Nope, the state doesn't own the air, the federal government does.
In all cases, the people of the jurisdiction are the "owners" of the resource, and they have "agreed" to let the government with jurisdiction manage it on their behalf.
Just because you don't know how government works doesn't make someone pointing it out to ridiculous.
So there were not other programs or charities that provided access to food?
You know less than nothing.
That's because the jackasses who claim to know more refuse to explain anything, as if they have something to hide (like their argument being knowingly false). Most of the time it's that charity was available, and the person affected refused it.
and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun".
Do you have any way to prove your point?
There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency,
So refusing to buy food they have access to makes hunting necessary?
and are literally days from a grocery store.
Only if you walk. Slowly. Or can you name a place where access is as remote as you claim? I've driven from Texas to North Dakota in a day, so there's nobody anywhere in the lower 48 that doesn't have better access than you claim. And yes, I know people that have no access to stores. In Alaska. They take food with them for a summer, then go out to a remote cabin. They live on the food they brought, and suppliement it with catch/hunt, but could still live off the time they are there without any hunting. They hunt for variety/fun. The women that do it generally don't hunt, but trap instead.
I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.
Are you talking about tribes in the Amazon or Africa or something? This topic is about Alaska, on a US site dominated by US posters. The only possible explanation for your comments is that you are deliberately selecting alternate rules, and hiding them from us. The only question is whether that makes you a liar or a fool. Given your use of the word "fiat" I'll assume both.
So they live off the charity of everyone (the animals are "owned" and protected by the state). So they are accepting charity, but get to kill to do it, so it doesn't count.
Nope. They may do it for more dietary variety, but nobody does it because the other option is "not eat" (nobody being under 0.01%, yes, I'm sure there are some survival nuts that refuse any and all assistance and programs and refuse to work or use money that live in the woods and live off sustenance, but only a handfull, and usually do so because of a mental illness).
Why, is the number "zero" surprising? If you mean "hunt for food" to mean hunt to eat, the number is zero. Many will hunt for "treats", but it's not for sustenance.
Heck, in Alaska, you can register to clean up illegal kill (you are paid in the meat you get to keep). Many of the rural hunters in Alaska don't "hunt", but scavenge.
If everyone who went got their limit, there'd be nothing left. The limit is to prevent people from taking enough do that a few could cause a problem.
Bear baiting is illegal, and hunting on the same day as you flew was already illegal, it looks like they are just expanding "flew" to include viewing areal surveillance. It's not a big change in law, just generalizing and existing law slightly.
Maybe so, but it points out that anything too "different" is looked down on.
Only by the decision makers in the Military Industrial Complex. That, and the "conservative" (classical definition, not political) don't like different because when people pick different, costs overrun (more than "normal").
The US wasn't involved in many of those. The failure with F4 in vietnam was that we didn't have enough of them in the air. We never went to war without overpowering air superiority since, so there were almost no US dogfights since. Just a few isolated cases. The Airforce was right, they just needed more F4s.
Looking up the answer, I noted there hasn't been a flying ace in the US military since Vietnam. There just aren't enough planes to shoot down. And Wikipedia mentions "It is actually more likely that flying aces won't occur due to technological changes. This is due to the fact that the traditional fighter-versus-fighter dogfight is extremely rare in contemporary warfare, as unmanned aircraft and other computerized technology, including anti-aircraft missiles, have taken a prominent seat in contemporary aviation warfare."
Even wikipedia tells us dogfights are rare, with the last us pilot ace being 40+ years ago. There just haven't been that many planes to shoot down. We kill them on the ground and with ground to air weapons before we take to the air.
So if you have invalid stolen plates, they shouldn't trigger an exception in the registration camera? Seems like a poor implementation. Does the registry of "desired" plates ever age out? Or are we collecting an infinite number of plates because someone could store invalid plates for 30 years before putting them back on a car.
Does it have the ability to image recognition on the car and compare to the make/model of the registered vehicle? Oh, your system is impossible to futire-proof, making it wasted money, but the existing system has a near-infinite upgrade path, as it captures video in a central place, and anything new to examine that video is a simple software upgrade away. Rather than a hardware locked-down system with limited utility.
They should theoretically be much superior, once re-designed from scratch. But when drones are airplane-lite, they'll not be any better, and most today are worse (optimized for range and load, not performance).
What you think of as limits to airplane performance is true only because of the old thinking of manned airplanes.
True. And I'm not sure we have anything ready to go if we got the OK for unmanned aerial combat. Helicopers were initally used for weapon platforms. Unless they make the weapons cheaper and dumber, the helicopter would be a good platform. You don't need to close the gap or be able to out-perform the other vehicle if you can kill it from a standstill. The question is about cost. What's the cheapest way to kill the other vehicle? A more expensive and faster UAV with dumber and cheaper munitions. Or the cheap UAV with more expensive munitions.
That, and it'll take some re-design to figure out tactics and programming for optimal results. And what do we do when faced with a mix of manned and unmanned threats?
Yes, we know that if you build something in only one state, it gets cut. See Superconducting Super Collider. One state build/dig. Got quickly cut, wasting all invested money. Without sufficient pork, progress is stopped. With sufficient pork, pointless overruns continue for decades.
This from someone that mentions helicopters? Airplanes aren't much better than helicopters in this aspect. Most helicopters can have catastrophic failure modes caused by the pilot long before the structural limits of the helicopter itself. Too rough on the back cyclic? Oops, boom strike.
Airplanes aren't much better. With so many years of 10g being a practical limit to maneuver without killing the pilot, they don't go much past that before the wings fall off. Especially if you are loading/unloading the wings in rapid succession, as in evasive maneuvers. Sure, those limits could be programmed in, but it'd lower capability.
start blowing up satellites that only highly developed countries really depend on and watch those drones become expensive paper weights.
Satellites are only needed to show the results in HQ real-time. Most drones are still flown by people at the same airfield they are flown from, using terrestrial links. Sure, the new ones "can" go via satellite from the other side of the world, but they don't have to.
BTW, which satellite kill system can hit GEO satellites? An ICBM can get to LEO and take out Iridium, but can't get to GEO orbit.
The most expensive drone ever fielded is way cheaper than the F-35, which isn't the most expensive plane, but the newest (and supposedly cheaper than some of the planes it replaces).
If it pulses it, target it. If it's a solid broadcast signal, it's not RADAR (unless it's a part of a very complex multi-broadcast/multi-receiver system). It would be possible to build a system with always on as the only transmitter, but how would you get ranging? Generally it works by sending a "ping" and measuring the time response. With a continuous ping, there's nothing to measure, other than Doppler.
And I'd expect that if microwaves were used as wide-spread decoys, then A-10s guided by AWACS would be the response (it's happened before), not million dollar missile, but $10 lead (lots of $10 lead). At least until the A-10s are decommissioned.
My theory is that if the plane went through Indonesia's airspace and Indonesia didn't detect it (and stated they would have if it did), then they are incompetent. Nobody else has presented any other theory as to how they could have missed it.
Nobody's exempt from NCLB, which is it's biggest flaw.
I was told by the lawyers for Anchorage School District that the rules are different for the lowest 15%. They were dropping my nephew into the bottom 15% before standardized tests to exempt him from being reported, but then raising him back up above 15% when evaluating him for extra help. He was both below and above the 15th percentile level at the same time, according to ASD. Whatever lowered their legal obligations. Of course, they just got sued for the student that the school agreed to send a nurse to his house to get him ready for school in the morning (in violation of federal and state guidelines), so they may have been sensitive to not wanting to spend money if it accidentally caused learning. Though it couldn't be the money, because they spent more on fighting to have him dual-placed than it would have cost to leave him on one and only one side of the magic line.
IMO, the real goal of NCLB was to create an impossible standard by which all public schools are "failing" so the funding can get directed to religious and other private schools, and destroy public education.
I thought it was obvious. Un-funded mandates as a precursor of national vouchers. We have one of the most expensive and worst (1st world) systems. And nobody wants to actually improve it. It's like McDonalds. It sucks, but you get consistent results.
Their stated capability, if working, would have detected it if it went on the currently prime path. Yet Indonesia is searchg for it in the area past its own coverage. The assumption is that it made it through undetected, with radar that should have detected it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, the state doesn't own the air, the federal government does.
In all cases, the people of the jurisdiction are the "owners" of the resource, and they have "agreed" to let the government with jurisdiction manage it on their behalf.
Just because you don't know how government works doesn't make someone pointing it out to ridiculous.
You know less than nothing.
That's because the jackasses who claim to know more refuse to explain anything, as if they have something to hide (like their argument being knowingly false). Most of the time it's that charity was available, and the person affected refused it.
Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, neither do video games or marathons. Ask the deer if hunting hurts.
and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun".
Do you have any way to prove your point?
There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency,
So refusing to buy food they have access to makes hunting necessary?
and are literally days from a grocery store.
Only if you walk. Slowly. Or can you name a place where access is as remote as you claim? I've driven from Texas to North Dakota in a day, so there's nobody anywhere in the lower 48 that doesn't have better access than you claim. And yes, I know people that have no access to stores. In Alaska. They take food with them for a summer, then go out to a remote cabin. They live on the food they brought, and suppliement it with catch/hunt, but could still live off the time they are there without any hunting. They hunt for variety/fun. The women that do it generally don't hunt, but trap instead.
I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.
Are you talking about tribes in the Amazon or Africa or something? This topic is about Alaska, on a US site dominated by US posters. The only possible explanation for your comments is that you are deliberately selecting alternate rules, and hiding them from us. The only question is whether that makes you a liar or a fool. Given your use of the word "fiat" I'll assume both.
So they live off the charity of everyone (the animals are "owned" and protected by the state). So they are accepting charity, but get to kill to do it, so it doesn't count.
Nope. They may do it for more dietary variety, but nobody does it because the other option is "not eat" (nobody being under 0.01%, yes, I'm sure there are some survival nuts that refuse any and all assistance and programs and refuse to work or use money that live in the woods and live off sustenance, but only a handfull, and usually do so because of a mental illness).
Why, is the number "zero" surprising? If you mean "hunt for food" to mean hunt to eat, the number is zero. Many will hunt for "treats", but it's not for sustenance.
Heck, in Alaska, you can register to clean up illegal kill (you are paid in the meat you get to keep). Many of the rural hunters in Alaska don't "hunt", but scavenge.
If everyone who went got their limit, there'd be nothing left. The limit is to prevent people from taking enough do that a few could cause a problem.
Bear baiting is illegal, and hunting on the same day as you flew was already illegal, it looks like they are just expanding "flew" to include viewing areal surveillance. It's not a big change in law, just generalizing and existing law slightly.
Maybe so, but it points out that anything too "different" is looked down on.
Only by the decision makers in the Military Industrial Complex. That, and the "conservative" (classical definition, not political) don't like different because when people pick different, costs overrun (more than "normal").
The US wasn't involved in many of those. The failure with F4 in vietnam was that we didn't have enough of them in the air. We never went to war without overpowering air superiority since, so there were almost no US dogfights since. Just a few isolated cases. The Airforce was right, they just needed more F4s.
Looking up the answer, I noted there hasn't been a flying ace in the US military since Vietnam. There just aren't enough planes to shoot down. And Wikipedia mentions "It is actually more likely that flying aces won't occur due to technological changes. This is due to the fact that the traditional fighter-versus-fighter dogfight is extremely rare in contemporary warfare, as unmanned aircraft and other computerized technology, including anti-aircraft missiles, have taken a prominent seat in contemporary aviation warfare."
Even wikipedia tells us dogfights are rare, with the last us pilot ace being 40+ years ago. There just haven't been that many planes to shoot down. We kill them on the ground and with ground to air weapons before we take to the air.
So if you have invalid stolen plates, they shouldn't trigger an exception in the registration camera? Seems like a poor implementation. Does the registry of "desired" plates ever age out? Or are we collecting an infinite number of plates because someone could store invalid plates for 30 years before putting them back on a car.
Does it have the ability to image recognition on the car and compare to the make/model of the registered vehicle? Oh, your system is impossible to futire-proof, making it wasted money, but the existing system has a near-infinite upgrade path, as it captures video in a central place, and anything new to examine that video is a simple software upgrade away. Rather than a hardware locked-down system with limited utility.
Doesn't matter if you speed or not, they'll collect all your info and store it forever as part of a criminal investigation.
They should theoretically be much superior, once re-designed from scratch. But when drones are airplane-lite, they'll not be any better, and most today are worse (optimized for range and load, not performance).
What you think of as limits to airplane performance is true only because of the old thinking of manned airplanes.
True. And I'm not sure we have anything ready to go if we got the OK for unmanned aerial combat. Helicopers were initally used for weapon platforms. Unless they make the weapons cheaper and dumber, the helicopter would be a good platform. You don't need to close the gap or be able to out-perform the other vehicle if you can kill it from a standstill. The question is about cost. What's the cheapest way to kill the other vehicle? A more expensive and faster UAV with dumber and cheaper munitions. Or the cheap UAV with more expensive munitions.
That, and it'll take some re-design to figure out tactics and programming for optimal results. And what do we do when faced with a mix of manned and unmanned threats?
Yes, we know that if you build something in only one state, it gets cut. See Superconducting Super Collider. One state build/dig. Got quickly cut, wasting all invested money. Without sufficient pork, progress is stopped. With sufficient pork, pointless overruns continue for decades.
They don't ram it, but they are designed/guided to do so. Easier to detonate near it after you hit it.
This from someone that mentions helicopters? Airplanes aren't much better than helicopters in this aspect. Most helicopters can have catastrophic failure modes caused by the pilot long before the structural limits of the helicopter itself. Too rough on the back cyclic? Oops, boom strike.
Airplanes aren't much better. With so many years of 10g being a practical limit to maneuver without killing the pilot, they don't go much past that before the wings fall off. Especially if you are loading/unloading the wings in rapid succession, as in evasive maneuvers. Sure, those limits could be programmed in, but it'd lower capability.
start blowing up satellites that only highly developed countries really depend on and watch those drones become expensive paper weights.
Satellites are only needed to show the results in HQ real-time. Most drones are still flown by people at the same airfield they are flown from, using terrestrial links. Sure, the new ones "can" go via satellite from the other side of the world, but they don't have to.
BTW, which satellite kill system can hit GEO satellites? An ICBM can get to LEO and take out Iridium, but can't get to GEO orbit.
One has very suphisticated air-to-air capability; the other has none.
Both fire missiles. That is all. The cheapest missile wins, and that's the drone. There hasn't been "dogfights" on any mass scale since Vietnam.
The most expensive drone ever fielded is way cheaper than the F-35, which isn't the most expensive plane, but the newest (and supposedly cheaper than some of the planes it replaces).
If it pulses it, target it. If it's a solid broadcast signal, it's not RADAR (unless it's a part of a very complex multi-broadcast/multi-receiver system). It would be possible to build a system with always on as the only transmitter, but how would you get ranging? Generally it works by sending a "ping" and measuring the time response. With a continuous ping, there's nothing to measure, other than Doppler.
And I'd expect that if microwaves were used as wide-spread decoys, then A-10s guided by AWACS would be the response (it's happened before), not million dollar missile, but $10 lead (lots of $10 lead). At least until the A-10s are decommissioned.
My theory is that if the plane went through Indonesia's airspace and Indonesia didn't detect it (and stated they would have if it did), then they are incompetent. Nobody else has presented any other theory as to how they could have missed it.
Nobody's exempt from NCLB, which is it's biggest flaw.
I was told by the lawyers for Anchorage School District that the rules are different for the lowest 15%. They were dropping my nephew into the bottom 15% before standardized tests to exempt him from being reported, but then raising him back up above 15% when evaluating him for extra help. He was both below and above the 15th percentile level at the same time, according to ASD. Whatever lowered their legal obligations. Of course, they just got sued for the student that the school agreed to send a nurse to his house to get him ready for school in the morning (in violation of federal and state guidelines), so they may have been sensitive to not wanting to spend money if it accidentally caused learning. Though it couldn't be the money, because they spent more on fighting to have him dual-placed than it would have cost to leave him on one and only one side of the magic line.
IMO, the real goal of NCLB was to create an impossible standard by which all public schools are "failing" so the funding can get directed to religious and other private schools, and destroy public education.
I thought it was obvious. Un-funded mandates as a precursor of national vouchers. We have one of the most expensive and worst (1st world) systems. And nobody wants to actually improve it. It's like McDonalds. It sucks, but you get consistent results.
Their stated capability, if working, would have detected it if it went on the currently prime path. Yet Indonesia is searchg for it in the area past its own coverage. The assumption is that it made it through undetected, with radar that should have detected it.
What was option C? Oh, that's right, 15-5-2 (with the difference of 15 and 5 shown as a work step).