What if you are a Hindu? Or some other polytheist (like, say, a practitioner of Santaria?
So what. Out government is supposed to be based on the MAJORITY, not the minority. Historically, our government has become more and more hosed by catering to the minority rather than majority. I'm not saying that minority positions should be swept under the rug, but let's face it, you will NEVER make EVERYONE happy. Period.
The very idea of separation of church and state is at odds with the fundamental assumption of "definite monotheism" where one believes that one can describe a supreme being and hence there is a singular true religion.
Well, yes and not. Logically, I think you stand on solid ground, but, philosophically, which is what we're talking about in the end, I think your position is greatly weakened. Philosophically, I don't think it matters if it says, "god" or "gods", from a monotheistic or polytheistic position. A majority says it's "god", while a minority says it's "gods". Beyond that, we're talking about such a minor (numerically) portion of what was 40% of the US population, I'm forced to say, who cares. After all, majority is what is SUPPOSED to rule here.
The truth is that we are *not* a Christian nation.
Statistically, you would be incorrect. Ideaologically, the US is. Now then, that does not mean that our government is run as a theocracy. Which supports that we have successful seporation of church and state.
But isn't there something about money changers, whereby, you had government money and religious money. Doesn't the, "in god we trust", make it worthy of both?
Simple fact is, such inclusion does not effect government. Period. Therefore, it is NOT church & state.
A better question is, since the majority of people in the US do believe in some form of god (~60%), why would you think that, "under god", does NOT belong. Exactly. In otherwords, it's a pledge that includes the majority and has not effect on the minority. So, why not. Those that are in the minority, which seem to have a problem with it, seem to always have some anit-zealot (a zealot, but on 180-degrees in position of the zealots) agenda too.
Putting God on money is very sacraligious.
Interesting. I've never heard that debated before. What makes you say that?
Well, in its defense, pallbearer handles do deploy with the air bag. Thusly, allowing for people to save on the cost of a coffin. It also saves tax dollars, as firemen don't have to waste time cutting up your car for the body to then be placed in a coffin. They can simply take your car directly to the funeral home.
I'm not sure if you've priced coffins lately, but this can save you a lot of money, not to mention grief for you loved ones.
We have complete seperation of church and state, and as another poster noted, the US doesn't. When you think about it, religion isn't very democratic.
Actually, the US does. The "other poster" that you're refering to, was talking out his tail pipe. There is a lot of confusion about what "seporation of church and state", means, at least here in the US.
I agree with a lot of what you've said, but there really is a seporation of church and state here in America. Feel free click on me and read my rant, elsewhere.
Seperate church from state (undermine the "the king and bible are always right" mindset).
You'll find that this hasn't really been true since the 50's or 60's and greatly been less true since the 90's. I'm sorry, but having, "in god we trust", on a dollar bill, does not mean the entire government or population, bows down to, "the bible".
You need to remember that in the US, something like 60% are Christian or Catholic. The other 40% are either some other religion or have no religion at all. Of that 60%, only something like 20% are hardcore, orthodox, in what'ever religion they practice (Christian or Catholic). Of that, something like 2-5% of the 20% fall into the zealot category (sorta scarey when you imagine that many zealots). That leaves us with 40% of the 60% which have their religious teachings modernized. Meaning, the book may be outdated, but the moral teachings tend not to be. Which, by in large, invalidates your "out dated bible" comment. And 40% of the rest of the population, that either have no Christian or Catholic belief system. That means, by in large, ~64%, have modern, reasonable views of seporation of church and state. Save only for a few, very small, hardly worth mentioning, exceptions, the US well deliniated in that seporation.
As someone who was (and to an extent, still is) an American-ophile (is that a word?) the whole situation is really distressing me. The parent is right IMO about the problem beginning with the legal bribing of politicians.
I think the problems would almost entirely stop if the US banned political donations from corporations. The INDUCEs, the DMCAs, the targeted top end tax cuts, even the Iraq War.
I think you'll find that there are three categories of people on this matter. One, those that are informed, will completely agree with you. Sadly, most Americans are ignorant, uneducated, and wish to remain as such (which, to me, suggest the right to vote bar should be raised, because our current system is NOT what our forefathers intended. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Period.). Which is the second category. That is, the ignorant slobs, which happily ignore this, inspite of efforts to educate, because they simply don't care. And third, is the people that benefit from this corrupt system.
Long story short, there are two minorities that are involved here. One minority is the group that wants to stop this horrible form of "legal" corruption. The second minority are those in government which benefit from it. Sadly, it's the second group with all the power. This leaves the "unwashed masses" as our only hope. Needless to say, these are the people most easily swayed by the power of the corrupt beneficiaries.
And so, it's leaves us (Americans) in a horrible position. By allowing everyone in the US to vote, a lot of power was removed form the hands of the people that were purposely put in power to prevent this type of abuse. Originally land owners were the only ones with the right to vote. While I can't say that I think such a qualification is just, today, I can say that I believe there should be some such qualification required for the right to vote. In fact, I think it should be an earned privelege to the responsible rather than a given right. Liberty is something we must all work to ensure. It is not given. It is not free. Likewise, the right to vote should be entrusted to those that earn it. Exactly what earning the right should be, I can't say, but our current system is horribly corrupt and broken. No doubt about that. And the majority of our ignorant masses ensures that it stays that way.
In a day when companies have more rights than people and a select few wield more power than the "voting population", whereby, power has already been removed form the hands of the very people (the voting populas) that are supposed to balance the government and corrupt leaders, I can't see that my ideas are any worse. Heck, they actually are more inline with the principals our whole government was originally built on, than what we currently have today.
Yet due to the screwed-up Electorial College (which may have served a purpose long ago but is useless now), we unfortunately got BUSH.
There is really nothing wrong with the concept of electorial college, but I do agree that it is currently broken. All that is needed is a federal law which requires electorial votes to be given, based on the popular vote of a representative's constituent base.
Some states (what, some 50%?) already have laws which require their representatives to vote accordingly. Some states are still back-assward.
My point is, it's not that the electorial college is broken, it's just how it's currently enacted, which is the problem.
Seriously, we have "under God" in our pledge (though introduced in the 1950's) and have had "in God we trust" on all of our currency since long before I was born.
This is something I see all the time. You are confused. Separation of church and state, does not mean that state can not make reference to, or imply that others worship in a church. The sole intent of this is to prevent a) a national religion, b) ensure that government does not trample on the rights of other religions, c) ensure that government is not unduly influenced by church authority (eg, the Pope/Vatican), and d) ensure that those that do, or do not, practice a religion, are not persecruted by members of government.
Specifically, as it relates to your pledge reference, it does not qualify, any more than references to god on a coin means anything, from a government perspective. This is a historically accurate statement and seeingly, recently (and historically) re-enforced by the SC.
Those that seem to take your wacky, hardline position, to me, see as far out in left field as the wacky religious zealots are in right. Simple fact is, those trying to take "god" references off of money and out of the pledge are attempting to serve their own corrupt agenda and hide behind ignornance of "seporation of church and state".
...I've worked in the credit card industry for many years and am friends with a VP at one of the largest ISOs in the US.
Simple fact is, the system is not designed to prevent fraud. It is designed to detect, catch, and prosecute those that do exploit the system. Granted, the industry has slowly started trying to move toward a more proactive stance, while making it a little harder to comit fraud. But the merchants generally complain about efforts to make it harder on criminals and go out of their way to facilitate these types of problems.
Long story short, you may think you're getting away with these types of crimes, but rest assured, it's only a matter of time before you are caught and placed in jail.
I hear this a lot, but what's really the problem here? Is it because the comments poorly aged or because a programmer didn't do his job? What's the cure? Stop commenting or make sure your coders are properly doing their job?
Actually, I'm not at all. The nation average is 42.5 hours. Some students require around 100-hours (though, not commonly) before they get checked off on their checkride. And, that only allows you to fly the simplist (non-high performance, non-complex, single engine) of planes in VMC.
Just FYI, my father and uncle are both pilots, since before I was born. My self and my older brother are on our way. My younger brother is an Apache Longbow IP. A family friend is an instructor, who has been working to get my father his instrument ticket. So, it's not like I'm talking out my tail pipe here.
To keep the comparison valid, when comparing cars and planes, you must limit the airplane example to your average small single engine 4 seat aircraft. Typically, they are as easy to fly as a car is to drive.
That would be exactly wrong. We are talking about regulations for pilots flying spaceships, which fly at multiple Mach numbers, not a 120knt 172. You're WAY off base here.
To fully put it in perspective, where I live, it takes 2 years to get an unrestricted drivers license today.
Again, not true. This assumes a lot of things. For an age qualified driver, you can simply pass your road and written tests, and be done with it. Driver's Ed is a formality given to young drivers, which provides for insurance discounts and the ability to drive at an earlier age. Driver's Ed is not required to drive.
achieve 'first solo' in 8 to 10 hours of instruction
I know that number goes back to WWII. But, that hasn't been true for many, many, many years. The national average for solo is around 22 hours. The rest of your 172 example, doesn't matter because you're comparing apples and trees.
I'm sorry, but there is legitimate reasons for private space flight to be regulated and attempting to compare flying a spaceship to flying a 172 (my father owns a 172R and my uncle owns a V35) is simply, not even on the same page.
I'm sorry, but I'm forced to disagree with almost everything you stated.
I imagine this is certainly a longer term goal. Simple fact is, which is easier to justify to people? Travel from US to Japan in 2 or 3 hours for $200,000, or, spend $200,000 for a unique vacation of a lifetime?
If you put it as travel, people will try to justify it by business concepts (ROI, cost effectiveness, etc). If you bill it as a luxury/vacation event, it no longer needs to be rationally justified. It becomes of ploy for an emotional experience. It's simply needs to be paid for.
In otherwords, assuming that this actually takes off (pun intended), it will probably pave the way for super fast, cheaper (less than $200,000) travel down the road.
If you look at some "fun math" for this, it's actually interesting. Assuming they make their 7-seater vehicle and that two of those seats are pilot and co-pilot, that leaves 5-seats per flight. At $200,000, that's a cool $1,000,000 per flight, less overhead. So, say $5,000 (wild guess, prob on the high side) in fuel for white knight. Say, $100,000 in fuel costs for SS1 (very wild guess, as I have no idea). Minus overhead, insurance, salaries, etc., you're looking at something like $200,000 - $500,000 profit per launch. After you pay back your investors, cover your development costs, etc., it certainly paves the way for future, travel-orietated R&D.
Perhaps they'll try to leverage what they have, but not having a co-pilot increases the risk. And, it will only take one serious accident, or two, to completely destroy this new industry, for some time to come. Accordingly, I can't see why they wouldn't want to further develop this technology. Especially since they already are in talks with multiple people to license the technology. Thusly, allowing them more room (and money) for actual R&D.
We have such a guideline: any company that lets someone die because the risks are unneccessarily high will be sued into oblivion.
Which is why when this happens, they declare bankrupcy, and start a new business, having sheltered many of their assests. For companies that really want to do these things, the law has a hard time keeping up. Worse, depending on the industry and the state that they are in, sometimes, some parts of government, actually helps these guys with covering things up. In the mean time, bodies sometimes litter the road. And I'm not exaggerating in the least.
Corporations are soulless entities that will do anything and everything for profit.
Some minor nitpicking...
Corporations are soulless entities that receive the legal protection of people, that will do anything and everything for profit, and shelter and protect the people that actually enable those such actions.
Which, is exactly why sometimes having regulations and laws to help protect us from such people isn't always such a bad idea.
What's to keep someone from crashing into your ass with a car?
Common sense and basic physics. Beyond, again, thanks to physics, when someone does, "crash into your ass with a car", it will probably be minor.
You know, many unskilled, untrained people make semi-safe cars and trucks all the time. People even do it in their own garages, all the time. There is a world of difference between building a car and building a plane. Likewise, there is a world of difference between driving a car and flying a plane. There is a reason why physically learning to drive a car can take a couple of hours while learning to fly a plane can take hundreds.
I think true runaway vehicles really are rare, and most of them are either partially or completely the driver's inability to properly control the vehicles.
I do agree that they are a rare event. Just not as impossibly rare as what seemed to be suggested. I also agree that it certainly seems, many people lie about this. Just the same, being struck by lightning is also rare, but that doesn't mean it doesn't actually happen.
try turning your phone off and pressing it against your ear like you were talking on it for an hour
Wrong.
What's really odd is that you presume to place statements in my mouth and then attempt to authoratively disprove them. That makes you wrong all the way around. Long story short, ignoring your nonsense is the easiest thing to do.
then it's interfering with the station's desire to keep the video private.
Then they shouldn't transmit it. The fact that they are transmitting it, means they do not wish to keep it private. As is, the FCC does not have a legal voice to enforce the broadcast flag.
My brother and I have both noticed that if we talk on our cel phones for any real duration, we get headaches. To avoid these, we use our headsets.
EM fields are well known for causing all sorts of odd electrochemical issues in bodies; especially in our brains. The only problem is, the exact result is often undefined...at least as far I know.
Believe it or not, those stupid magnetic bracelets that people wear on their wrist, to prevent motion sickness, has been proven to work. And, there does appear to be evidence that the magnets are doing more than provide a marketing gimick. If tiny magnets on your wrist can make a difference with motion sickness, why is it such a reach to assume that a much larger magnetic field, next to your head, can have odd results?
Long story short, it's an area which needs more study and more research. Let's not be in a hurry to completely discount anecdotal evidence. Bluntly, I can't think of a single psychosomatic reason why I would get a headache on a cel phone, but not when using a regular phone or when using a headset with that same cel phone.
Well, the FCC clearly does have some authority over end-user devices: notice the FCC logo on the back of every monitor/TV in the US?
That's completely different. That ensures one device is not preventing another device from receiving a transmission. Basically, it ensures one device does not interfere with another. Which means, such restrictions exactly fit with the FCC's charter.
The broadcast flag has nothing to do with it's charter. Never has, and never will, save only by changes in law by Congress. Which is exactly the point.
There have been some well established cases, whereby, police were required to physically stop the vehicles. In other cases, they let the vehicle run out of fuel. In yet another case, the car went off the road and horribly crashed. The occupent lived. AFAIK, these cars were not even from the same manufacturer.
I had remembered the Audi deal, but I couldn't remember the outcome. Accordingly, I was not including it in what I was talking about.
My point being, I don't believe these cases are nearly as rare as you seem to believe. Having said that, I certainly have no worry about driving my vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
What if you are a Hindu? Or some other polytheist (like, say, a practitioner of Santaria?
So what. Out government is supposed to be based on the MAJORITY, not the minority. Historically, our government has become more and more hosed by catering to the minority rather than majority. I'm not saying that minority positions should be swept under the rug, but let's face it, you will NEVER make EVERYONE happy. Period.
The very idea of separation of church and state is at odds with the fundamental assumption of "definite monotheism" where one believes that one can describe a supreme being and hence there is a singular true religion.
Well, yes and not. Logically, I think you stand on solid ground, but, philosophically, which is what we're talking about in the end, I think your position is greatly weakened. Philosophically, I don't think it matters if it says, "god" or "gods", from a monotheistic or polytheistic position. A majority says it's "god", while a minority says it's "gods". Beyond that, we're talking about such a minor (numerically) portion of what was 40% of the US population, I'm forced to say, who cares. After all, majority is what is SUPPOSED to rule here.
The truth is that we are *not* a Christian nation.
Statistically, you would be incorrect. Ideaologically, the US is. Now then, that does not mean that our government is run as a theocracy. Which supports that we have successful seporation of church and state.
But isn't there something about money changers, whereby, you had government money and religious money. Doesn't the, "in god we trust", make it worthy of both?
Yes, but stop living in the past.
Simple fact is, such inclusion does not effect government. Period. Therefore, it is NOT church & state.
A better question is, since the majority of people in the US do believe in some form of god (~60%), why would you think that, "under god", does NOT belong. Exactly. In otherwords, it's a pledge that includes the majority and has not effect on the minority. So, why not. Those that are in the minority, which seem to have a problem with it, seem to always have some anit-zealot (a zealot, but on 180-degrees in position of the zealots) agenda too.
Putting God on money is very sacraligious.
Interesting. I've never heard that debated before. What makes you say that?
Well, in its defense, pallbearer handles do deploy with the air bag. Thusly, allowing for people to save on the cost of a coffin. It also saves tax dollars, as firemen don't have to waste time cutting up your car for the body to then be placed in a coffin. They can simply take your car directly to the funeral home.
;)
I'm not sure if you've priced coffins lately, but this can save you a lot of money, not to mention grief for you loved ones.
Sounds like a smart purchase to me.
We have complete seperation of church and state, and as another poster noted, the US doesn't. When you think about it, religion isn't very democratic.
Actually, the US does. The "other poster" that you're refering to, was talking out his tail pipe. There is a lot of confusion about what "seporation of church and state", means, at least here in the US.
I agree with a lot of what you've said, but there really is a seporation of church and state here in America. Feel free click on me and read my rant, elsewhere.
Seperate church from state (undermine the "the king and bible are always right" mindset).
You'll find that this hasn't really been true since the 50's or 60's and greatly been less true since the 90's. I'm sorry, but having, "in god we trust", on a dollar bill, does not mean the entire government or population, bows down to, "the bible".
You need to remember that in the US, something like 60% are Christian or Catholic. The other 40% are either some other religion or have no religion at all. Of that 60%, only something like 20% are hardcore, orthodox, in what'ever religion they practice (Christian or Catholic). Of that, something like 2-5% of the 20% fall into the zealot category (sorta scarey when you imagine that many zealots). That leaves us with 40% of the 60% which have their religious teachings modernized. Meaning, the book may be outdated, but the moral teachings tend not to be. Which, by in large, invalidates your "out dated bible" comment. And 40% of the rest of the population, that either have no Christian or Catholic belief system. That means, by in large, ~64%, have modern, reasonable views of seporation of church and state. Save only for a few, very small, hardly worth mentioning, exceptions, the US well deliniated in that seporation.
As someone who was (and to an extent, still is) an American-ophile (is that a word?) the whole situation is really distressing me. The parent is right IMO about the problem beginning with the legal bribing of politicians.
I think the problems would almost entirely stop if the US banned political donations from corporations. The INDUCEs, the DMCAs, the targeted top end tax cuts, even the Iraq War.
I think you'll find that there are three categories of people on this matter. One, those that are informed, will completely agree with you. Sadly, most Americans are ignorant, uneducated, and wish to remain as such (which, to me, suggest the right to vote bar should be raised, because our current system is NOT what our forefathers intended. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Period.). Which is the second category. That is, the ignorant slobs, which happily ignore this, inspite of efforts to educate, because they simply don't care. And third, is the people that benefit from this corrupt system.
Long story short, there are two minorities that are involved here. One minority is the group that wants to stop this horrible form of "legal" corruption. The second minority are those in government which benefit from it. Sadly, it's the second group with all the power. This leaves the "unwashed masses" as our only hope. Needless to say, these are the people most easily swayed by the power of the corrupt beneficiaries.
And so, it's leaves us (Americans) in a horrible position. By allowing everyone in the US to vote, a lot of power was removed form the hands of the people that were purposely put in power to prevent this type of abuse. Originally land owners were the only ones with the right to vote. While I can't say that I think such a qualification is just, today, I can say that I believe there should be some such qualification required for the right to vote. In fact, I think it should be an earned privelege to the responsible rather than a given right. Liberty is something we must all work to ensure. It is not given. It is not free. Likewise, the right to vote should be entrusted to those that earn it. Exactly what earning the right should be, I can't say, but our current system is horribly corrupt and broken. No doubt about that. And the majority of our ignorant masses ensures that it stays that way.
In a day when companies have more rights than people and a select few wield more power than the "voting population", whereby, power has already been removed form the hands of the very people (the voting populas) that are supposed to balance the government and corrupt leaders, I can't see that my ideas are any worse. Heck, they actually are more inline with the principals our whole government was originally built on, than what we currently have today.
Yet due to the screwed-up Electorial College (which may have served a purpose long ago but is useless now), we unfortunately got BUSH.
There is really nothing wrong with the concept of electorial college, but I do agree that it is currently broken. All that is needed is a federal law which requires electorial votes to be given, based on the popular vote of a representative's constituent base.
Some states (what, some 50%?) already have laws which require their representatives to vote accordingly. Some states are still back-assward.
My point is, it's not that the electorial college is broken, it's just how it's currently enacted, which is the problem.
Seriously, we have "under God" in our pledge (though introduced in the 1950's) and have had "in God we trust" on all of our currency since long before I was born.
This is something I see all the time. You are confused. Separation of church and state, does not mean that state can not make reference to, or imply that others worship in a church. The sole intent of this is to prevent a) a national religion, b) ensure that government does not trample on the rights of other religions, c) ensure that government is not unduly influenced by church authority (eg, the Pope/Vatican), and d) ensure that those that do, or do not, practice a religion, are not persecruted by members of government.
Specifically, as it relates to your pledge reference, it does not qualify, any more than references to god on a coin means anything, from a government perspective. This is a historically accurate statement and seeingly, recently (and historically) re-enforced by the SC.
Those that seem to take your wacky, hardline position, to me, see as far out in left field as the wacky religious zealots are in right. Simple fact is, those trying to take "god" references off of money and out of the pledge are attempting to serve their own corrupt agenda and hide behind ignornance of "seporation of church and state".
Doesn't that presume that you're not being hit by a truck? What about at a 45-degree angle, common for people crossing intersections?
LOL. Reality is a real bitch for you isn't it?
Statistically, you stand a far better chance of being caught than not.
...I've worked in the credit card industry for many years and am friends with a VP at one of the largest ISOs in the US.
Simple fact is, the system is not designed to prevent fraud. It is designed to detect, catch, and prosecute those that do exploit the system. Granted, the industry has slowly started trying to move toward a more proactive stance, while making it a little harder to comit fraud. But the merchants generally complain about efforts to make it harder on criminals and go out of their way to facilitate these types of problems.
Long story short, you may think you're getting away with these types of crimes, but rest assured, it's only a matter of time before you are caught and placed in jail.
I hear this a lot, but what's really the problem here? Is it because the comments poorly aged or because a programmer didn't do his job? What's the cure? Stop commenting or make sure your coders are properly doing their job?
a cessna requirs a ga license which requires 100 hours.
Read my responce, one message up. 100-hours is not a requirement.
You are quite wrong here.
Actually, I'm not at all. The nation average is 42.5 hours. Some students require around 100-hours (though, not commonly) before they get checked off on their checkride. And, that only allows you to fly the simplist (non-high performance, non-complex, single engine) of planes in VMC.
Just FYI, my father and uncle are both pilots, since before I was born. My self and my older brother are on our way. My younger brother is an Apache Longbow IP. A family friend is an instructor, who has been working to get my father his instrument ticket. So, it's not like I'm talking out my tail pipe here.
To keep the comparison valid, when comparing cars and planes, you must limit the airplane example to your average small single engine 4 seat aircraft. Typically, they are as easy to fly as a car is to drive.
That would be exactly wrong. We are talking about regulations for pilots flying spaceships, which fly at multiple Mach numbers, not a 120knt 172. You're WAY off base here.
To fully put it in perspective, where I live, it takes 2 years to get an unrestricted drivers license today.
Again, not true. This assumes a lot of things. For an age qualified driver, you can simply pass your road and written tests, and be done with it. Driver's Ed is a formality given to young drivers, which provides for insurance discounts and the ability to drive at an earlier age. Driver's Ed is not required to drive.
achieve 'first solo' in 8 to 10 hours of instruction
I know that number goes back to WWII. But, that hasn't been true for many, many, many years. The national average for solo is around 22 hours. The rest of your 172 example, doesn't matter because you're comparing apples and trees.
I'm sorry, but there is legitimate reasons for private space flight to be regulated and attempting to compare flying a spaceship to flying a 172 (my father owns a 172R and my uncle owns a V35) is simply, not even on the same page.
I'm sorry, but I'm forced to disagree with almost everything you stated.
I imagine this is certainly a longer term goal. Simple fact is, which is easier to justify to people? Travel from US to Japan in 2 or 3 hours for $200,000, or, spend $200,000 for a unique vacation of a lifetime?
If you put it as travel, people will try to justify it by business concepts (ROI, cost effectiveness, etc). If you bill it as a luxury/vacation event, it no longer needs to be rationally justified. It becomes of ploy for an emotional experience. It's simply needs to be paid for.
In otherwords, assuming that this actually takes off (pun intended), it will probably pave the way for super fast, cheaper (less than $200,000) travel down the road.
If you look at some "fun math" for this, it's actually interesting. Assuming they make their 7-seater vehicle and that two of those seats are pilot and co-pilot, that leaves 5-seats per flight. At $200,000, that's a cool $1,000,000 per flight, less overhead. So, say $5,000 (wild guess, prob on the high side) in fuel for white knight. Say, $100,000 in fuel costs for SS1 (very wild guess, as I have no idea). Minus overhead, insurance, salaries, etc., you're looking at something like $200,000 - $500,000 profit per launch. After you pay back your investors, cover your development costs, etc., it certainly paves the way for future, travel-orietated R&D.
Perhaps they'll try to leverage what they have, but not having a co-pilot increases the risk. And, it will only take one serious accident, or two, to completely destroy this new industry, for some time to come. Accordingly, I can't see why they wouldn't want to further develop this technology. Especially since they already are in talks with multiple people to license the technology. Thusly, allowing them more room (and money) for actual R&D.
We have such a guideline: any company that lets someone die because the risks are unneccessarily high will be sued into oblivion.
Which is why when this happens, they declare bankrupcy, and start a new business, having sheltered many of their assests. For companies that really want to do these things, the law has a hard time keeping up. Worse, depending on the industry and the state that they are in, sometimes, some parts of government, actually helps these guys with covering things up. In the mean time, bodies sometimes litter the road. And I'm not exaggerating in the least.
Corporations are soulless entities that will do anything and everything for profit.
Some minor nitpicking...
Corporations are soulless entities that receive the legal protection of people, that will do anything and everything for profit, and shelter and protect the people that actually enable those such actions.
Which, is exactly why sometimes having regulations and laws to help protect us from such people isn't always such a bad idea.
What's to keep someone from crashing into your ass with a car?
Common sense and basic physics. Beyond, again, thanks to physics, when someone does, "crash into your ass with a car", it will probably be minor.
You know, many unskilled, untrained people make semi-safe cars and trucks all the time. People even do it in their own garages, all the time. There is a world of difference between building a car and building a plane. Likewise, there is a world of difference between driving a car and flying a plane. There is a reason why physically learning to drive a car can take a couple of hours while learning to fly a plane can take hundreds.
That's a question of privacy. Things broadcast on for television are NOT designed for private consumption.
I think true runaway vehicles really are rare, and most of them are either partially or completely the driver's inability to properly control the vehicles.
I do agree that they are a rare event. Just not as impossibly rare as what seemed to be suggested. I also agree that it certainly seems, many people lie about this. Just the same, being struck by lightning is also rare, but that doesn't mean it doesn't actually happen.
try turning your phone off and pressing it against your ear like you were talking on it for an hour
Wrong.
What's really odd is that you presume to place statements in my mouth and then attempt to authoratively disprove them. That makes you wrong all the way around. Long story short, ignoring your nonsense is the easiest thing to do.
then it's interfering with the station's desire to keep the video private.
Then they shouldn't transmit it. The fact that they are transmitting it, means they do not wish to keep it private. As is, the FCC does not have a legal voice to enforce the broadcast flag.
My brother and I have both noticed that if we talk on our cel phones for any real duration, we get headaches. To avoid these, we use our headsets.
EM fields are well known for causing all sorts of odd electrochemical issues in bodies; especially in our brains. The only problem is, the exact result is often undefined...at least as far I know.
Believe it or not, those stupid magnetic bracelets that people wear on their wrist, to prevent motion sickness, has been proven to work. And, there does appear to be evidence that the magnets are doing more than provide a marketing gimick. If tiny magnets on your wrist can make a difference with motion sickness, why is it such a reach to assume that a much larger magnetic field, next to your head, can have odd results?
Long story short, it's an area which needs more study and more research. Let's not be in a hurry to completely discount anecdotal evidence. Bluntly, I can't think of a single psychosomatic reason why I would get a headache on a cel phone, but not when using a regular phone or when using a headset with that same cel phone.
Well, the FCC clearly does have some authority over end-user devices: notice the FCC logo on the back of every monitor/TV in the US?
That's completely different. That ensures one device is not preventing another device from receiving a transmission. Basically, it ensures one device does not interfere with another. Which means, such restrictions exactly fit with the FCC's charter.
The broadcast flag has nothing to do with it's charter. Never has, and never will, save only by changes in law by Congress. Which is exactly the point.
No.
There have been some well established cases, whereby, police were required to physically stop the vehicles. In other cases, they let the vehicle run out of fuel. In yet another case, the car went off the road and horribly crashed. The occupent lived. AFAIK, these cars were not even from the same manufacturer.
I had remembered the Audi deal, but I couldn't remember the outcome. Accordingly, I was not including it in what I was talking about.
My point being, I don't believe these cases are nearly as rare as you seem to believe. Having said that, I certainly have no worry about driving my vehicle.