There is no need for this at all. The Lexus crash was a tragedy, yes, but then all of the faulty cars were recalled and now Toyota has a standard braking system installed. What problem, exactly, is NHTSA trying to fix?? Other than making more work for themselves so they can justify a budget...
That was Cold War mentality. When you go to sleep every night fearing that you might not wake up the next day because of a Soviet nuke, suddenly money and manpower are no object.
No, GP is correct. The federal interstate commerce clause was used to strike down a state law, because the state law (improperly) regulated interstate commerce.
I would think that with enough precedents against them and enough six figure settlements, any city would catch on pretty quickly that they need to fire such law-breaking cops. Hell, if another cop pulls this shit in Boston, you can bet the suit won't be for $100,000, but for a ton more because the city is showing signs of being a "habitual offender".
There are already specific regulations requiring passengers to comply with crewmember instructions with respect to:
* seat backs being upright (14 CFR 125.211(e)) * smoking and seat belts (14 CFR 125.217(d)) * food, drinks, utensils, and tray tables (14 CFR 125.333(d))
Technically speaking, there's no regulation requiring you to comply with the electronic device restrictions. However, since they can't operate the plane if someone's using one, they will more than likely just eject you if you don't turn off your device.
The relevant regulation (14 CFR 125.204) reads:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the Part 125 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that Part 125 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.
Following up on this, one issue during takeoff and landing isn't so much electrical as gravitational. Lots of g-forces in strange directions and easily dropped gadgets don't mix.
Yes, but the market value of a stock is what someone else will pay for it. Given the fraction of relatively irrational day traders in the market, this number is largely if not totally based on subjective perception, and has little or nothing to do with the "fundamental" value of the stock. Capitalism, indeed.
You can't use technology to solve social problems.
A large number of the "big" problems (hunger, poverty, homelessness, addiction, oppressive dictators, bad laws, etc) are social in nature. Technology will not help solve them.
Why does Tyranny always come back to societies over and over. Seems throughout history, humans just can't put an end to dictatorship rule! All these new laws are being put in place to control our lives until we all become puppets on a string.
Look in the mirror. If you have to ask the question, then you aren't out fighting the dictators, so it's your fault.
Add a provision that the people who think this is such a great idea must indemnify organizations that are forced to change off DNSSEC to something less secure. Then, when the Internet goes down, everyone gets to sue the MAFIAA! Watch how fast it would get killed.
This is not a patent, this is an application publication. You can tell because it says "pub no" in the upper right corner instead of "patent no". For reference:
TFA author can't tell the difference, which is incredibly obvious once you know what you're looking for. And a lot of applications never become a patent.
Now that the application has published, anyone who knows of any prior art might be able to let the patent office know about it if this application isn't examined before the new law kicks in September 16 this year. See the America Invents Act, section 8 (starts bottom of page 32).
That's what happens when Congress is in the pocket of big business. Any good business person will tell you that you need recurring revenue. Congress does it through sunset provisions: "Oh, that law you really like is expiring soon? Well, maybe I can get an extension passed, but it'll cost lots of money to advance that ahead of extensions that other people want." It's really a racket.
>>I have to wonder if Google would agree with this.
Why wouldn't they?
Because as soon as one of the labels takes down some innocent user's video without warning, Google will find themselves on the other side of a lawsuit. Companies don't like to expose themselves to liability based on the actions of someone they don't control.
If they're rational, they'll takedown every video as soon as they get a complaint from a major rightsholder, regardless of the merits. From a purely business and legal perspective.
Google are already doing this; the current issue is that the labels aren't even bothering to complain any more, they are removing videos unilaterally.
You realize, of course, that most cereal commercials don't use milk, but glue. Glue doesn't make the product go soggy during the many hours of filming.
The whole thing is designed so that people must have debt in order to beg the banks for more debt.
Playing devil's advocate here, suppose your livelihood was based on lending people money. Someone with no history of borrowing comes into your office asking for a loan. How do you determine that you can trust them to pay it back? (Note: this is not a hypothetical or rhetorical question, banks have to answer it every day.)
Slashdot Mirror
There is no need for this at all. The Lexus crash was a tragedy, yes, but then all of the faulty cars were recalled and now Toyota has a standard braking system installed. What problem, exactly, is NHTSA trying to fix?? Other than making more work for themselves so they can justify a budget...
That was Cold War mentality. When you go to sleep every night fearing that you might not wake up the next day because of a Soviet nuke, suddenly money and manpower are no object.
Times are thankfully a bit different now.
No, GP is correct. The federal interstate commerce clause was used to strike down a state law, because the state law (improperly) regulated interstate commerce.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause for more details.
I would think that with enough precedents against them and enough six figure settlements, any city would catch on pretty quickly that they need to fire such law-breaking cops. Hell, if another cop pulls this shit in Boston, you can bet the suit won't be for $100,000, but for a ton more because the city is showing signs of being a "habitual offender".
There are already specific regulations requiring passengers to comply with crewmember instructions with respect to:
* seat backs being upright (14 CFR 125.211(e))
* smoking and seat belts (14 CFR 125.217(d))
* food, drinks, utensils, and tray tables (14 CFR 125.333(d))
Technically speaking, there's no regulation requiring you to comply with the electronic device restrictions. However, since they can't operate the plane if someone's using one, they will more than likely just eject you if you don't turn off your device.
The relevant regulation (14 CFR 125.204) reads:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the Part 125 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that Part 125 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.
*Yawn* Cameras that can see around corners aren't even new (provided you can control the light source):
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/dual_photography/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8237361566146405294#
Following up on this, one issue during takeoff and landing isn't so much electrical as gravitational. Lots of g-forces in strange directions and easily dropped gadgets don't mix.
So why aren't we doing this?
Yes, but the market value of a stock is what someone else will pay for it. Given the fraction of relatively irrational day traders in the market, this number is largely if not totally based on subjective perception, and has little or nothing to do with the "fundamental" value of the stock. Capitalism, indeed.
Experience is the sum of all failures.
If only our politicians in the US were as honest.
The Wisconsin work goes by the name Operation Angry Badger, for no apparent reason.
The badger is the mascot of the University of Wisconsin, a well-known institution.
You can't use technology to solve social problems.
A large number of the "big" problems (hunger, poverty, homelessness, addiction, oppressive dictators, bad laws, etc) are social in nature. Technology will not help solve them.
I'm American. You've got nothing to apologize for.
Are you crazy?? Do you know how many laws there are? They'd be constantly reviewing the old laws, and nothing new would get done...
On second thought, this is a brilliant strategy!
Why does Tyranny always come back to societies over and over. Seems throughout history, humans just can't put an end to dictatorship rule! All these new laws are being put in place to control our lives until we all become puppets on a string.
Look in the mirror. If you have to ask the question, then you aren't out fighting the dictators, so it's your fault.
Add a provision that the people who think this is such a great idea must indemnify organizations that are forced to change off DNSSEC to something less secure. Then, when the Internet goes down, everyone gets to sue the MAFIAA! Watch how fast it would get killed.
You can be (briefly) detained while not under actual arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
This is not a patent, this is an application publication. You can tell because it says "pub no" in the upper right corner instead of "patent no". For reference:
Link to publication from TFA
Link to a real patent (believe it or not)
TFA author can't tell the difference, which is incredibly obvious once you know what you're looking for. And a lot of applications never become a patent.
Now that the application has published, anyone who knows of any prior art might be able to let the patent office know about it if this application isn't examined before the new law kicks in September 16 this year. See the America Invents Act, section 8 (starts bottom of page 32).
In before GVR.
That's what happens when Congress is in the pocket of big business. Any good business person will tell you that you need recurring revenue. Congress does it through sunset provisions: "Oh, that law you really like is expiring soon? Well, maybe I can get an extension passed, but it'll cost lots of money to advance that ahead of extensions that other people want." It's really a racket.
I don't see anything particularly nefarious about pressing the Shift key five times in a row...
>>I have to wonder if Google would agree with this.
Why wouldn't they?
Because as soon as one of the labels takes down some innocent user's video without warning, Google will find themselves on the other side of a lawsuit. Companies don't like to expose themselves to liability based on the actions of someone they don't control.
If they're rational, they'll takedown every video as soon as they get a complaint from a major rightsholder, regardless of the merits. From a purely business and legal perspective.
Google are already doing this; the current issue is that the labels aren't even bothering to complain any more, they are removing videos unilaterally.
You realize, of course, that most cereal commercials don't use milk, but glue. Glue doesn't make the product go soggy during the many hours of filming.
The whole thing is designed so that people must have debt in order to beg the banks for more debt.
Playing devil's advocate here, suppose your livelihood was based on lending people money. Someone with no history of borrowing comes into your office asking for a loan. How do you determine that you can trust them to pay it back? (Note: this is not a hypothetical or rhetorical question, banks have to answer it every day.)
Please post your answers in this thread.