I was mostly just going for the cheap shot at my fellow countrymen.
Truth be told, food is really your last priority in a survival situation. An unconditioned person can easily go two or three weeks without food. Someone starting out with a better fitness base could go longer. Your priorities are shelter and water first, in that order. Realistically speaking, unless you're in Alaska, there aren't too many places in the United States where you can get far enough away from civilization for starvation to be a factor before you can find civilization.
I carry water purification tablets on my hikes, in the "just in case" category, (i.e., I'm stranded and run out of bottled water) but I don't bother with food beyond what I need for the day hike.
but I really don't jive with the values of these big companies. In particular, the whole "might makes right" thing, whereby companies such as Facebook and Google work entirely against respect for the privacy of the individual, perhaps has a macho flavo(u)r?
Sounds like you'd be better suited to working in academia, health care, or some other non-profit social environment. The onus isn't on Google and Facebook to change their culture to jive with your personal moral structure.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." -Chief Justice John Roberts, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
Go camping for a week without food, and have to scavenge for yourself.
Scavenge? Most of the people here are Americans. We don't carry around these huge quantities of belly-fat for nothing. Sure, you laugh at us now, but just wait until we're in a survival situation and the rest of you start dropping like flies.;)
the cop is usually just trying to do his job and make the roads a little safer. most cops really arent giant bullies who just want to antagonize plebes, so dont make his job too hard on him
Hey, I agree with you. I said you're perfectly free to refuse to answer questions, not that it's advisable to do so.
Checkpoints aren't the common around these parts so it's been years since I went through one. From what I recall, we spent three minutes bullshitting about Ice Hockey (I was on my way home from a game), I guess he was bored. There certainly wasn't a "Papers Please." attitude during the encounter. He glanced at my registration/inspection sticker, asked where I was going, and started shooting the shit.
I'm not losing a whole lot of sleep over the countries in the visa waiver program. Quoting from here:
there is a long list (pdf, p. 5) of requirements countries need to meet in order to qualify. They must have “effective border controls,” “political and economic stability,” machine-readable passports, and exhibit a close degree of cooperation with US law enforcement.
The EU, Iceland, Australia, Japan, and Chile don't keep me up at night. Neither does Canada. Saudi Arabia on the other hand....
And they're not doing it, since broadcast is free.
The law says broadcasters can ask for retransmission fees when you retransmit their signal. Take it up with Congress, it's not the job of the Supreme Court to nullify the law in order to protect someone's business model.
and since they bundle channels nobody wants, it's not an antenna replacement
You do know that CATV stands for Community Antenna TeleVision, right? In my market Time Warner Cable carries the exact same channels I can get with an antenna, for $4.95/mo. The only extra bundle is QVC (analog) alongside a handful of unencrypted QAM channels (QVC again, some weather feeds, and Time Warner's local news outlet).
Aereo was renting you an antenna and DVR
By retransmitting the signal, which they can't do without the appropriate licenses. Congress has decided that you can't retransmit the signals of third parties for profit. Write your United States Congressman and Senators if you feel this law needs to be changed.
have poor reception since the digital transition (UHF propagates poorly around obstacles compared to VHF)
The digital transition has nothing to do with it, except insofar as some channels may have moved from VHF to UHF. There's a handful of channels that moved in the other direction, going from UHF to VHF. In my market we went from one VHF and three UHF stations to two of each. Counting sub channels we get nine channels, as opposed to the old four, so digital was a unqualified win for us. Of course, this is all moot, because regardless of reception difficulties Aereo doesn't have the right to retransmit a third party signal for profit.
Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional
Says who? The precedent suggests otherwise. I don't really care for the concept myself, but I can recognize a compelling state interest when I see one. You're perfectly free to respond to every single question asked at a checkpoint with "I don't talk to the police, may I leave now?" and there's not a damned thing they can do about it, unless of course you're under the influence.....
That's essentially an extension of stop-and-frisk, which holds they can search you sans warrant to look for weapons or other items that may pose a danger to the officer. Other contraband discovered in the course of this search may be admissible, if the nature of such contraband was "readily apparent" to the officer, but it's not supposed to be license to go fishing.
i would have loved the opportunity to pay someone to "host" MY antenna for me in a place with good reception.
It's called CATV. By law they have to offer the local channels at something approaching cost. This package ranges from $4.95/mo to $14.95/mo in my experience and comes with 7 to 20 channels. It's not advertised but it's there if you ask for it.
It's probably the worst one in my lifetime. I cited it as an example of the Justices that are usually loathed around these parts coming down on the popular (again, around these parts) side of opinion, while the Justices that are usually lauded ruled in favor of Big Money.
Spare me the FUD, because that's all you're offering. Please, show me just one example of someone who has been sued for retransmission done for personal use. Just one.
BTW: TiVo has had software to copy recordings to other devices since the very beginning. They've yet to be sued over it. Furthermore, it's child's play to take recordings off TiVo, strip the "DRM" out of them, and watch them on any device capable of playing MPEG2. You can do it with a web browser and open source software, you don't even need the software from TiVo.
Heaven forbid the big 3 Luddite networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC go out of business, so people have to keep paying ridiculous fees for garbage channels?
You do realize all three of those "Luddite" networks, along with FOX, the WB, the CW, etc., make their programming available for free to anyone willing to put up an antenna, right? If you want to argue in favor of cutting the cord you shouldn't be cheering on a company that was essentially freeloading off this ecosystem. The law already has mechanisms in place for companies that wish to retransmit OTA signals for profit. Cable companies have been doing it for decades and paying for the privilege of doing so. They tried to do it for free. Congress said no, clear back in the 1970s. Something you would have known if you had read the ruling before you posted.
Take heart, there's nothing stopping you from putting up an antenna. The investment in time and money will vary from "ridiculously easy" (rabbit ears) to "royal pain in the ass" (massive outdoor antenna with in-line amplifiers), but it's possible throughout the majority of CONUS. My set up cost me <$60, for one of these, a two-way splitter, a box of twist on connectors, and some RG6 I already had lying around the house (irony points: It was left here by a Time Warner tech, thanks for the free cable TWC!)
For that small investment in time and money I've got nine HD channels. For an additional recurring fee (~$15/mo) I have the best DVR ever made, which doubles as a STB that brings Netflix, Amazin, Hulu, etc. to my television, to complement the OTA offerings. The last part is optional of course, but it sure enhances the value of the setup. I've quite literally always got something to watch, because TiVo hunts for things I like 24/7.
Bad analogy. A better one would be running an HDMI cable to your neighbor's house, charging him a fee for the privilege, then rinse and repeating until you had a nationwide for-profit business. Nobody gives a shit what you do with the received signal within the confines of your own home. They care when you start trying to profit off it.
You'll note that TiVo hasn't successfully been sued, so it's not as though there isn't a way to make money designing products that interface with OTA TV.
What else do you call saving a copy of a television show then sending it to me via the internet? My TiVo doesn't retransmit, it saves a local copy of the television show, recorded from the antenna that I maintain. I'm hard pressed to see how the argument that Aereo doesn't retransmit flies from a technical or legal standpoint.
My reaction to this ruling was to breathe a sigh of relief, because the likely consequence to an Aereo victory was the continued erosion of original content on OTA. That business model is hard enough to maintain as is with ad revenue. In the long term I think it's quite probably going to fail, and we'll be left with PBS and re-runs, but I'd prefer that it at least have a fighting chance without freeloaders reselling it for profit.
You want OTA? Put up a bloody antenna. It's not that hard.
However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.
Which is how you end up with the DMV.....;)
In Senator Kennedy's case I truly doubt that it was malice. Putting someone with that high of profile on the list serves only to draw attention to it. I actually retain enough faith in the Government (some would say naivety) to think that the No Fly List, TSA, et. al are run with good intentions. Whatever malice exists there is mostly bureaucratic ass covering, not a broader conspiracy.
In the final analysis it's our own damned fault for valuing security over liberty. Try having a conversation with the average voter about the actual odds of dying in a terrorist attack. It escapes most of them. They don't want to think. They just want to be safe. TSA would be shut down tomorrow if a large enough majority demanded it. Hasn't happened yet, has it?
If it is properly programmed, then yes, and it should be able to do it better than most pilots.
So you can program it ahead of time for every conceivable scenario? Or do you have a programmer sitting on the plane who can update the program in real time as new scenarios are discovered? Maybe someone with a background in aviation? What about the rest of the flight crew? What are you going to do with them? Will your computer also handle medical emergencies, manage emergency evacuations, look out for the safety of unaccompanied minors, and deal with unruly passengers?
Cutting humans completely out of the decision making process is absurd. You may be comfortable entrusting your life to a piece of software but I think you'll find that you're in the minority.
It's okay having a no fly list but not having a way to appeal being on it is an abomination.
So close, but so so far away. Let me help you: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
The definition of due process is beyond the scope of a/. post, but at a minimum it would require the right to be confronted with the evidence against you and a review by a judge and/or jury of your peers. Some bureaucrat in the national security apparatus adding your name to a list does not rise to the level of due process under any definition.
Oh, and guess what? The list is totally pointless anyway. Suspected terrorists from other countries could already be denied entry into the United States by the simple exercise of refusing to grant them a visa. Last time I checked you can't board an aircraft to the United States without valid travel documents and the appropriate visas.
Slashdot Mirror
I was mostly just going for the cheap shot at my fellow countrymen.
Truth be told, food is really your last priority in a survival situation. An unconditioned person can easily go two or three weeks without food. Someone starting out with a better fitness base could go longer. Your priorities are shelter and water first, in that order. Realistically speaking, unless you're in Alaska, there aren't too many places in the United States where you can get far enough away from civilization for starvation to be a factor before you can find civilization.
I carry water purification tablets on my hikes, in the "just in case" category, (i.e., I'm stranded and run out of bottled water) but I don't bother with food beyond what I need for the day hike.
but I really don't jive with the values of these big companies. In particular, the whole "might makes right" thing, whereby companies such as Facebook and Google work entirely against respect for the privacy of the individual, perhaps has a macho flavo(u)r?
Sounds like you'd be better suited to working in academia, health care, or some other non-profit social environment. The onus isn't on Google and Facebook to change their culture to jive with your personal moral structure.
You're the type who sees racist everywhere, aren't you.
You're the type that misses painfully obvious sarcasm, aren't you?
I don't go into the woods without my 1911, so best of luck trying to turn me into your meal. :)
Also, I run marathons, and do 15-20mi cross country hikes.....
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." -Chief Justice John Roberts, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
Did half the country take a "Hmong Cultures" class a couple years ago?
In a manner of speaking.....
Go camping for a week without food, and have to scavenge for yourself.
Scavenge? Most of the people here are Americans. We don't carry around these huge quantities of belly-fat for nothing. Sure, you laugh at us now, but just wait until we're in a survival situation and the rest of you start dropping like flies. ;)
In this case, extraordinary claims did require extraordinary poop.
Queue image of Jeff Goldblum, taking off his sunglasses, then saying "That is one big pile of shit."
the cop is usually just trying to do his job and make the roads a little safer. most cops really arent giant bullies who just want to antagonize plebes, so dont make his job too hard on him
Hey, I agree with you. I said you're perfectly free to refuse to answer questions, not that it's advisable to do so.
Checkpoints aren't the common around these parts so it's been years since I went through one. From what I recall, we spent three minutes bullshitting about Ice Hockey (I was on my way home from a game), I guess he was bored. There certainly wasn't a "Papers Please." attitude during the encounter. He glanced at my registration/inspection sticker, asked where I was going, and started shooting the shit.
I'm not losing a whole lot of sleep over the countries in the visa waiver program. Quoting from here:
there is a long list (pdf, p. 5) of requirements countries need to meet in order to qualify. They must have “effective border controls,” “political and economic stability,” machine-readable passports, and exhibit a close degree of cooperation with US law enforcement.
The EU, Iceland, Australia, Japan, and Chile don't keep me up at night. Neither does Canada. Saudi Arabia on the other hand....
People paid to have a signal retransmitted for their personal use.
The second word in this sentence is the relevant one.
And they're not doing it, since broadcast is free.
The law says broadcasters can ask for retransmission fees when you retransmit their signal. Take it up with Congress, it's not the job of the Supreme Court to nullify the law in order to protect someone's business model.
and since they bundle channels nobody wants, it's not an antenna replacement
You do know that CATV stands for Community Antenna TeleVision, right? In my market Time Warner Cable carries the exact same channels I can get with an antenna, for $4.95/mo. The only extra bundle is QVC (analog) alongside a handful of unencrypted QAM channels (QVC again, some weather feeds, and Time Warner's local news outlet).
Aereo was renting you an antenna and DVR
By retransmitting the signal, which they can't do without the appropriate licenses. Congress has decided that you can't retransmit the signals of third parties for profit. Write your United States Congressman and Senators if you feel this law needs to be changed.
have poor reception since the digital transition (UHF propagates poorly around obstacles compared to VHF)
The digital transition has nothing to do with it, except insofar as some channels may have moved from VHF to UHF. There's a handful of channels that moved in the other direction, going from UHF to VHF. In my market we went from one VHF and three UHF stations to two of each. Counting sub channels we get nine channels, as opposed to the old four, so digital was a unqualified win for us. Of course, this is all moot, because regardless of reception difficulties Aereo doesn't have the right to retransmit a third party signal for profit.
Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional
Says who? The precedent suggests otherwise. I don't really care for the concept myself, but I can recognize a compelling state interest when I see one. You're perfectly free to respond to every single question asked at a checkpoint with "I don't talk to the police, may I leave now?" and there's not a damned thing they can do about it, unless of course you're under the influence.....
That's essentially an extension of stop-and-frisk, which holds they can search you sans warrant to look for weapons or other items that may pose a danger to the officer. Other contraband discovered in the course of this search may be admissible, if the nature of such contraband was "readily apparent" to the officer, but it's not supposed to be license to go fishing.
i would have loved the opportunity to pay someone to "host" MY antenna for me in a place with good reception.
It's called CATV. By law they have to offer the local channels at something approaching cost. This package ranges from $4.95/mo to $14.95/mo in my experience and comes with 7 to 20 channels. It's not advertised but it's there if you ask for it.
It's probably the worst one in my lifetime. I cited it as an example of the Justices that are usually loathed around these parts coming down on the popular (again, around these parts) side of opinion, while the Justices that are usually lauded ruled in favor of Big Money.
Heller. McDonald. Kelo v. New London. Citizens United.
Spare me the FUD, because that's all you're offering. Please, show me just one example of someone who has been sued for retransmission done for personal use. Just one.
BTW: TiVo has had software to copy recordings to other devices since the very beginning. They've yet to be sued over it. Furthermore, it's child's play to take recordings off TiVo, strip the "DRM" out of them, and watch them on any device capable of playing MPEG2. You can do it with a web browser and open source software, you don't even need the software from TiVo.
Heaven forbid the big 3 Luddite networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC go out of business, so people have to keep paying ridiculous fees for garbage channels?
You do realize all three of those "Luddite" networks, along with FOX, the WB, the CW, etc., make their programming available for free to anyone willing to put up an antenna, right? If you want to argue in favor of cutting the cord you shouldn't be cheering on a company that was essentially freeloading off this ecosystem. The law already has mechanisms in place for companies that wish to retransmit OTA signals for profit. Cable companies have been doing it for decades and paying for the privilege of doing so. They tried to do it for free. Congress said no, clear back in the 1970s. Something you would have known if you had read the ruling before you posted.
Take heart, there's nothing stopping you from putting up an antenna. The investment in time and money will vary from "ridiculously easy" (rabbit ears) to "royal pain in the ass" (massive outdoor antenna with in-line amplifiers), but it's possible throughout the majority of CONUS. My set up cost me <$60, for one of these, a two-way splitter, a box of twist on connectors, and some RG6 I already had lying around the house (irony points: It was left here by a Time Warner tech, thanks for the free cable TWC!)
For that small investment in time and money I've got nine HD channels. For an additional recurring fee (~$15/mo) I have the best DVR ever made, which doubles as a STB that brings Netflix, Amazin, Hulu, etc. to my television, to complement the OTA offerings. The last part is optional of course, but it sure enhances the value of the setup. I've quite literally always got something to watch, because TiVo hunts for things I like 24/7.
Bad analogy. A better one would be running an HDMI cable to your neighbor's house, charging him a fee for the privilege, then rinse and repeating until you had a nationwide for-profit business. Nobody gives a shit what you do with the received signal within the confines of your own home. They care when you start trying to profit off it.
You'll note that TiVo hasn't successfully been sued, so it's not as though there isn't a way to make money designing products that interface with OTA TV.
It's in no way a retransmission of anything
What else do you call saving a copy of a television show then sending it to me via the internet? My TiVo doesn't retransmit, it saves a local copy of the television show, recorded from the antenna that I maintain. I'm hard pressed to see how the argument that Aereo doesn't retransmit flies from a technical or legal standpoint.
My reaction to this ruling was to breathe a sigh of relief, because the likely consequence to an Aereo victory was the continued erosion of original content on OTA. That business model is hard enough to maintain as is with ad revenue. In the long term I think it's quite probably going to fail, and we'll be left with PBS and re-runs, but I'd prefer that it at least have a fighting chance without freeloaders reselling it for profit.
You want OTA? Put up a bloody antenna. It's not that hard.
However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.
Which is how you end up with the DMV..... ;)
In Senator Kennedy's case I truly doubt that it was malice. Putting someone with that high of profile on the list serves only to draw attention to it. I actually retain enough faith in the Government (some would say naivety) to think that the No Fly List, TSA, et. al are run with good intentions. Whatever malice exists there is mostly bureaucratic ass covering, not a broader conspiracy.
In the final analysis it's our own damned fault for valuing security over liberty. Try having a conversation with the average voter about the actual odds of dying in a terrorist attack. It escapes most of them. They don't want to think. They just want to be safe. TSA would be shut down tomorrow if a large enough majority demanded it. Hasn't happened yet, has it?
If it is properly programmed, then yes, and it should be able to do it better than most pilots.
So you can program it ahead of time for every conceivable scenario? Or do you have a programmer sitting on the plane who can update the program in real time as new scenarios are discovered? Maybe someone with a background in aviation? What about the rest of the flight crew? What are you going to do with them? Will your computer also handle medical emergencies, manage emergency evacuations, look out for the safety of unaccompanied minors, and deal with unruly passengers?
Cutting humans completely out of the decision making process is absurd. You may be comfortable entrusting your life to a piece of software but I think you'll find that you're in the minority.
Apparently merely holding hearings on terrorism is reason enough to land on it!
It was actually a name mismatch. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.
It's okay having a no fly list but not having a way to appeal being on it is an abomination.
So close, but so so far away. Let me help you: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
The definition of due process is beyond the scope of a /. post, but at a minimum it would require the right to be confronted with the evidence against you and a review by a judge and/or jury of your peers. Some bureaucrat in the national security apparatus adding your name to a list does not rise to the level of due process under any definition.
Oh, and guess what? The list is totally pointless anyway. Suspected terrorists from other countries could already be denied entry into the United States by the simple exercise of refusing to grant them a visa. Last time I checked you can't board an aircraft to the United States without valid travel documents and the appropriate visas.