.
And then, most egregiously, they ask "please let us know what you've decided, one way or the other."
Yes, they point out the ICANN rules about correct registration data being a requirement. Big deal. I've pointed out the same requirements to the registrars of spammers many times. I've obviously been overstepping my bounds as a private citizen and demanding people be put in jail. Not.
Tempest in a tea pot.
Last I checked, most people do *not* have enough money set aside for retirement, and most companies/governments are no longer offering "guaranteed benefits" plans.
Neither of which means there aren't a very large number of people (much much more than "a lucky few") who have retirement plans (whether or not they have "enough" set aside to retire) that do include stocks and bonds as a large part. That's the point.
If you want to argue that not enough people have enough set aside to retire, or that many companies no longer offer retirement plans, that's a different matter altogether than what I was replying to. I also noticed that you switched from the "retirement plan" that I said to "guaranteed benefits plan" that I did not.
Or that they're saying the universe doesn't need to do calculations to determine where a falling object is going -- it just falls according to the laws of physics and doesn't need to be calculated.
Sounds like a Schroedinger's Cat of physical computation.
Hold a bowling ball over a cat. Drop the bowling ball. The cat is either a live or dead, the actual state cannot be determined until something decodes the computation done by the falling (or not falling) bowling ball.
"Damn, my printer jammed, we're overrun by half-dead cats." "We're half-overrun by dead cats?"
My bad. If by "lucky few" you mean ...
Yet stock market valuations increase, concentrating wealth in a lucky few.
If by "very few" you mean "a very very large number of people who's retirement plans include stock funds", I'd agree. Let's concentrate the wealth in everyone's retirement plans.
why is the bbc first to report on this? It happens in CA, and we get scooped? wtf??
It's 5 to 8 hours later in England than it is here. They've had a few more hours to report on it than we have.
But what's this "break even"? If it produced more than it consumed, it's not "break even".
She doesn't have a real keyboard. I don't think it's turning out too well for her.
You forgot to reply to his last sentence.
You should read all the words. He said they may not have money to approve "frivolous airshows" (which often dump a ton of money into the local economy, which makes them less than frivolous). And I said "you only need approval if you do something outside the FAR."
"They may not have people to approve..." "You only need approval if ..." See how the second sentence covers the first?
Sheesh. First grade reading level, guy.
What amazing stretches of the imagination people will go to to defend the State of Oregon against claims of incompetence when it shows that ACA exchanges weren't ready to be deployed yet. The fact is, we were supposed to be able to buy online but they couldn't manage to get the system ready even knowing about the need for several years. Three, IIRC.
Somebody has to approve the waivers,
The FAA has essential people still working.
and those small airports still usually get federal funding,
Small airports usually getting federal funding doesn't mean those small airports are closed during the shutdown, nor does that funding turn any of the private pilots who fly there into government agents.
I've helped organize an air show before, and there's a ton of paperwork that gets shuffled off to the federal government for approval.
You only need approval if you are going to do something that is outside the FAR. NOTAMs need to be processed even during the shutdown. Air traffic control is still staffed.
And Oregon actually opted for a simple solution where you could not actually sign up for a plan online.
No, that's not what we opted for. The exchange is supposed to allow people to sign up, but since the site wasn't completed and couldn't provide information on the prices based on income, they disabled the ability to sign up and have made it "coming soon".
Wrong. The Senate voted on the House's bill and rejected it.
How am I wrong when that's what I said? The Democrats in the Senate toed the party line and refused to pass the House continuing resolution, substituting their own, forcing the matter to a conference committee that they knew wouldn't accept their version. Had the Senate Democrats opted to avoid the shutdown, all they had to do was pass the House bill intact. It really was that simple.
If a web site is rushed into place on October 1st but there's no reason to sign up until January 1st,
Well, if you want to avoid a fine for not having insurance and you want to use the exchange, you need to have signed up by December 15. That would be a good reason not to wait until Jan 1.
16.7 million bytes is about 50MB.
I vote we hire you as the government website author. You've proven an ability to inflate simple numbers by a factor of three, which is about a factor of six less than current contractors usually do.
You can architect the system to server only one person at a time.
So if there are just 1 million people who need to sign up for insurance and they take ten minutes each to review the material and decide, that means you'd have all of them "servered" in just 19 years. The CT website that had 100,000 visitors in the first day would have had all of them dealt with by sometime in 2015.
I wonder how exactly one pulls off a "private air" anything, what with the FAA, airports, and various safety groups all being government bodies...
Use of public airspace does not make an airshow produced by private individuals a government function. Obtaining the necessary FAA waivers and TFRs and NOTAMs for an airshow does not make a private airshow a government function. There are private, state, city, and county run airports all over the place. And EAA is a private organization that regularly holds one of the largest aviation events in the world.
All that needs to happen is for Boehner to bring the Senate bill to the floor of the House and BOOM the government will reopen because there are enough moderate Republicans + Democrats to pass it.
All that needed to happen for it not to happen at all is for the Senate Democrats to jump the party line and approve the continuing resolution the House had already passed.
The idea that the Democrats are forcing the Government to close is ludicrous.
They're the ones who control the Senate and decided to force a conference committee which they knew wasn't going to accept their version. They're also the party of the current President, who is refusing to negotiate. From here::
But Democratic leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president reiterated that they would hold firm in their position.
So, no, the Democrats are not the innocent party here. They'd rather see a shutdown than a delay in funding ACA which doesn't prevent the exchanges from opening anyway.
My current health insurance is paid up through the end of the month. I won't be accessing the exchange for three weeks yet ...
You better send of a couple more payments to your current insurance company. ACA coverage through the exchanges doesn't start until 1 Jan 2014.
"Liberals refuse to accept things they've see with their own eyes when it would mean they agree with a conservative. News at 11."
Intuit's online TurboTax is much more complicated ..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Intuit's TurboTax that scribbled data into some of the first 63 sectors of the user's hard drive as a primitive means of DRM? Yes, I did remember correctly. They're also the company that runs my credit union's web presence and have arbitrarily decided what characters a valid email address can contain -- in violation of the RFC. Certainly, let's have Intuit do the website for people who need health insurance and must buy it or face penalties.
Typical sensor suites for an autonomous car in addition to GPS include: Inertial Navigation System, high resolution odometry encoders, 2D lasers, 3D lasers,
Give me a million dollars or I'll turn my autonomous car loose upon your streets...