Yes, but you're just picking nits, I did say "on average" rather than get into details about this relatively short period of time where things are warming up to the new equibrium temperature.
The inflow and outflow (for both a greenhouse and for the entire Earth) also can vary with cloud and snow cover changes and the like, but like I said... on average.
The problem with that is that "the greenhouse effect" is a *cause*, but "climate change" is a *result* -- they're two different things. We could make the Earth hotter by putting giant mirrors in orbit that send more sunlight our way... that would cause climate change but would not be an example of the greenhouse effect at all.
Realistically, the problem with a name change is that politics more than anything else -- calling it by yet another name will make the conspiracy theorists think that you're trying to hide or obfuscate something (the link talks about Benghazi, but the ideas apply to climate change too), and while that's not true, the end result is still that it overall causes people to take the problem less seriously. I think we should stick with "climate change".
Fair enough, but the equilibrium temperature where this happens does change.
"Greenhouse effect" is accurate enough. The energy entering and leaving a patch of plants is going to be equal (on average), but if you build a greenhouse around it the inflow and outflow of energy will still be equal, but the temperature where they are equal will be higher. (The flow isn't just radiative, of course, but as far as analogies go it's far better than mot.)
and well, the guy holding it when you check it might not even be the one who stole it...
Stolen property is still stolen property, even after being sold to an unsuspecting (or not -- yeah, that iPhone you bought for $20 was legit. Uh-huh.) person.
Knowingly buying stolen property is a crime, and even if you don't know it, it's still stolen property and is still the legal property of the proper owner and is subject to being taken from you and returned to the rightful owner with no legal recourse on your part unless you can somehow get it from the person who sold it to you.
Reading the citation you gave, that definition is for setting the scope of the laws/regulations that the FAA has been ordered to create by Congress. The FAA has not created those laws/regulations yet, so it can't very well enforce them yet.
This may be very important once they've created these regulations... but they're not there yet.
Debts can "expire" (i.e. cease to be legally enforceable) if ignored for several years, but if he's paying $50/year or so, each payment probably renews the debt and will keep it from expiring.
As for a new lawsuit, I don't know how that would work. But the debt probably isn't expiring if the guy is making periodic token payments just to appease his probation officer.
Current guidelines already include rc aircraft. The only difference here is 'commercial.' The FCC has guidelines for non-commercial use, but haven't done anything for commercial use.
The FAA is basically just making up their rules as they go along, and they can't even bother to write them down so that people will know what the rules are. Instead, people get letters from the FAA saying that they're breaking the rules. Now, from that, people have sort of deduced what these unwritten rules are now, but it's still messed up.
Which is probably what prompted this ruling against the FAA... they can't enforce laws that they haven't even made yet. (That said, they continue to try, and other courts may agree with them. But they could fix this by actually writing down their rules and making them official.)
But they didn't rule on if it was absurd or not. They ruled on if it was prohibited by the Constitution and other laws, and found the answer to be "no".
Comcast isn't quite a monopoly, and won't be even if they've merged with Time Warner. That said, the number of choices for cable/internet/phone to a specific person tend to be pretty small... and sometimes the number of choices is one, but often it's two or three. For example, I live in the suburbs of Austin, and can get service from Time Warner, AT&T, Direct TV and Dish Network. Now, the last two are really only good options for cable and not phone/internet, but even so, there's still two choices for that. And Grande is available in some parts of town (but not where I live), and Google is coming too.
And that said, if enough people get pissed off at a true monopoly, the government has been known to step in and tear them apart. They certainly want to avoid that.
Indeed, our own dear supreme court asserts the view that this sort of activity does not even create the impression of impropriety...
No, the view that they asserted was that it did not violate the Constitution, not anything about the "impression of impropriety".
For the most part, the Supreme Court doesn't rule on if things are right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust -- they rule on if they're allowed or prohibited by the Constitution (or other laws, but most of the time they seem to work based on the Constitution.)
Yet, there is nothing that will protect you against the amount of 0 days XP is going to be vulnerable to.
There's nothing that will protect you against the amount of "0 days" that Windows 7/8/2008/whatever is going to be vulnerable too either. That's what "0 days" pretty much means -- it hasn't been fixed because the people who would fix it have just learned about it, or not learned about it yet at all.
Now, granted, at least if a "0 day" hits Windows 8, Microsoft will probably make a patch for it after a while, where they won't for XP... so it should eventually be fixed after it's hit "1 day" or "20 day" or "296 day" or whatever status where XP wouldn't... but don't go thinking that keeping up to date on patches will stop "0 day" exploits.
The problem is it has no real relationship to the Windows operating system that users relate to.
Actually, it does.
The Windows 8 "metro" UI is very similar to what the Windows phone uses (and that's the term they use, so it's why I used it.) And it gets a *lot* of flack on a desktop, and rightfully so -- as you said, it doesn't do windows (the ui feature) at all and each app is full screen. Which is great on a phone, but kind of silly when you've got a 23" monitor or two and all the app is doing is telling you the time.
But other than the Metro UI, Windows 8 is very like Windows 7, and indeed... Windows 8 on a PC is likely acceptable for somebody familiar with Windows 7 if you install Classic Shell and never go into the Metro UI stuff.
Now, perhaps the government shouldn't have given Microsoft a trademark on that word, but that's not Microsoft's fault, and the PTO gives out lots of trademarks on generic words.
But if your biggest complaint about Windows 8 and the Windows phone OS is that Microsoft should have picked a better name... that's high praise, indeed. Most others have much more significant complaints than the *name*.
It's been a long time, but I remember the interface being OK, but the hardware being what was wonky -- things wouldn't work after going to sleep and resuming, for example.
The Windows phone I have is way, way more functional than that thing ever was, however.
Windows on a phone works pretty well -- I picked up a Nokia 520 because it was $40 and why not, and it's actually quite decent.
The tiles based interface works quite well for a small device like that. I certainly don't like it on a PC with a big screen (or two), but for a little screen it works quite well.
In fact, the only real problem I had with the OS is that there aren't many apps available compared to iOS and Android.
So if I pick up another (analog, wired) phone in the house and listen to somebody else's phone conversation, that's not snooping? It certainly used to make my sister upset...
How about if the government adds some wiring to listen to these conversations back at the phone company? That's not snooping? (Hopefully they had a warrant for it, but that's another matter.)
Now, if my sister was talking in pig Latin rather than plain English, would *that* elevate it to snooping? Does it matter that I can decrypt pig Latin without additional hardware in realtime as long as the data rate is relatively low?
There's a huge difference between "it would be hard to find out who to charge with a crime" and "it's legal".
And yes, if a object crashes into your house and damages it, the owner or operator is probably liable for the damages. This is not specific to unmanned aircraft -- it applies to manned aircraft and even to things like cars or errant golf balls too.
In any event, I'm no lawyer, but my advice would be to not fire at aircraft flying above your property, no matter how low they may be, how justified you may feel you are or how unlikely you think it is that they could prove it was you. A smarter plan of action would be to call the police if it's causing a problem.
It's not. Those permits were a joke, possibly literally.
And even if that city says it's OK because you have a permit, that won't override the state or federal laws that prohibit firing at aircraft or destroying other people's property. (It might override local ordinances against discharging of firearms in city limits, for example, depending on how it was written and what the local laws are, however.)
That law was a joke. At best it would protect you from municipal ordinances against shooting at unmanned aircraft, but would do nothing to prevent state or federal charges, or a civil lawsuit.
The FAA has a strong interest in keeping people from firing weapons at aircraft, and some city in Colorado isn't going to override that.
I notice that flash is currently goign for about 50 cents a GB and disk about 10 cents.
The $0.50/GB for flash is for the very cheapest SSDs available, and only when they're on a good sale. More likely is $0.75/GB on the low and, and it goes up from there.
As for hard drive prices, the lowest is a good deal cheaper -- you can find 3 TB external drives for around $100 now if you wait for a sale, so that's $0.03/GB. Of course, the prices go up from there, and enterprise level drives are a whole lot more.
(One thing I don't understand, is now external drives are cheaper than internal drives. The external drive is a case around an internal drive -- so you'd expect it to cost more, not less, yet they've been more ever since the floods...)
This fascistic "only following orders" mindset really needs to be nipped in the bud. America understood that it was unjustifiable in the 1940s, but it's their first refuge now.
America learned that it was unjustifiable only in the very, very most extreme cases in the 1940s.
If your commander orders you to put a bunch of people into a room and fill it with cyanide gas and you do it... you might be held accountable for that years later, maybe. (i.e. only if your side loses the war, and you're one the folk they can track down and extradite.)
But if your orders don't involve killing innocent, unarmed, non-threatening people in cold blood -- America expects you to do what you're told. And really, even if your orders do involve killing innocent, unarmed, non-threatening people in cold blood -- you're expected to do what you're told too.
If your military commander orders you to do something, and you don't do it -- bad things happen to you. Now, there is a small chance that years down the road the courts will vindicate you if you decided not to murder a bunch of people -- but if all you did was protect somebody's right to privacy? Yeah, you're going down.
I do agree, the mindset has issues, but our military commanders expect their orders to be carried out, and dissent is only tolerated in the most extreme cases (cases that should never happen, as such orders should not be given.) But if the order is to tap some phones or sniff some networks... if you refuse to do it, well, you'll get fired and they'll get somebody who does. And you won't be vindicated in the courts, you'll just be blacklisted to some degree in trying to find new work.
No, there is no official definition of "drone". The FAA uses different terms -- they don't call them drones. The media calls them drones (often incorrectly), but the FAA has more specific terms that they use.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you're just picking nits, I did say "on average" rather than get into details about this relatively short period of time where things are warming up to the new equibrium temperature.
The inflow and outflow (for both a greenhouse and for the entire Earth) also can vary with cloud and snow cover changes and the like, but like I said ... on average.
The problem with that is that "the greenhouse effect" is a *cause*, but "climate change" is a *result* -- they're two different things. We could make the Earth hotter by putting giant mirrors in orbit that send more sunlight our way ... that would cause climate change but would not be an example of the greenhouse effect at all.
Realistically, the problem with a name change is that politics more than anything else -- calling it by yet another name will make the conspiracy theorists think that you're trying to hide or obfuscate something (the link talks about Benghazi, but the ideas apply to climate change too), and while that's not true, the end result is still that it overall causes people to take the problem less seriously. I think we should stick with "climate change".
Fair enough, but the equilibrium temperature where this happens does change.
"Greenhouse effect" is accurate enough. The energy entering and leaving a patch of plants is going to be equal (on average), but if you build a greenhouse around it the inflow and outflow of energy will still be equal, but the temperature where they are equal will be higher. (The flow isn't just radiative, of course, but as far as analogies go it's far better than mot.)
and well, the guy holding it when you check it might not even be the one who stole it...
Stolen property is still stolen property, even after being sold to an unsuspecting (or not -- yeah, that iPhone you bought for $20 was legit. Uh-huh.) person.
Knowingly buying stolen property is a crime, and even if you don't know it, it's still stolen property and is still the legal property of the proper owner and is subject to being taken from you and returned to the rightful owner with no legal recourse on your part unless you can somehow get it from the person who sold it to you.
Reading the citation you gave, that definition is for setting the scope of the laws/regulations that the FAA has been ordered to create by Congress. The FAA has not created those laws/regulations yet, so it can't very well enforce them yet.
This may be very important once they've created these regulations ... but they're not there yet.
Debts can "expire" (i.e. cease to be legally enforceable) if ignored for several years, but if he's paying $50/year or so, each payment probably renews the debt and will keep it from expiring.
As for a new lawsuit, I don't know how that would work. But the debt probably isn't expiring if the guy is making periodic token payments just to appease his probation officer.
Current guidelines already include rc aircraft. The only difference here is 'commercial.' The FCC has guidelines for non-commercial use, but haven't done anything for commercial use.
And the "guidelines" they have for this non-commercial use of R/C planes that you're referring to says nothing of commercial or non-commercial use, and it's *advisory* -- not binding.
The FAA is basically just making up their rules as they go along, and they can't even bother to write them down so that people will know what the rules are. Instead, people get letters from the FAA saying that they're breaking the rules. Now, from that, people have sort of deduced what these unwritten rules are now, but it's still messed up.
Which is probably what prompted this ruling against the FAA ... they can't enforce laws that they haven't even made yet. (That said, they continue to try, and other courts may agree with them. But they could fix this by actually writing down their rules and making them official.)
But they didn't rule on if it was absurd or not. They ruled on if it was prohibited by the Constitution and other laws, and found the answer to be "no".
Comcast isn't quite a monopoly, and won't be even if they've merged with Time Warner. That said, the number of choices for cable/internet/phone to a specific person tend to be pretty small ... and sometimes the number of choices is one, but often it's two or three. For example, I live in the suburbs of Austin, and can get service from Time Warner, AT&T, Direct TV and Dish Network. Now, the last two are really only good options for cable and not phone/internet, but even so, there's still two choices for that. And Grande is available in some parts of town (but not where I live), and Google is coming too.
And that said, if enough people get pissed off at a true monopoly, the government has been known to step in and tear them apart. They certainly want to avoid that.
Indeed, our own dear supreme court asserts the view that this sort of activity does not even create the impression of impropriety...
No, the view that they asserted was that it did not violate the Constitution, not anything about the "impression of impropriety".
For the most part, the Supreme Court doesn't rule on if things are right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust -- they rule on if they're allowed or prohibited by the Constitution (or other laws, but most of the time they seem to work based on the Constitution.)
Yet, there is nothing that will protect you against the amount of 0 days XP is going to be vulnerable to.
There's nothing that will protect you against the amount of "0 days" that Windows 7/8/2008/whatever is going to be vulnerable too either. That's what "0 days" pretty much means -- it hasn't been fixed because the people who would fix it have just learned about it, or not learned about it yet at all.
Now, granted, at least if a "0 day" hits Windows 8, Microsoft will probably make a patch for it after a while, where they won't for XP ... so it should eventually be fixed after it's hit "1 day" or "20 day" or "296 day" or whatever status where XP wouldn't ... but don't go thinking that keeping up to date on patches will stop "0 day" exploits.
Not turning the box on would protect 100% of users but that doesn't make it a viable solution
So what?
That may not be a viable solution, but what he's doing is. He has a usable computer, more secure than most, that does what he needs it to do.
You aren't trying to claim that what he's doing isn't a "viable solution", are you?
And even if he did upgrade ... he'd probably still want to do all that stuff.
... and yet his efforts will probably stop 99.9% of the crap that affects "modern" Windows versions with their clueless users.
Installing Windows 7 or 8 wouldn't make his job much easier or make his computer much more secure.
Actually, it does.
The Windows 8 "metro" UI is very similar to what the Windows phone uses (and that's the term they use, so it's why I used it.) And it gets a *lot* of flack on a desktop, and rightfully so -- as you said, it doesn't do windows (the ui feature) at all and each app is full screen. Which is great on a phone, but kind of silly when you've got a 23" monitor or two and all the app is doing is telling you the time.
But other than the Metro UI, Windows 8 is very like Windows 7, and indeed ... Windows 8 on a PC is likely acceptable for somebody familiar with Windows 7 if you install Classic Shell and never go into the Metro UI stuff.
Now, perhaps the government shouldn't have given Microsoft a trademark on that word, but that's not Microsoft's fault, and the PTO gives out lots of trademarks on generic words.
But if your biggest complaint about Windows 8 and the Windows phone OS is that Microsoft should have picked a better name ... that's high praise, indeed. Most others have much more significant complaints than the *name*.
Yes, I did.
It's been a long time, but I remember the interface being OK, but the hardware being what was wonky -- things wouldn't work after going to sleep and resuming, for example.
The Windows phone I have is way, way more functional than that thing ever was, however.
Windows on a phone works pretty well -- I picked up a Nokia 520 because it was $40 and why not, and it's actually quite decent.
The tiles based interface works quite well for a small device like that. I certainly don't like it on a PC with a big screen (or two), but for a little screen it works quite well.
In fact, the only real problem I had with the OS is that there aren't many apps available compared to iOS and Android.
Snooping on plaintext is not snooping at all.
That's a pretty creative position.
So if I pick up another (analog, wired) phone in the house and listen to somebody else's phone conversation, that's not snooping? It certainly used to make my sister upset ...
How about if the government adds some wiring to listen to these conversations back at the phone company? That's not snooping? (Hopefully they had a warrant for it, but that's another matter.)
Now, if my sister was talking in pig Latin rather than plain English, would *that* elevate it to snooping? Does it matter that I can decrypt pig Latin without additional hardware in realtime as long as the data rate is relatively low?
I'm not sure your analogy really works here.
If the humans were well baricaded in a place and they remained safe there from the zombies ever after ... it wouldn't be a very entertaining movie.
There's a huge difference between "it would be hard to find out who to charge with a crime" and "it's legal".
And yes, if a object crashes into your house and damages it, the owner or operator is probably liable for the damages. This is not specific to unmanned aircraft -- it applies to manned aircraft and even to things like cars or errant golf balls too.
In any event, I'm no lawyer, but my advice would be to not fire at aircraft flying above your property, no matter how low they may be, how justified you may feel you are or how unlikely you think it is that they could prove it was you. A smarter plan of action would be to call the police if it's causing a problem.
It's not. Those permits were a joke, possibly literally.
And even if that city says it's OK because you have a permit, that won't override the state or federal laws that prohibit firing at aircraft or destroying other people's property. (It might override local ordinances against discharging of firearms in city limits, for example, depending on how it was written and what the local laws are, however.)
That law was a joke. At best it would protect you from municipal ordinances against shooting at unmanned aircraft, but would do nothing to prevent state or federal charges, or a civil lawsuit.
The FAA has a strong interest in keeping people from firing weapons at aircraft, and some city in Colorado isn't going to override that.
I notice that flash is currently goign for about 50 cents a GB and disk about 10 cents.
The $0.50/GB for flash is for the very cheapest SSDs available, and only when they're on a good sale. More likely is $0.75/GB on the low and, and it goes up from there.
As for hard drive prices, the lowest is a good deal cheaper -- you can find 3 TB external drives for around $100 now if you wait for a sale, so that's $0.03/GB. Of course, the prices go up from there, and enterprise level drives are a whole lot more.
(One thing I don't understand, is now external drives are cheaper than internal drives. The external drive is a case around an internal drive -- so you'd expect it to cost more, not less, yet they've been more ever since the floods ...)
This fascistic "only following orders" mindset really needs to be nipped in the bud. America understood that it was unjustifiable in the 1940s, but it's their first refuge now.
America learned that it was unjustifiable only in the very, very most extreme cases in the 1940s.
If your commander orders you to put a bunch of people into a room and fill it with cyanide gas and you do it ... you might be held accountable for that years later, maybe. (i.e. only if your side loses the war, and you're one the folk they can track down and extradite.)
But if your orders don't involve killing innocent, unarmed, non-threatening people in cold blood -- America expects you to do what you're told. And really, even if your orders do involve killing innocent, unarmed, non-threatening people in cold blood -- you're expected to do what you're told too.
If your military commander orders you to do something, and you don't do it -- bad things happen to you. Now, there is a small chance that years down the road the courts will vindicate you if you decided not to murder a bunch of people -- but if all you did was protect somebody's right to privacy? Yeah, you're going down.
I do agree, the mindset has issues, but our military commanders expect their orders to be carried out, and dissent is only tolerated in the most extreme cases (cases that should never happen, as such orders should not be given.) But if the order is to tap some phones or sniff some networks ... if you refuse to do it, well, you'll get fired and they'll get somebody who does. And you won't be vindicated in the courts, you'll just be blacklisted to some degree in trying to find new work.
By that rationale, a metaball is a deadly weapon as well.
No, there is no official definition of "drone". The FAA uses different terms -- they don't call them drones. The media calls them drones (often incorrectly), but the FAA has more specific terms that they use.