If you want to stockpile 1000 guns; I think I do as member of this society, have a right to know why.
No, you don't. I don't need to explain to you why I want to exercise my constitutional rights, any more than you need to explain to me why you should be allowed to exercise yours.
Why don't you allow cops to search your house when they ask? Are you hiding something? Why do you need any right to be secure in your person and property unless you've done something wrong? What are you hiding? As a member of this society, I have a right to know why you are invoking the fourth or fifth amendments. Don't I? (Note to readers: that's a rhetorical question intended to make the point that the argument "I have a right to know why you want to..." is specious and patently absurd.)
There is no reason to own many of the guns that are sold,
No reason you understand. Are constitutional rights only valid if you understand why someone wants to exercise them?
And I see absolutely no reason for the conceal carry laws other then
The right of people to defend themselves is a pretty good reason. You don't understand why others use their rights. We get that. Your lack of understanding is really irrelevant to the discussion.
I believe in responsible gun ownership but I don't see how that right is unlimited and unrestricted.
"I don't understand why you want to own a gun" isn't a valid restriction, and there are already quite a number of restrictions that you don't seem to know about. It's hyperbole to claim that gun ownership is "unlimited and unrestricted" just because you don't think they are limited enough to meet your understanding.
This post went from protecting rights to advocating for thought crime. A+ would read again.
Wrong. You should read again. It doesn't advocate for "thought crime", it points out how dangerous the "we must do something" cry is, and how the idea that "we cannot allow this to happen again" is a danger sign to any free society.
If you seriously thought that I was suggesting that we lock up millions of "unstable" people just on the off-chance that they might do something bad someday, based on everything I wrote before that and everything else I've written in this discussion, then you're a prime candidate for first in line for the hoosegow under that policy.
But seriously, blowing up an office building was supposed to change things?
Tell that to TSA as you pass through the X-ray machines the next time you want to fly somewhere. Or is the entire security theater we undergo not a change based on "blowing up an office building"? The paranoia and fright the 9/11 perps caused wasn't their intent, even though they were called "terrorists"?
someone who doesn't do business across state lines and only makes "occasional" sales is not required to do a background check.
Except in some states they are, and in any case is not a dealer, so the statement that you can avoid "any and all checks, except the one you give the dealer" is patently false. If you buy from a dealer, you cannot avoid the background check, in addition to the one the dealer might accept in payment. If you buy from anyone in Oregon, you cannot avoid the background check at all.
Uh no. this will just build up hysteria driven witch hunts based on all kinds of fallacies. The result would be catastrophic to any last semblances of freedom/liberty we have right now.
You've just identified the successful reductio ad absurdum argument I made. Some people call this "trolling", but in truth it shows the flaws in the claim that "we cannot allow this to happen again", and it annoys people who think we "must do something" when there really isn't anything that can be done.
As you said, the only solution to the problem is not acceptable to anyone, and would destroy any semblance of liberty we have.
You can also go to a gun show and bypass any and all checks (except the one you give the dealer).
Not in the US. US law requires firearms dealers to perform background checks whenever they sell a firearm. That's true for a sale in their store or a sale at a gun show.
In addition, many states have regulated private transactions and require background checks, especially at gun shows. This is another example of someone not being able to do what he wants with something he owns.
You can even act batshit insane -
Also untrue. Federal law prohibits even private sales of weapons to people who the seller has reason to believe would be ineligible for ownership. Like insane people.
you fit right in with a significant part of the crowd.
Your personal opinion of gun owners aside, the right exists and is even written down. It's right next to this right of privacy that everyone keeps talking about.
If I don't want something knocked over, I'm going to keep it safe from my cat. She wouldn't know any better, so I take precautions.
So you're arguing that this fellow had the mental capacity of your cat and didn't know that what he was doing was wrong? And that nobody noticed that he was easily amused by laser pointers and spent most of the day licking himself?
What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia.
They intended no such thing. They gave one example of why the right to be armed is important, but one example is not the complete list.
Do you think all those founders who had just used their arms against the government were really thinking that the only reason people should be allowed to own a gun was so they could be part of a "well regulated militia" -- i.e., part of the government used to suppress the public should THEY ever be so uppity as to oppose a government they found to be oppressive?
What you are arguing is that the same people who just won their freedom from an oppressive, abusive government were now saying that nobody except the government (in the guise of the "well regulated militia") should have weapons. That's ridiculous.
If all gun owners were compelled to be members of a militia with regulation oversight from that militia (responsible gun owners having veto powers over other members, to legally disarm them...
Well, Mr. President, those people in Tennessee are starting to get riled about those new laws we're forcing on them, you better kick them out of the "militia" and gather up all their weapons...
Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
That's a pretty clear statement about the difference between an armed populace and the militias that would be "well regulated" by the state. "The whole body of the people" is much more than any militia, in your terminology, but it truly was "the whole body of the people" to the founders. Continuing from the same article:
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.
You're now arguing that this "paramount right", what the founders thought was "a basic human right", is really intended to be a way of keeping the populace under control because it should be afforded only to those who are "part of the system", and, when the right is most needed, will be part of the problem.
Just as easy as buying any other tool that can be used to kill people.
This.
I have the most beautiful tomatoes in my home garden because I use a wonderful high-nitrogen fertilizer on them. I drive a diesel truck. And I am planning on re-roofing my house, so I'll need a large box of those nails, please. And two rolls of duct tape like the government tells me I should buy to prepare for disasters. And I've got a few rats I need to get rid of, so a large package of that rat poison...
Is there a U-Haul truck rental place anywhere close by?
You see, you can claim to want a gun for self defense but how many do you need?
How many rights do YOU need? What is it about the concept of a right that is hard to grasp? Is there some new twist to "rights" that says that you can only exercise one to the limit that someone else thinks you need to?
Yes, you have the right to free speech, but I think you've said quite enough already. Sit down and shut up, you don't need the right to free speech anymore.
What did she need that arsenal for?
Who cares? It's not your right to decide what she needed her rights for. If I want to own 1000 guns, it's my right, and you have no right to second guess whether I get the right based on what you think I need.
Ten to one the mother is the answer to this drama.
Then the way we prevent this from ever happening again: ban mothers. You can't shoot your mother in her sleep if you don't have a mother. And ban schools. You can't shoot up a school full of kids if there is no school for them to be conveniently corralled into.
How about we take this message away from this? "Evil people will always do evil things, no matter what we do to stop them. Trying to stop evil people requires stopping nice people from doing things with laws that evil people will simply ignore, just like they ignore all the existing laws."
The only way to have stopped this nutcase was to put him in prison (or confinement) at the first sign he might be "unstable". Now, you might be imprisoning a lot of people who don't fit YOUR definition of stable, and who wouldn't ever kill anyone, but if you can stop the death of 20 schoolchildren by putting a million oddballs into prison, isn't it worth it?
If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is
"Excuse me, sir, do you have any liquids or gels in your carryon? Please remove your shoes and belt and take off your jacket... your laptop out of its case, please... hold your hands over your head, put your feet onto those yellow pads and stand still..." Don't you realize that 3000 people were killed, and this abandonment of your freedoms is required to keep it from happening again?
Freedom is the right to be a nut, up to the point that you harm others -- which is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. So the correct solution is to create more laws that the evil/nutcases will ignore while law-abiding citizens get their freedoms limited.
the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".
Those who would give up... I think we all know the quote. You should also know that you are free to give up your freedoms, but you are not so free to take them away from others.
So, does this mean that the only valuable feature of Google I've found so far is going to stop today? That's the ability to sync all my Android device calendars through my gmail account. Gone? I won't be able to enter an appointment on my tablet and have it show up on my phone?
According to TFA his list is opt-in only, so unless he's lying about that he doesn't appear to be a spammer.
But then he mentions the main reason he cannot use Constant Contact is because he sends different email to subsets of his full list, not that Constant Contact is a spammer almost beyond compare and won't remove someone from the lists they spew to even when both the recipient AND the sender tell them to.
I'm on two Constant Contact operated lists and there is absolutely nothing I can do to get off, including getting the companies that put me on to remove my address. At this point, I simply filter all Constant Contact email into the bit bucket.
The Nashua, Hew Hampshire city police department is not an agency of the US government, whether you call them "violent" or not.
are protecting the profits of a private company
It is their job to protect "private companies" as well as private citizens from those who break the law, even if the law is one that you don't agree with like "creating a public disturbance" or "tresspassing", so yes, they are protecting private companies. Allowing someone to create a disturbance at a store would drive other customers away, which would have an effect on the profits, as would a failure to protect a company against vandalism or theft.
that doesn't even pay tax in the US.
There is a lot of print about how Apple uses the US laws to avoid paying taxes in the US, but I've seen nothing that says they pay nothing in the US. One NY Times article refers to how they pay "$2.4 billion less" than the NY Times author thinks they should, but that is not saying they pay nothing. And it isn't claiming that Apple is paying less than what they legally owe. In fact, I find nothing at all that says they are paying less than they legally owe. A company that pays more than they legally owe is breaking it's duty to the stockholders, even if they make bonus points from everyone who thinks everything naturally belongs to everyone except those who already have it. Those bonus points won't keep a company from going bankrupt when the wealth they produce has been redistributed to everyone who wants a piece of it.
The best (only?) number I can pull out of the mess of reporting about this comes from here. It says Apples pays "Adjusted effective tax rate" of 12.8%, which is not zero. So, your claim that they "[don't] pay tax in the US" is proven incorrect.
What if China were to, I don't know, just not export the 5A00* to the US in the first place? It was built there.
You say "it was built there" like it really meant something.
I could open up a factory tomorrow that builds PMR446 radios (the non-US equivalent to FRS) but not be able to sell a single one of them here because they would be illegal to sell here (unless I marketed them as ham radios, which they would be). So let's say I build Chinese-style FRS radios -- which operate in what would be the federal frequencies here in the US. Those I couldn't sell at all here.
In fact, every FRS or PMR446 radio manufactured in China cannot be sold in that country.
So, repeating this "it was built there" is interesting, but meaningless in the existing world of regional regulations and rules.
It is not illegal for normal buyers to resell their property elsewhere,
Uhh, yeah dude, it can be. If you're selling something that cannot be exported to "elsewhere", then it is illegal for you to do it. Whether it is profitable for you or not is irrelevant.
For example, ignoring the crypto and munitions examples, it is illegal to sell someone in another country a radio that is not legal for use in that country. E.g., an FRS radio from the US operates on police frequencies in the UK. A PMR446 radio from Germany operates in the amateur radio band in the US.
Even when the frequencies are legal, there are different rules about spurious emissions, for example, that could make a radio legal for use in the US illegal in another country.
and using the police to enforce their world-view is shocking, to say the least.
Using the police to escort a person who is making a disturbance out of an Apple Store is hardly "enforcing their world-view".
"Below are the proposed changes to our Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) that sparked the most questions and comments..."
So they actually fail to enumerate the changes, too, just mentioning some of them.
So there really isn't a point to keeping any of these old junkers except for the case of nostalgia
Or you already have one that is working and don't feel you should be forced to upgrade hardware just to keep up with the latest versions of an operating system. Which used to be a point in favor of Linux and a point against MS.
The fact is, the defacto Linux universe had already shut out 386s because the standard install ISOs used a boot kernel that woudn't run on them anyway.
I got my Engineering degree without taking a single general elective from the school.
Interesting school. When I tried the same thing, the state school required that a specific number of credits be earned at that school even when I had three years worth of required courses covered by the community college. So, I took essentially a full year's worth of "electives" on all kinds of stupid things (like "COBOL", "Linguistics" and "African Political Systems").
It's still not bad, considering that half of your academic load in the last two years at a state school then becomes fluff, allowing you to concentrate on the harder advanced science classes.
Wind correction (side drift etc.) has nothing to do with compass or heading.
You are patently and obviously wrong. Your heading, which is read from your compass or DG, depends in great measure upon the wind correction that you need to apply to your bearing. If you need to use a 10 degree right deviation to maintain a 340 degree bearing, then you will do so by keeping your compass (or DG as the proxy for it) on 350. If there is no wind correction necessary, then your heading will be your bearing and your compass will read 340 while on course.
Bottom line that is vector arithmetic, yielding a "compass heading" you finally follow.
Which then proves that your heading has a lot to do with your wind correction. Like you just denied. And we remain with the point that your compass does not tell you if you are where you are supposed to be, only if you are pointed the right direction. Being pointed the right direction, given crosswinds, doesn't mean you are heading the right direction, and says NOTHING about whether you are on your desired route of travel.
Sorry, don't know the abbreviations you use, like ILS/VOR and NTSB..
Google is your friend. Instrument landing system, VHF omnirange receiver, National Trasportation Safety Board (which is involved in maritime accidents, so if you don't know them, then your maritime relevance is questionable).
I'm more a sailor than a pilot, did not start with my air license yet;D
Then you still have a lot to learn about GPS and compass "bearings" and how reliant pilots are on GPS.
You seriously believe that an Airbus 330 doesn't have a single GPS somewhere in all that electronics? That a cheap GPS receiver would have been mounted on the dash ready for instant use in preference to the multiply redundant flight guidance systems already installed? That any major airline would sanction the use of a cheap handheld GPS for flight guidance in the first place?
No, adding another unused, slow-to-initialize instrument to the mix would not have helped AF447. What would have happened would have been "where the hell is my flight bag, where's the 'on' button, oh look, it's found one satellite, derp, what's the ocean doing at 40,000 feet?"
and most airliners already use airways primarily defined between VOR's.
In the US, under FAA guidelines to help steamline traffic flow and increase system capacity, and due to pressure from airlines to reduce costs by shortening flight times, most airliners use direct routing whenever possible and permitted by ATC.
Airways, a leftover from the old A and N beacon days, are becoming less and less important. They are still a prime feature of arrival and departure routing because it is more convenient for ATC to funnel everyone into and out of congested airspace by making sure everyone is using the correct roads going the correct direction instead of trying to manage a hundred different routes (present position direct), but once you leave the "big city" a direct routing is much more common. And when it isn't direct to your destination, it's due to ATC not being able/not wanting to coordinate that with sectors more than one or two hops away, not because airways are so much better.
This is all based on the growth and reliance upon GPS. Even when RNAV was common in large iron, it wasn't as often used to assign direct clearances.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to stockpile 1000 guns; I think I do as member of this society, have a right to know why.
No, you don't. I don't need to explain to you why I want to exercise my constitutional rights, any more than you need to explain to me why you should be allowed to exercise yours.
Why don't you allow cops to search your house when they ask? Are you hiding something? Why do you need any right to be secure in your person and property unless you've done something wrong? What are you hiding? As a member of this society, I have a right to know why you are invoking the fourth or fifth amendments. Don't I? (Note to readers: that's a rhetorical question intended to make the point that the argument "I have a right to know why you want to..." is specious and patently absurd.)
There is no reason to own many of the guns that are sold,
No reason you understand. Are constitutional rights only valid if you understand why someone wants to exercise them?
And I see absolutely no reason for the conceal carry laws other then
The right of people to defend themselves is a pretty good reason. You don't understand why others use their rights. We get that. Your lack of understanding is really irrelevant to the discussion.
I believe in responsible gun ownership but I don't see how that right is unlimited and unrestricted.
"I don't understand why you want to own a gun" isn't a valid restriction, and there are already quite a number of restrictions that you don't seem to know about. It's hyperbole to claim that gun ownership is "unlimited and unrestricted" just because you don't think they are limited enough to meet your understanding.
This post went from protecting rights to advocating for thought crime. A+ would read again.
Wrong. You should read again. It doesn't advocate for "thought crime", it points out how dangerous the "we must do something" cry is, and how the idea that "we cannot allow this to happen again" is a danger sign to any free society.
If you seriously thought that I was suggesting that we lock up millions of "unstable" people just on the off-chance that they might do something bad someday, based on everything I wrote before that and everything else I've written in this discussion, then you're a prime candidate for first in line for the hoosegow under that policy.
But seriously, blowing up an office building was supposed to change things?
Tell that to TSA as you pass through the X-ray machines the next time you want to fly somewhere. Or is the entire security theater we undergo not a change based on "blowing up an office building"? The paranoia and fright the 9/11 perps caused wasn't their intent, even though they were called "terrorists"?
someone who doesn't do business across state lines and only makes "occasional" sales is not required to do a background check.
Except in some states they are, and in any case is not a dealer, so the statement that you can avoid "any and all checks, except the one you give the dealer" is patently false. If you buy from a dealer, you cannot avoid the background check, in addition to the one the dealer might accept in payment. If you buy from anyone in Oregon, you cannot avoid the background check at all.
Uh no. this will just build up hysteria driven witch hunts based on all kinds of fallacies. The result would be catastrophic to any last semblances of freedom/liberty we have right now.
You've just identified the successful reductio ad absurdum argument I made. Some people call this "trolling", but in truth it shows the flaws in the claim that "we cannot allow this to happen again", and it annoys people who think we "must do something" when there really isn't anything that can be done.
As you said, the only solution to the problem is not acceptable to anyone, and would destroy any semblance of liberty we have.
You can also go to a gun show and bypass any and all checks (except the one you give the dealer).
Not in the US. US law requires firearms dealers to perform background checks whenever they sell a firearm. That's true for a sale in their store or a sale at a gun show.
In addition, many states have regulated private transactions and require background checks, especially at gun shows. This is another example of someone not being able to do what he wants with something he owns.
You can even act batshit insane -
Also untrue. Federal law prohibits even private sales of weapons to people who the seller has reason to believe would be ineligible for ownership. Like insane people.
you fit right in with a significant part of the crowd.
Your personal opinion of gun owners aside, the right exists and is even written down. It's right next to this right of privacy that everyone keeps talking about.
If I don't want something knocked over, I'm going to keep it safe from my cat. She wouldn't know any better, so I take precautions.
So you're arguing that this fellow had the mental capacity of your cat and didn't know that what he was doing was wrong? And that nobody noticed that he was easily amused by laser pointers and spent most of the day licking himself?
What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia.
They intended no such thing. They gave one example of why the right to be armed is important, but one example is not the complete list.
Do you think all those founders who had just used their arms against the government were really thinking that the only reason people should be allowed to own a gun was so they could be part of a "well regulated militia" -- i.e., part of the government used to suppress the public should THEY ever be so uppity as to oppose a government they found to be oppressive?
What you are arguing is that the same people who just won their freedom from an oppressive, abusive government were now saying that nobody except the government (in the guise of the "well regulated militia") should have weapons. That's ridiculous.
If all gun owners were compelled to be members of a militia with regulation oversight from that militia (responsible gun owners having veto powers over other members, to legally disarm them ...
Well, Mr. President, those people in Tennessee are starting to get riled about those new laws we're forcing on them, you better kick them out of the "militia" and gather up all their weapons...
From the font of all human knowledge:
That's a pretty clear statement about the difference between an armed populace and the militias that would be "well regulated" by the state. "The whole body of the people" is much more than any militia, in your terminology, but it truly was "the whole body of the people" to the founders. Continuing from the same article:
You're now arguing that this "paramount right", what the founders thought was "a basic human right", is really intended to be a way of keeping the populace under control because it should be afforded only to those who are "part of the system", and, when the right is most needed, will be part of the problem.
Just as easy as buying any other tool that can be used to kill people.
This.
I have the most beautiful tomatoes in my home garden because I use a wonderful high-nitrogen fertilizer on them. I drive a diesel truck. And I am planning on re-roofing my house, so I'll need a large box of those nails, please. And two rolls of duct tape like the government tells me I should buy to prepare for disasters. And I've got a few rats I need to get rid of, so a large package of that rat poison ...
Is there a U-Haul truck rental place anywhere close by?
Australia banned automatic rifles after several mass shootings and since then, they have had none.
TSA banned liquids and gels in more than small quantities, and since then, there have been no incidents of liquid-based explosions on US aircraft.
You see, you can claim to want a gun for self defense but how many do you need?
How many rights do YOU need? What is it about the concept of a right that is hard to grasp? Is there some new twist to "rights" that says that you can only exercise one to the limit that someone else thinks you need to?
Yes, you have the right to free speech, but I think you've said quite enough already. Sit down and shut up, you don't need the right to free speech anymore.
What did she need that arsenal for?
Who cares? It's not your right to decide what she needed her rights for. If I want to own 1000 guns, it's my right, and you have no right to second guess whether I get the right based on what you think I need.
Ten to one the mother is the answer to this drama.
Then the way we prevent this from ever happening again: ban mothers. You can't shoot your mother in her sleep if you don't have a mother. And ban schools. You can't shoot up a school full of kids if there is no school for them to be conveniently corralled into.
How about we take this message away from this? "Evil people will always do evil things, no matter what we do to stop them. Trying to stop evil people requires stopping nice people from doing things with laws that evil people will simply ignore, just like they ignore all the existing laws."
The only way to have stopped this nutcase was to put him in prison (or confinement) at the first sign he might be "unstable". Now, you might be imprisoning a lot of people who don't fit YOUR definition of stable, and who wouldn't ever kill anyone, but if you can stop the death of 20 schoolchildren by putting a million oddballs into prison, isn't it worth it?
If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is
"Excuse me, sir, do you have any liquids or gels in your carryon? Please remove your shoes and belt and take off your jacket ... your laptop out of its case, please... hold your hands over your head, put your feet onto those yellow pads and stand still..." Don't you realize that 3000 people were killed, and this abandonment of your freedoms is required to keep it from happening again?
Freedom is the right to be a nut, up to the point that you harm others -- which is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. So the correct solution is to create more laws that the evil/nutcases will ignore while law-abiding citizens get their freedoms limited.
the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".
Those who would give up ... I think we all know the quote. You should also know that you are free to give up your freedoms, but you are not so free to take them away from others.
So, does this mean that the only valuable feature of Google I've found so far is going to stop today? That's the ability to sync all my Android device calendars through my gmail account. Gone? I won't be able to enter an appointment on my tablet and have it show up on my phone?
According to TFA his list is opt-in only, so unless he's lying about that he doesn't appear to be a spammer.
But then he mentions the main reason he cannot use Constant Contact is because he sends different email to subsets of his full list, not that Constant Contact is a spammer almost beyond compare and won't remove someone from the lists they spew to even when both the recipient AND the sender tell them to.
I'm on two Constant Contact operated lists and there is absolutely nothing I can do to get off, including getting the companies that put me on to remove my address. At this point, I simply filter all Constant Contact email into the bit bucket.
Don't forget: "Anthropogenic Global warming responsible for receding icepack on Titan"
FTFY.
So violent agencies of the US government
The Nashua, Hew Hampshire city police department is not an agency of the US government, whether you call them "violent" or not.
are protecting the profits of a private company
It is their job to protect "private companies" as well as private citizens from those who break the law, even if the law is one that you don't agree with like "creating a public disturbance" or "tresspassing", so yes, they are protecting private companies. Allowing someone to create a disturbance at a store would drive other customers away, which would have an effect on the profits, as would a failure to protect a company against vandalism or theft.
that doesn't even pay tax in the US.
There is a lot of print about how Apple uses the US laws to avoid paying taxes in the US, but I've seen nothing that says they pay nothing in the US. One NY Times article refers to how they pay "$2.4 billion less" than the NY Times author thinks they should, but that is not saying they pay nothing. And it isn't claiming that Apple is paying less than what they legally owe. In fact, I find nothing at all that says they are paying less than they legally owe. A company that pays more than they legally owe is breaking it's duty to the stockholders, even if they make bonus points from everyone who thinks everything naturally belongs to everyone except those who already have it. Those bonus points won't keep a company from going bankrupt when the wealth they produce has been redistributed to everyone who wants a piece of it.
The best (only?) number I can pull out of the mess of reporting about this comes from here. It says Apples pays "Adjusted effective tax rate" of 12.8%, which is not zero. So, your claim that they "[don't] pay tax in the US" is proven incorrect.
What if China were to, I don't know, just not export the 5A00* to the US in the first place? It was built there.
You say "it was built there" like it really meant something.
I could open up a factory tomorrow that builds PMR446 radios (the non-US equivalent to FRS) but not be able to sell a single one of them here because they would be illegal to sell here (unless I marketed them as ham radios, which they would be). So let's say I build Chinese-style FRS radios -- which operate in what would be the federal frequencies here in the US. Those I couldn't sell at all here.
In fact, every FRS or PMR446 radio manufactured in China cannot be sold in that country.
So, repeating this "it was built there" is interesting, but meaningless in the existing world of regional regulations and rules.
It is not illegal for normal buyers to resell their property elsewhere,
Uhh, yeah dude, it can be. If you're selling something that cannot be exported to "elsewhere", then it is illegal for you to do it. Whether it is profitable for you or not is irrelevant.
For example, ignoring the crypto and munitions examples, it is illegal to sell someone in another country a radio that is not legal for use in that country. E.g., an FRS radio from the US operates on police frequencies in the UK. A PMR446 radio from Germany operates in the amateur radio band in the US.
Even when the frequencies are legal, there are different rules about spurious emissions, for example, that could make a radio legal for use in the US illegal in another country.
and using the police to enforce their world-view is shocking, to say the least.
Using the police to escort a person who is making a disturbance out of an Apple Store is hardly "enforcing their world-view".
So they actually fail to enumerate the changes, too, just mentioning some of them.
So there really isn't a point to keeping any of these old junkers except for the case of nostalgia
Or you already have one that is working and don't feel you should be forced to upgrade hardware just to keep up with the latest versions of an operating system. Which used to be a point in favor of Linux and a point against MS.
The fact is, the defacto Linux universe had already shut out 386s because the standard install ISOs used a boot kernel that woudn't run on them anyway.
Badges? BADGES? We don't need no STINKING BADGES!
If you're going to use a movie reference, at least do it right.
"Badgers? Badgers? We don't need no stinking BADGERS!"
I got my Engineering degree without taking a single general elective from the school.
Interesting school. When I tried the same thing, the state school required that a specific number of credits be earned at that school even when I had three years worth of required courses covered by the community college. So, I took essentially a full year's worth of "electives" on all kinds of stupid things (like "COBOL", "Linguistics" and "African Political Systems").
It's still not bad, considering that half of your academic load in the last two years at a state school then becomes fluff, allowing you to concentrate on the harder advanced science classes.
Wind correction (side drift etc.) has nothing to do with compass or heading.
You are patently and obviously wrong. Your heading, which is read from your compass or DG, depends in great measure upon the wind correction that you need to apply to your bearing. If you need to use a 10 degree right deviation to maintain a 340 degree bearing, then you will do so by keeping your compass (or DG as the proxy for it) on 350. If there is no wind correction necessary, then your heading will be your bearing and your compass will read 340 while on course.
Bottom line that is vector arithmetic, yielding a "compass heading" you finally follow.
Which then proves that your heading has a lot to do with your wind correction. Like you just denied. And we remain with the point that your compass does not tell you if you are where you are supposed to be, only if you are pointed the right direction. Being pointed the right direction, given crosswinds, doesn't mean you are heading the right direction, and says NOTHING about whether you are on your desired route of travel.
Sorry, don't know the abbreviations you use, like ILS/VOR and NTSB ..
Google is your friend. Instrument landing system, VHF omnirange receiver, National Trasportation Safety Board (which is involved in maritime accidents, so if you don't know them, then your maritime relevance is questionable).
I'm more a sailor than a pilot, did not start with my air license yet ;D
Then you still have a lot to learn about GPS and compass "bearings" and how reliant pilots are on GPS.
Not all of them have GPS, either. AF 447...
You seriously believe that an Airbus 330 doesn't have a single GPS somewhere in all that electronics? That a cheap GPS receiver would have been mounted on the dash ready for instant use in preference to the multiply redundant flight guidance systems already installed? That any major airline would sanction the use of a cheap handheld GPS for flight guidance in the first place?
Which sub-$100 GPS from Garmin has an airspeed reading? Which one shows the angle of attack? How would this have helped an aircrew when the failure was in training them how to deal with aerodynamic stalls at high altitude?
No, adding another unused, slow-to-initialize instrument to the mix would not have helped AF447. What would have happened would have been "where the hell is my flight bag, where's the 'on' button, oh look, it's found one satellite, derp, what's the ocean doing at 40,000 feet?"
and most airliners already use airways primarily defined between VOR's.
In the US, under FAA guidelines to help steamline traffic flow and increase system capacity, and due to pressure from airlines to reduce costs by shortening flight times, most airliners use direct routing whenever possible and permitted by ATC.
Airways, a leftover from the old A and N beacon days, are becoming less and less important. They are still a prime feature of arrival and departure routing because it is more convenient for ATC to funnel everyone into and out of congested airspace by making sure everyone is using the correct roads going the correct direction instead of trying to manage a hundred different routes (present position direct), but once you leave the "big city" a direct routing is much more common. And when it isn't direct to your destination, it's due to ATC not being able/not wanting to coordinate that with sectors more than one or two hops away, not because airways are so much better.
This is all based on the growth and reliance upon GPS. Even when RNAV was common in large iron, it wasn't as often used to assign direct clearances.