Like I said, the constitution authorized the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. I guess you can appeal to God, but the constitution is pretty clear. I'm not sure your appeal will be heard. Even God has no time for ACs.
If you take the position that the energy source must be located within some arbitrary boundary along with the mechanism to qualify as a motor, then you eliminate any solar powered devices, microwave powered, ore even heat powered devices.
Airplanes that are commercial scheduled air carriers are the only planes covered by the bill. Commercial air transport is already regulated under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 3 (related to regulation of Commerce among the several States).
See, you climbed all the way up there on your soap box, wrapped yourself with the flag, all for naught.
That's due to 1) you can't hear because of the whimpy speakers, and you assume the other party is also struggeling 2) no side tone, your speech isn't fed back to your ear.
With some good headphones this is solved. Any headset goes a long way to solving it, once you get the idiots to realize there is not usually any sidetone on a cellphone.
Well, I agree that the 1st amendment is not at issue here... but could somebody please explain to me specifically which article or amendment to the constitution grants the U.S. Federal government authority to ban voice telephone calls on a private flight?
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices
Phones installed on the plane are specifically exempted. The price of those is so high that no one would yak on them for the whole flight. And those do not support incoming calls. And the ear piece is especially amplified so loud that the user does not feel compelled to shout.
H. R. 3676 To establish a prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications during passenger flights, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES December 9, 2013
Mr. SHUSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL To establish a prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications during passenger flights, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Prohibiting In-Flight Voice Communications on Mobile Wireless Devices Act of 2013'. SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CELL PHONE VOICE COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) In General- Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `Sec. 41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications
`(a) Prohibition- The Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations-- `(1) to prohibit an individual on an aircraft from engaging in voice communications using a mobile communications device during a flight of that aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation; and `(2) that exempt from the prohibition described in paragraph (1) any-- `(A) member of the flight crew on duty on an aircraft; `(B) flight attendant on duty on an aircraft; and `(C) Federal law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity. `(b) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply: `(1) FLIGHT- The term `flight' means, with respect to an aircraft, the period beginning when the aircraft takes off and ending when the aircraft lands. `(2) MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE- `(A) IN GENERAL- The term `mobile communications device' means any portable wireless telecommunications equipment utilized for the transmission or reception of voice data. `(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The analysis for chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 41724 the following: `41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications.'.
In the absence of any keep out signs, (there weren't any), even in France, public items are for free for public consumption.
The only strawman around here is you, and you seem to have most of it in your head. This guy did nothing wrong. The documents were freely available on the web. There was no security on the site, and no copyright on the documents.
As he states on TFA:
Through a Google search which strictly did not have anything to do with ANSES or with public health, I found myself in the ANSES extranet. Simply by clicking on a search result.
First observation: there are a lot of documents freely available here. Second observation: they speak about public health. Third observation: L’ANSES is a public establishment. Question: Is it that this ought to be public? Response: (too) obvious at the time: yes.
And he was acquitted!!! But an embarrassed agency appealed..
Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean it's okay to do it. This creates a horrible survival-of-the-fittest arms race techno-bureaucracy where values are absent.
In this case, when a PUBLIC agency violates their own security protocol, and turns over all its internal documents to the internet, it means EXACTLY that it is OK to do so.
Your analogy of walking into an unlocked office fails the sniff test. (not to mention the stupid analogy test).
He did not break. He did not illegally enter. There was no door. He didn't deprive them of anything. The documents might as well have been stacked neatly in the public park, with signs and arrows pointing to the juicy bits.
The government agency already published the documents.
If we get to the level of making tiny machines the enter cells and do stuff for us, it makes sense to give them motors to get them where they are needed.
We've been making tiny motors to get into cells since forever. Go ask your daddy.
If you would power a baseball externally (throw it) would you call the baseball a motor?
A motor uses energy to create motion. The definition is imprecise in common usage, but conversion of one form of energy (electrical, chemical, etc.) into kinetic energy or some form of work is generally required.
The pitcher or the batter could qualify as motors in the strictest sense, they turn chemical energy into kinetic energy.
The baseball simply qualifies as the load. Something upon which work is performed. It acquires kinetic energy, but all it can do is hand that kinetic energy off to some other object.
Baseballs, unlike baseball players consume no juice.
True, but these dirt mounds are very small, and they weren't there in 2004, but were there in 2011 imagery. Also this place assembles trucks and launchers. I don't believe anyone has said that munitions or war heads are stored there.
Yup, they got a lot wrong. Looking at the Google earth images you can see that they were not blocked in. Why would you put ground level windows in a secret plant?
This is a factory that builds these trucks, or stores them. (There is very little indication on Google Earth that these plants are still in active use).
There isn't a shred of evidence they are deployed there.
Yes, but I've had more than one person who was "in the know" about specific classified things tell me that Tom Clancy had an uncanny ability to somehow come up with fiction that matched reality too close and too often to be just a coincidence.
I suggest your "someone in the know" actually knows less then you think.
Clancy was investigated by military intelligence, and they couldn't find anything but a diligent researcher who could spin publicly known facts into excellent stories. He probably had more info from the writings of Russian defectors than from American sources.
Nothing in this story or the linked TFA, or links in the TFA to other TFAs suggests this is unknown to the military. And it wouldn't take CIA to find it, regular military are doing a lot of photo analysis, both in computers and with eyeballs.
Further, the suggestion that the Norks "messed up". If they "messed up" it was letting the defector live to mention this town in his memoirs.
For example, Ko Chong Song, a North Korean defector, published a book in Japan describing the locations of defense enterprises, stating Pyongyang produces “missile launchers” at the No. 81 Factory located in the “Chungsonggan workers’ district, Songgan County, Chagang Province, about 2.5 to 3 kilometers from Songgan-up".
Another account, posted online by an anti-DPRK dissident group, describes a gruesome incident of cannibalism at the “No.11 munitions factory (Hakmu worker’s district 6 km northwest of Jonchon, Jagang) where missile launchers are manufactured”
(Starvation might explain what looks like graves on the grounds of the first discovered plant located at 40.64565, 126.43338 ).
So the plants were probably well known to the military. Once the Norks realize the US already knows about them, there is little point in pretending they don't exist.
Why would you say this was stupid? They were clearly making a propaganda video, in 2012.
The plants (both of them) were there as early as 2004. In fact the first plant already looked abandoned in 2004. So as far as is publicly known, these plants remained hidden for in excess of 15 or perhaps 20 years. Probable long after the missiles became obsolete, even by Nork standards.
The construction of these plants use was probably already know by the the US military when they went up. After all, they are the largest structures around, and their construction was probably more than a little obvious.
Only a casual reference in a North Korean defector memoirs pointed to military factories centered around Kanggye. That location suggestion is the ONLY thing that let these non-military investigators pinpoint that town. The defector could probably have told them much more.
You leap to the assumption that this place isn't known to the US military, or isn't already on someone's target list. People who know what they are looking for probably have have traffic analysis on this place better than the two different photo dates that Google Earth has.
The utter lack of activity near the site, the lack of raw materials stacked up near by, the poor conditions of the roads (especially near the second plant), lack of a rail spur, all suggest this place is in very limited production, or entirely mothballed. There does seem to be a lot of what look like grave yards near by, and seemingly empty barracks.
Very few people, and no vehicles are seen near the second plant. Even the first discovered plant has less activity than the nearby farms. The second looks abandoned even in 2004 using Google Earth's time slider.
You can deduce a lot about any area using google earth, but when some place has such a different culture as North Korea, you end up guessing a lot.
and an extra differential, and an extra transmission. You left the last two out of your last paragraph: Teslas have a single motor, plus a transmission (single-speed gearbox), plus a differential, plus CV joints/driveshafts.
The Model X will be higher, but not that much. The frames look pretty comparable. If you were expecting ground clearance, you will be disappointed. This is definitely an on-street socker-mom's SUV.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, the constitution authorized the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.
I guess you can appeal to God, but the constitution is pretty clear.
I'm not sure your appeal will be heard.
Even God has no time for ACs.
But this is just an alpha pre release. Isn't that the same thing as a pre-alpha release?
Historically pre-alpha is a long way from ready.
If you take the position that the energy source must be located within some arbitrary boundary along with the mechanism to qualify as a motor, then you eliminate any solar powered devices, microwave powered, ore even heat powered devices.
But does it apply to government employees?
and no copyright on the documents
Copyright is automatic, you don't need to state it explicitly for it to apply.
Really? Can you quote me the exact chapter and verse of French Law that makes this true??
Airplanes that are commercial scheduled air carriers are the only planes covered by the bill.
Commercial air transport is already regulated under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 3 (related to regulation of Commerce among the several States).
See, you climbed all the way up there on your soap box, wrapped yourself with the flag, all for naught.
YOU TALK REALLY REALLY LOUD.
That's due to
1) you can't hear because of the whimpy speakers, and you assume the other party is also struggeling
2) no side tone, your speech isn't fed back to your ear.
With some good headphones this is solved. Any headset goes a long way to solving it, once you get
the idiots to realize there is not usually any sidetone on a cellphone.
Why are airplanes singled out? Why not all public transportation?
Because that ship has sailed.
You can always get up from your seat on the bus and move somewhere else.
Well, I agree that the 1st amendment is not at issue here... but could somebody please explain to me specifically which article or amendment to the constitution grants the U.S. Federal government authority to ban voice telephone calls on a private flight?
Follow the link to the actual legislation where they state
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 3 (related to regulation of Commerce
among the several States).
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices
Phones installed on the plane are specifically exempted.
The price of those is so high that no one would yak on them for the whole flight.
And those do not support incoming calls.
And the ear piece is especially amplified so loud that the user does not feel compelled to shout.
Instead of pontificating on non-related situations, why not read the whole bill here
Or, since it is so short, here it is:
HR 3676 IH
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3676
To establish a prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications during passenger flights, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 9, 2013
Mr. SHUSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To establish a prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications during passenger flights, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Prohibiting In-Flight Voice Communications on Mobile Wireless Devices Act of 2013'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CELL PHONE VOICE COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) In General- Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications
`(a) Prohibition- The Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations--
`(1) to prohibit an individual on an aircraft from engaging in voice communications using a mobile communications device during a flight of that aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation; and
`(2) that exempt from the prohibition described in paragraph (1) any--
`(A) member of the flight crew on duty on an aircraft;
`(B) flight attendant on duty on an aircraft; and
`(C) Federal law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity.
`(b) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:
`(1) FLIGHT- The term `flight' means, with respect to an aircraft, the period beginning when the aircraft takes off and ending when the aircraft lands.
`(2) MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `mobile communications device' means any portable wireless telecommunications equipment utilized for the transmission or reception of voice data.
`(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The analysis for chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 41724 the following:
`41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications.'.
In the absence of any keep out signs, (there weren't any), even in France, public items are for free for public consumption.
The only strawman around here is you, and you seem to have most of it in your head.
This guy did nothing wrong. The documents were freely available on the web. There was no security on the site, and no copyright on the documents.
As he states on TFA:
Through a Google search which strictly did not have anything to do with ANSES or with public health, I found myself in the ANSES extranet. Simply by clicking on a search result.
First observation: there are a lot of documents freely available here.
Second observation: they speak about public health.
Third observation: L’ANSES is a public establishment.
Question: Is it that this ought to be public?
Response: (too) obvious at the time: yes.
And he was acquitted!!! But an embarrassed agency appealed..
Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean it's okay to do it. This creates a horrible survival-of-the-fittest arms race techno-bureaucracy where values are absent.
In this case, when a PUBLIC agency violates their own security protocol, and turns over all its internal documents to the internet, it means EXACTLY that it is OK to do so.
Your analogy of walking into an unlocked office fails the sniff test. (not to mention the stupid analogy test).
He did not break. He did not illegally enter. There was no door. He didn't deprive them of anything. The documents might as well have been stacked neatly in the public park, with signs and arrows pointing to the juicy bits.
The government agency already published the documents.
If we get to the level of making tiny machines the enter cells and do stuff for us, it makes sense to give them motors to get them where they are needed.
We've been making tiny motors to get into cells since forever.
Go ask your daddy.
If you would power a baseball externally (throw it) would you call the baseball a motor?
A motor uses energy to create motion. The definition is imprecise in common usage, but conversion of one
form of energy (electrical, chemical, etc.) into kinetic energy or some form of work is generally required.
The pitcher or the batter could qualify as motors in the strictest sense, they turn chemical energy into kinetic energy.
The baseball simply qualifies as the load. Something upon which work is performed. It acquires kinetic energy, but
all it can do is hand that kinetic energy off to some other object.
Baseballs, unlike baseball players consume no juice.
True, but these dirt mounds are very small, and they weren't there in 2004, but were there in 2011 imagery.
Also this place assembles trucks and launchers. I don't believe anyone has said that munitions or war heads are stored there.
Yup, they got a lot wrong. Looking at the Google earth images you can see that they were not blocked in.
Why would you put ground level windows in a secret plant?
This is a factory that builds these trucks, or stores them. (There is very little indication on Google Earth that these plants are still in active use).
There isn't a shred of evidence they are deployed there.
There are no trucks anywhere to be seen in the sources used. In fact the plants look almost abandoned on Google Earth.
You forget how much Republicans and religious people hate open source.
You forget how stupid this sort of hate mongering makes you look.
Yes, but I've had more than one person who was "in the know" about specific classified things tell me that Tom Clancy had an uncanny ability to somehow come up with fiction that matched reality too close and too often to be just a coincidence.
I suggest your "someone in the know" actually knows less then you think.
Clancy was investigated by military intelligence, and they couldn't find anything but a diligent researcher who could spin publicly known facts into excellent stories. He probably had more info from the writings of Russian defectors than from American sources.
Exactly.
Nothing in this story or the linked TFA, or links in the TFA to other TFAs suggests this is unknown to the military.
And it wouldn't take CIA to find it, regular military are doing a lot of photo analysis, both in computers and with eyeballs.
Further, the suggestion that the Norks "messed up". If they "messed up" it was letting the defector live to mention this town in his memoirs.
For example, Ko Chong Song, a North Korean defector, published a book in Japan describing the locations of defense enterprises, stating Pyongyang produces “missile launchers” at the No. 81 Factory located in the “Chungsonggan workers’ district, Songgan County, Chagang Province, about 2.5 to 3 kilometers from Songgan-up".
Another account, posted online by an anti-DPRK dissident group, describes a gruesome incident of cannibalism at the “No.11 munitions factory (Hakmu worker’s district 6 km northwest of Jonchon, Jagang) where missile launchers are manufactured”
(Starvation might explain what looks like graves on the grounds of the first discovered plant located at 40.64565, 126.43338 ).
So the plants were probably well known to the military. Once the Norks realize the US already knows about them, there is little point in pretending they don't exist.
Why would you say this was stupid?
They were clearly making a propaganda video, in 2012.
The plants (both of them) were there as early as 2004. In fact the first plant already looked abandoned in 2004.
So as far as is publicly known, these plants remained hidden for in excess of 15 or perhaps 20 years. Probable long after the missiles became obsolete, even by Nork standards.
The construction of these plants use was probably already know by the the US military when they went up. After all, they are the largest structures around, and
their construction was probably more than a little obvious.
Only a casual reference in a North Korean defector memoirs pointed to military factories centered around Kanggye.
That location suggestion is the ONLY thing that let these non-military investigators pinpoint that town. The defector could probably have told them much more.
You leap to the assumption that this place isn't known to the US military, or isn't already on someone's target list. People who know what they are looking for probably have have traffic analysis on this place better than the two different photo dates that Google Earth has.
The utter lack of activity near the site, the lack of raw materials stacked up near by, the poor conditions of the roads (especially near the second plant), lack of a rail spur, all suggest this place is in very limited production, or entirely mothballed.
There does seem to be a lot of what look like grave yards near by, and seemingly empty barracks.
Very few people, and no vehicles are seen near the second plant. Even the first discovered plant has less activity than the nearby farms.
The second looks abandoned even in 2004 using Google Earth's time slider.
You can deduce a lot about any area using google earth, but when some place has such a different culture as North Korea, you end up guessing a lot.
and an extra differential, and an extra transmission. You left the last two out of your last paragraph: Teslas have a single motor, plus a transmission (single-speed gearbox), plus a differential, plus CV joints/driveshafts.
No, the SUV Tesla X will have two motors and those angles are pretty flat compared to most cars let alone SUVs. Looking at this shot of the rear of the Model S you can just see the boot for the CV, and the shallow angle it has.
The Model X will be higher, but not that much. The frames look pretty comparable. If you were expecting ground clearance, you will be disappointed. This is definitely an on-street socker-mom's SUV.