SpaceShipOne can carry three people. A top-notch celebrity, or top-ranking politician would likely pay very big money to be taken on a simple flight (go up a bit, no rockets, just glide down). Photo ops tend to revolve around celebs getting out of aircraft, so the lack of any really dangerous stuff would be irrelevent to them.
One problem is SS1 is still an experimental aircraft. Under FAA regulations, you can't use it in a for-hire operation. That means you can't just start selling tickets for SS1 rides.
Scaled would have to make SS1 into a certificated airframe first, which is a horrendously expensive and lengthy process, and doesn't make sense with SS1 being a one of a kind technology prototype. My guess is with SS2 they're going to work on certification from the beginning, and given that it'll carry 9 people and they'll build more than one of them, the certification costs can be spread out more and be recovered easier.
4 pin molex connectors on most drives aren't designed to be hot plugged either, and if you're not lucky, they'll arc when you unplug them and can do quite a bit of damage.
They could put tickets for the two additional seats on E-bay
No, actually they couldn't.
N328KF is registered as an experimental glider. Under Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) that means two things:
a) You can't carry passengers at all until the craft has been satisfactorily flight tested. b) You can never carry passengers for hire.
Whether or not at this point SSO has been flight tested is up to the FAA. It's usually about 40 hours of testing, and I have no clue whether they've put that much time on the airframe at this point or not and whether the FAA inspector is happy with the suborbital flight tests they've done. In any event, they won't be able to recover costs from passengers until they develop a certificated platform.
The X-Prize is a 10 million dollar privately funded prize, not a 1 million dollar government program. NASA, the FAA, and any other agency of any government have nothing to do with it other than issuing launch waivers.
It has everything to do with kickstarting private, commercial space flight.
The new jobs created within the economy pay, on average, $9,000 less than the old jobs did.
And if we're talking about tech jobs, that's not terribly suprising. Before the bubble burst you had fresh college graduates with a CS degree making upper 5 to 6 figure incomes for entry level IT jobs supporting thousands of just plain bad business plans that were going to make millions because they had the word "Internet" on every page. Of *course* wages are going to depress after that. Those wages were being paid out of insanely large VC pools and had absolutely no connection to the real value the employee was providing the company. Now there's more tech professionals in the market than there were ever real jobs for, and wages adjust accordingly.
If he will sign for NO deficit spending, what will he do in a national emergency? Say for instance, a state, let's use Florida as an example, gets hit by three devastating hurricanes. "I'm sorry folks, you're shit out of luck. I said NO deficit spending, so the fact that you have lost EVERYTHING really isn't the goverment's problem."
I'm sorry. If you live in a hurricane zone and aren't adequetly insured, it's not the government's problem when your house gets leveled. Don't ask me to pay to bail you out from your poor lifestyle choice. I don't expect anyone from Florida to shovel my driveway when it gets snowed in twice a month during the winter, don't ask me to rebuild your house when Ivan flattens it.
In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that FEMA and the promise of Federal relief actually causes more problems than it solves. By putting up a safety net that will cover material losses in disaster prone areas, you don't discourage people from living in them. Thus, when a disaster does hit, there's more people in the disaster area injured or killed than if that relief wasn't there. If the actual individual cost of living in Florida (or California along fault lines) factored in insurance rates that could actually deal with these scale losses, many fewer people would live there in the first place and the loss of life and property would be much less.
Actually, the prohibition on cell phones on airlines comes from two places:
a) The FCC says you can't use them. (47CFR 22.925) b) The FAA says the Pilot in Command of the aircraft can prohibit the use of portable electronic devices. (http://www2.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidanc e_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/5D4AEFD672582D15852566CF00 6135DC?OpenDocument">FAR Part 91)
Because there's a) FCC regulations against using cell phones on airliners. b) FAA regulations explicitly allowing the pilot in command of an aircraft to prohibit the use of portable electronic devices.
Now, as to why isn't my local DMV breaking the law with their "no cellphone" signs? I think they probably are and haven't been called on it.
There are simply some things in life you cannot contract away. Use of radio spectrum seems to be important enough to the FCC that they consider it one of those things.
Then try this ruling specifically regarding wireless network equipment.
The university is in the wrong here. They're trying to regulate something they have no jurisdiction on. Trying to ban the equipment itself is an end-run around the intent of the FCC's ruling and won't stand up to scruitiny.
For DBS dishes, the rules are quite clear. I can install one in any area that's an exclusive use for me, and doesn't damage the building.
If I'm living on the 40th floor, I can use a balcony. If my balcony faces north, I'm SOL. It is rather clear. Access points don't need external exposure, so there's no ambiguity.
I'd like to see a cite that my housing contract wasn't a lease and normal tenant protections don't apply. Calling it something other than a lease doens't mean it isn't still a lease.
I'd like to see a cite on your assertion that my dorm room isn't a leased property and that I don't get the same protections as tenants to any other landlord.
You're looking at the wrong ruling. The OTARD rules cover TV services and fixed wireless internet.
There's other cases where the FCC has said landlords do not have the right to restrict use of unlicensed radio equipment on their property by their tennants. There's similar case law dating back further that say the same thing about HAM operation.
No, they can't. Because the FCC has said they control the spectrum, and the property owner can't restrict it.
For the same reason if I'm renting apartments I can't say "Well, the FCC says I have to allow you to use DirecTV if you want, but I'm not going to allow you to bring a reciever on the property. Put the dish up all you want, but you can't use a set top box." It's a dodge around the issue, and the FCC won't let it stand.
RTFA. They're not talking about connecting access points to their network, they're talking about connecting access points to commercial providers and sharing the same radio bandwidth as the campus network.
The university is acting as landlord for student housing though. They may own the property, but the student is paying for a lease agreement that gives them tenants rights and exclusive use of that room. That's governed by a very large set of tennancy laws in the various states.
Landlords have a right to restrict certain activities on their property. They can't restrict activities the government says they can't, and one of those things is the FCC saying you can't prohibit DBS dishes, OTA antennas, HAM radios, or unlicensed wireless devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Although neither of these devices can match TiVo completely, they do give you a very cheap alternative
How cheap is it really going to be by the time you've added everything up.
A dual tuner DirecTV tivo with 80 hours space is $100 and $5 a month covers up to 8 of them on an account.
I doubt you can get a pc with sufficient horsepower, storage, and a couple of these capture dongles for that.
That's odd. That link says the exact opposite. It was a tabloid rumor since refuted by all involved.
SpaceShipOne can carry three people. A top-notch celebrity, or top-ranking politician would likely pay very big money to be taken on a simple flight (go up a bit, no rockets, just glide down). Photo ops tend to revolve around celebs getting out of aircraft, so the lack of any really dangerous stuff would be irrelevent to them.
One problem is SS1 is still an experimental aircraft. Under FAA regulations, you can't use it in a for-hire operation. That means you can't just start selling tickets for SS1 rides.
Scaled would have to make SS1 into a certificated airframe first, which is a horrendously expensive and lengthy process, and doesn't make sense with SS1 being a one of a kind technology prototype. My guess is with SS2 they're going to work on certification from the beginning, and given that it'll carry 9 people and they'll build more than one of them, the certification costs can be spread out more and be recovered easier.
To make sure you're not skipping on your TV license.
You're kidding, right?
If one of my relatives tried to use a christmas card to evangelize an operating system, they'd be spending Christmas outside in the barn.
4 pin molex connectors on most drives aren't designed to be hot plugged either, and if you're not lucky, they'll arc when you unplug them and can do quite a bit of damage.
My niece was killed by a flying lawnmower
She's better now
Huh?
Well, if you're in the press...
Could you at least *try* to keep which of the Rutan brothers is responsible correct? Burt Rutan designed and built SSO.
Dick Rutan is his brother who piloted Voyager around the world in 1986.
Once you get the cast of characters correct, then you can start to think about explaining aerospace engineering and control envelopes.
They could put tickets for the two additional seats on E-bay
No, actually they couldn't.
N328KF is registered as an experimental glider. Under Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) that means two things:
a) You can't carry passengers at all until the craft has been satisfactorily flight tested.
b) You can never carry passengers for hire.
Whether or not at this point SSO has been flight tested is up to the FAA. It's usually about 40 hours of testing, and I have no clue whether they've put that much time on the airframe at this point or not and whether the FAA inspector is happy with the suborbital flight tests they've done. In any event, they won't be able to recover costs from passengers until they develop a certificated platform.
Said constituents were fools to vote for him, fooled by money from Qualcomm.
Or too lazy to care.
The X-Prize is a 10 million dollar privately funded prize, not a 1 million dollar government program. NASA, the FAA, and any other agency of any government have nothing to do with it other than issuing launch waivers.
It has everything to do with kickstarting private, commercial space flight.
And if we're talking about tech jobs, that's not terribly suprising. Before the bubble burst you had fresh college graduates with a CS degree making upper 5 to 6 figure incomes for entry level IT jobs supporting thousands of just plain bad business plans that were going to make millions because they had the word "Internet" on every page. Of *course* wages are going to depress after that. Those wages were being paid out of insanely large VC pools and had absolutely no connection to the real value the employee was providing the company. Now there's more tech professionals in the market than there were ever real jobs for, and wages adjust accordingly.
I'm sorry. If you live in a hurricane zone and aren't adequetly insured, it's not the government's problem when your house gets leveled. Don't ask me to pay to bail you out from your poor lifestyle choice. I don't expect anyone from Florida to shovel my driveway when it gets snowed in twice a month during the winter, don't ask me to rebuild your house when Ivan flattens it.
In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that FEMA and the promise of Federal relief actually causes more problems than it solves. By putting up a safety net that will cover material losses in disaster prone areas, you don't discourage people from living in them. Thus, when a disaster does hit, there's more people in the disaster area injured or killed than if that relief wasn't there. If the actual individual cost of living in Florida (or California along fault lines) factored in insurance rates that could actually deal with these scale losses, many fewer people would live there in the first place and the loss of life and property would be much less.
Actually, the prohibition on cell phones on airlines comes from two places:
c e_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/5D4AEFD672582D15852566CF00 6135DC?OpenDocument">FAR Part 91)
a) The FCC says you can't use them. (47CFR 22.925)
b) The FAA says the Pilot in Command of the aircraft can prohibit the use of portable electronic devices. (http://www2.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan
Because there's
a) FCC regulations against using cell phones on airliners.
b) FAA regulations explicitly allowing the pilot in command of an aircraft to prohibit the use of portable electronic devices.
Now, as to why isn't my local DMV breaking the law with their "no cellphone" signs? I think they probably are and haven't been called on it.
And the FCC has told your parent's neighborhood association to go stick it.
There are simply some things in life you cannot contract away. Use of radio spectrum seems to be important enough to the FCC that they consider it one of those things.
Then try this ruling specifically regarding wireless network equipment.
The university is in the wrong here. They're trying to regulate something they have no jurisdiction on. Trying to ban the equipment itself is an end-run around the intent of the FCC's ruling and won't stand up to scruitiny.
For DBS dishes, the rules are quite clear. I can install one in any area that's an exclusive use for me, and doesn't damage the building.
If I'm living on the 40th floor, I can use a balcony. If my balcony faces north, I'm SOL. It is rather clear. Access points don't need external exposure, so there's no ambiguity.
I'd like to see a cite that my housing contract wasn't a lease and normal tenant protections don't apply. Calling it something other than a lease doens't mean it isn't still a lease.
FCC ruled that Logan International Airport couldn't restrict the airlines from installing their own wireless network instead of being forced to use the airport's network.
I'd like to see a cite on your assertion that my dorm room isn't a leased property and that I don't get the same protections as tenants to any other landlord.
You're looking at the wrong ruling. The OTARD rules cover TV services and fixed wireless internet.
There's other cases where the FCC has said landlords do not have the right to restrict use of unlicensed radio equipment on their property by their tennants. There's similar case law dating back further that say the same thing about HAM operation.
The OTARD rules simply illustrate their jurisdiction.
They've ruled on other occasions property owners can't prohibit tennants from installing their own WiFi network instead of requiring them to use the property owner's service.
No, they can't. Because the FCC has said they control the spectrum, and the property owner can't restrict it.
For the same reason if I'm renting apartments I can't say "Well, the FCC says I have to allow you to use DirecTV if you want, but I'm not going to allow you to bring a reciever on the property. Put the dish up all you want, but you can't use a set top box." It's a dodge around the issue, and the FCC won't let it stand.
There are however FCC rules that state any restrictions in a lease over wireless devices are unenforceable.
It *DOESN'T* matter what the lease says. The government says you can't enforce that restriction.
RTFA. They're not talking about connecting access points to their network, they're talking about connecting access points to commercial providers and sharing the same radio bandwidth as the campus network.
The university is acting as landlord for student housing though. They may own the property, but the student is paying for a lease agreement that gives them tenants rights and exclusive use of that room. That's governed by a very large set of tennancy laws in the various states.
Landlords have a right to restrict certain activities on their property. They can't restrict activities the government says they can't, and one of those things is the FCC saying you can't prohibit DBS dishes, OTA antennas, HAM radios, or unlicensed wireless devices.