Here on Slashdot there tends to exist the mindset of "blame the shooter not the gun" and the corollary "and certainly don't blame the maker of the gun". For most civil libertarians, those are axioms: that tools are value-neutral, and you criminalize their improper use, not their mere existence or the act of manufacture. Good so far. Lifetime NRA member here. Gun-totin' agnostic clinging to the Constitution.
In this case, though, we are blaming the tool AND the user AND the manufacturer. Why is it different to blame tools collectively (governmental) compared to individually? I have my own thoughts on this, and I believe it IS different. However, it takes a couple of layers of abstraction to reach that difference (specifically, that collective actions are almost always restrictive in nature while individual actions are almost always permissive in nature, and that freedom requires that permissiveness wins over restriction in all but the most severe cases).
I'd like to believe that the reactions against the existence of CALEA are reasoned rather than reactive. When you ask someone whether they favor or oppose something, if the answer you get is a frothing hind-brain reaction, that person's opinion is instantly valueless. And if that person was on the "correct" side (strictly by chance, it would seem), it becomes that much easier to dismiss ALL people with that opinion. "Yeah, you're a jingoistic , just like all the rest. I'm not even going to listen to you."
Short of direct threats of violence, I can criticize any aspect of the government in the US as vehemently as I want. I can also criticize the behavior of my fellow citizens.
And I do. Vehemently.
Funny how I haven't been arrested... or even noticed.
As a game proper, this sucker is toast, unless Jackson fans are more rabid than they appear.
Michael Jackson fans are more more rabid they appear. My pedo joke (one of many that are showing up) got Flamebaited. Normally that would be appropriate, but in this case it's actually relevant to the subject at hand. The man was a pedophile.
Ah well. Once again, "flamebait" is used as the "your voice will not be heard" button.
Requests for user information is not censorship, as speech is not being blocked. It is being traced to its origin. The map is a "spy on your citizens" map, NOT a censorship map. Different thing.
Potentially every bit as bad, but let's use accurate terminology. The "scare you into accepting draconian laws" people use distortions and bad use of emotionally loaded terms; it's one of the things that makes them evil. Journalists calling information requests (lawful or otherwise) "censorship" shows the journalist to be, shall we say, uneducated about what they say they are qualified to report upon. And people coming up with article titles on Slashdot really, really need to RTFA and get their titles right.
It's as much metallurgy as anything else. Until pattern-welding became widespread around 800AD, blades much longer than 24" just didn't have the strength needed in combat, particularly for swords intended for slashing motions.
There are some excellent websites for smiths doing reproduction historical swords with well-researched historical techniques which make for a fascinating read (to nerds like myself anyway). Start with Patrick Barta at www.templ.net and Jim Hrisoulas at www.atar.com, then move on to www.myarmoury.com for hands-on reviews and photos.
One of the most effective ways to penetrate a company is to drop a couple of USB sticks in their parking lot with some "special" autoinstalled software. Someone sees it, picks it up, takes it in side and plugs it in to see what's on it. A few boring things, maybe a naked picture of someone, and a rootkit.
I've worked for a couple of companies which have had security audits performed on them that included hiring outside firms to do "social engineering" penetration tests to see how good the employees are about that sort of thing. It's strange... someone who won't be fooled by "we're from IT and need your password" sweet-talk and who would never open an attachment to an email will happily stuff a flash drive into their computer. The penetration testing firms tell me they almost always get a hit with the USB drive trick. (And, for the record, one of my companies passed the test, 100%. Woot! Let's not talk about the other, though...)
Having RTFA and the comments on the FA, I'd say that targeting rats was the wrong effort. They need to breed an oppossum that eats trolls. Man, that was a pretty intense display. I'll never complain about/. trolls again.
...actually, on second thought, I'll still complain after all. Just recognize that/. are a bunch of amateurs in that regard.
As ostensibly noble-minded as this is, it's a means of saying "an international body should make internet rules". If they can have authority to force some things to be allowed, that same authority can be used to have other things banned. I would worry over any treaty that allows other nations sovereignty over what I can view or post, as many of my views on individual rights run counter to European governmental values (the freedom to own weapons that are effective against modern police and infantry, and to use them in violent acts of rebellion and insurgency should the need ever arise; the freedom to criticize religious organizations and dogma when they demonize me or attempt to seize secular power; the freedom to keep the rewards of my work rather than subsidizing others who have no intent to work at all).
Thanks, but no thanks. My political speech is already protected, I can already look at jigglers and danglers belonging to consenting adults, and there is no circumstance under which I would permit a European treaty body to have even the slightest authority over me, regardless of its stated purpose. Bureaucracies only grow, and they only do so by expanding their realm of control.
Software pirates (commercial and noncommercial alike) certainly need to be caught and punished. However, when people like the BSA prove themselves to be liars, there aren't any "good guys" in the picture. When the enforcers are as much scumbags as the pirates are scumbags, there is no credibility. It's like being in New Orleans - deal with a mugger or deal with one of the corrupt cops. Hell of a choice.
It should be sufficient to be able to say "Software is not a pirate's property for him to take or use, but they're doing it anyway" and prosecute on that basis. An argument of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" should be wholly irrelevant. But resorting to histrionics like this just plays into the hands of the pirates and stirs up anger against the people who should have been the ones on the moral high ground, and makes the enforcers rightfully more despised than the pirates.
No, it's not a red herring argument. It's a question. The "?" is the indicator.
Given the state of Android, its mutability, and the hardware it runs on, is compatibility a serious concern? If not, is it likely to become a concern? If not, what controls are in place to ensure it does not become a concern? If so, is it going to get worse or is there an initiative to rein it back in? And in any of the above questions, how can I verify whatever answers I get beyond the "argument by loud assertion" proofs?
I think those are wholly legitimate questions, particularly given that many knowledgeable people are becoming worried about this.
If I wanted to develop an app for Android, with the OS fragmentation going on and wide variety of hardware out there, just how many Android phones would I expect an app to work on? Would I have to do extensive compatibility testing, and what would that list look like? Would I face angry customers wanting refunds and smearing my name because the app didn't work on their particular combination of hardware and software?
This is a real issue. Precisely because Android is open-source, hardware vendors can and do alter it to suit their own preferences and needs, which will inescapably lead to compatibility problems. A small-time developer with one phone and the Android SDK faces a lot of uncertainty. If a developer needs to own and feed contracts on many different Android phones, the fact that the Android SDK is free and runs on a computer you already own becomes irrelevant in the big picture. It seems strange, but with iOS and its simpler compatibility requirements, it may actually be cheaper to develop for iOS even though you have to pay 99 bucks for the SDK and buy a Mac Mini to run the SDK and simulator upon.
Is anything being done to address this? (Something like including vendor-specific and hardware-specific simulators, copies of firmware always freely available for testing in the simulator, etc. as part of the SDK) I want Android to succeed, but it could shoot itself in the foot over the fragmentation issue.
The question is jurisdiction. I CAN drive with a loaded gun in my lap in some states. I CAN drive with an unloaded gun in my trunk in ALL states regardless of local law. I CAN fly with a loaded gun in my lap in my own plane in the United States regardless of local law.
International law is somewhat murky over jurisdiction. Does Japan have jurisdiction over the airport? Absolutely. Does Japan have jurisdiction over the interior of an American-registered aircraft in Japan? Absolutely not... that's American soil, and basic international law says that a Japanese customs officer or police officer has no more authority there than in my living room. However, there are agreements in place that allow some cross-agency authority with regard to airport security. Some of those agreements are contradictory (it really is a mess, ask anyone who has to work with customs agents in an export role and what hoops you have to jump through sometimes), and some are contradictory with both international and local law. There's also the problem of mordidas, to which no country (U.S., Japan, England, NotFromAroundHereIstan) is immune.
Legally, could I fly my plane (assuming it could reach that far) into Japan with a gun? Yes. Would I? Hell no; I've heard horror stories about Japanese jails and the huge engine of bureaucracy that can be used to harass even if a jail isn't involved. Just because something is legal that doesn't mean an overzealous agency (I'm looking at YOU, TSA) or corrupt petty official (still looking at you, TSA) will obey that law.
As a side note. I RTFA, and there is no confirmation in any way that Jobs "swore to never return to Japan". It's a chain of hearsay. The only confirmable facts seem to be "something was disallowed and the passenger complied". Yet another reason to not believe everything you read on the internet; it's packed full of people who will make shit up to attack people/organizations/countries they don't like or to use the Slashdot effect to spike their per-view ad revenues, and some of them have slick-looking websites.
Cue the rumors that Jobs and Ellison are preparing for a throwing star battle to the death....
Jobs and Ellison are reportedly good friends. What WOULD be pure popcorn-munchin' entertainment would be to see what would happen if both Apple and Oracle wanted something (a company to acquire, a market segment) that only one could have. I would predict one of two outcomes, no intermediate "compromises" (since when do Ellison or Jobs compromise on anything important to them?), and flip a coin for which:
1. A closed-door deal concluded with a handshake and a "you OWE me, you bastard" or
2. A sudden, vicious war in the marketplace, the courts, and the financial sector that was as much a personal dominance-fight as a business contention.
For scenario 2, I'd grant it to Jobs 2 out of 3. Nobody works the marketplace as well as Apple, and they have the huge warchest and stock market position to take on Oracle. Apple also seems to do better in court, though by no means batting 1.000 (note please, no value judgment on the merit of that). Ellison is almost certainly better at company-vs-company boardroom-level politics, but poorer at populist actions, and more likely to just plain piss off a judge. Ultimately, charisma, legal savvy and raw financial power would carry the day for Jobs and Apple, though Oracle could make it a Pyrrhic victory.
Next up: Captain Picard vs. Captain Kirk! we'll call it Slashdot-fiction...
I can carry a gun in my private car, even onto an airport, even in Washington DC or New York City. I do not need a permit to do so. Federal law and legal precedent clearly state that you may transport a firearm from place A to place B as long as it is legal in the endpoints, and intermediate jurisdictions may not interfere as long as the firearm is secured. I can even take it INTO an airport, as long as it's unloaded and in my luggage and is declared at the counter for tagging so some TSA monkey can steal it.
When I fly my own plane, I can carry a gun, not just in my baggage, but on my hip. For private aircraft, it's the pilot-in-command that makes that decision, and has full legal authority to do so. I can also choose to allow my passengers to do the same. I can also let them have as much alcohol as I, the pilot, think is prudent (though I can't have any. I don't work for Northwest, after all...) As long as the gun stays in the airplane, no local authority can gainsay me. That's the law too. Note the difference between "private plane" and "chartered plane".
The above are US laws, applicable to US territory. Japanese laws are more restrictive. While the interior of an aircraft registered in a given country is technically the sovereign territory of that country (same laws as a ship), the fact is that local law enforcement does have considerable authority as to what happens on their airports. Not everybody is aware of this. Assuming this story is true-as-reported (and I am not assuming that, given the... bias which a lot of people have about Mr. Jobs, both against and for), it's likely that Jobs was thinking American laws apply on American planes regardless of location. That's true, but only to an extent. And there IS the possibility that the Japanese authorities overstepped their bounds. To know for sure would require a careful examination of AMerican law, international law, Japanese law, and any treaties which may be in effect. We don't have that information.
It's also worth noting that other high-profile CEOs (Larry Ellison) have run into issues with the Japanese authorities regarding export and carrying of Japanese bladed weaponry, though in Ellison's case it has to do with laws regarding antiquities. Ellison is a well-known fan of Shogunate-era arms and armor, and has a substantial collection (one of the largest). However, Japan does not allow the export of antiquities without a permit, and Ellison has run afoul of this from time to time. Japan's export laws arose in response to the very large amount of antiquities which were claimed as war prizes following World War II, and as soon as Japan regained its sovereignty it passed those laws to stem the flow of its cultural heritage out of the country. It is possible that, if the shuriken in question were old and "real" (as opposed to cheap tourist-trap knockoffs), that Jobs ran afoul of the same law. Again, we don't know. The law might not differentiate between new and antique items in that category.
Like most sensationalist stories which are relevant to nothing in particular except fueling dislike for someone famous and controversial, I'd take this one with a huge grain of salt.
The filter wasn't rolled out (i.e. preemptive enforcement). The laws regarding hosting and access, however, remain in place, and have been there for some time. Put naked pictures on a website, and they still can arrest you and label you a sex offender, whether the filtering firewall exists or not.
Why do Aussie government "officials" have to subscribe to some kind of puritanical standard not applicable to ordinary citizens to get on the Internet?
All of this points out what many have known for a while:
The most important knowledge-based skill is no longer memorization, It is research and indexing skills, i.e. making Google your bitch. But hand-in-hand with that, an equally important skill, moreso than ever before, is critical thinking, because on the Internet people can and do lie, and it's harder to tell the difference when a lie, propaganda, or faith masquerading as science can be presented with good layouts and well-wordcrafted bullshit. (cf. Wikipedia and vandalism).
People must internalize this: form and eloquence do not equal truth.
Wow. Your reply gets angrier with each sentence. You need to cut down on the coffee before bed.
Brochures? Um, no. You have no basis to come to that conclusion. Empennage, tailcone and wings done, fuselage section queued up. I'm not whining and pining. I'm mashing rivets. What are you doing?
MTBF is not the same as MTBO. MTBF is Mean Time Between Failures, and is a reliability calculation. MTBO is Maximum Time Between Overhaul, and is a maintenance interval and a regulatory requirement. I think you have the two confused. And yes, 2000 hours is the most common value for MTBO for engines in GA. But that's irrelevant to the discussion.
3000 hour MTBF is typical for general aviation aircraft, with the failure defined as an emergency-inducing loss of power or other similar event. Asking for 5000 is not at all out of the question, not by a long shot. A great deal of that can be achieved just by using newer equipment... the certified general aviation fleet in the US averages something in the 35-years range (not the pilots.. the planes themselves).
My favorite rental, a Cessna 172SP, does indeed have 4 hours plus IFR reserve (53 gallons usable, 9 gallons per hour = 5 hours and change). And I think it's pretty hard to claim that the 172 represents a tiny, elite niche within the general aviation world; it's the workhorse, it's the most common certified GA airplane in history, and its competition from Piper and Beechcraft have similar specifications. 4 hours plus IFR reserve is, inarguably, the most common range specification in the industry, in the most ordinary aircraft imaginable. If that's my standard, the overwhelming majority of GA single-engine aircraft meet it.
The RV-10 is better (60 gallons, 10 gallons per hour, 6 hours) and half again faster. My RV10 will also demonstrate simple aerobatics as part of the airworthiness trial period (no hammerheads or outside loops, guess I'm not a real pilot). I'll be able to put it upside down, no problem. You can also do the same in a 172, though you can't hold inverted flight. That doesn't make it an "aerobatic craft", but it does mean you can do some aerobatics.
The Ballistic Recovery System. A fine idea, but heavy. For a Cessna 172 (2700 pounds max weight), it's 79 pounds, which is 13 gallons of fuel, or about 180 miles farther you can fly. The smaller version for 500-ish pound ultralights is 18 pounds. I'm not certain that's the best possible way to spend the weight. Of course, if I really want one, I can go to the gym and get at least part of that weight back.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Here on Slashdot there tends to exist the mindset of "blame the shooter not the gun" and the corollary "and certainly don't blame the maker of the gun". For most civil libertarians, those are axioms: that tools are value-neutral, and you criminalize their improper use, not their mere existence or the act of manufacture. Good so far. Lifetime NRA member here. Gun-totin' agnostic clinging to the Constitution.
In this case, though, we are blaming the tool AND the user AND the manufacturer. Why is it different to blame tools collectively (governmental) compared to individually? I have my own thoughts on this, and I believe it IS different. However, it takes a couple of layers of abstraction to reach that difference (specifically, that collective actions are almost always restrictive in nature while individual actions are almost always permissive in nature, and that freedom requires that permissiveness wins over restriction in all but the most severe cases).
I'd like to believe that the reactions against the existence of CALEA are reasoned rather than reactive. When you ask someone whether they favor or oppose something, if the answer you get is a frothing hind-brain reaction, that person's opinion is instantly valueless. And if that person was on the "correct" side (strictly by chance, it would seem), it becomes that much easier to dismiss ALL people with that opinion. "Yeah, you're a jingoistic , just like all the rest. I'm not even going to listen to you."
The good guys have to be the adults.
I guess this means business will be falling off in Marshall, Texas...
Short of direct threats of violence, I can criticize any aspect of the government in the US as vehemently as I want. I can also criticize the behavior of my fellow citizens.
And I do. Vehemently.
Funny how I haven't been arrested... or even noticed.
As a game proper, this sucker is toast, unless Jackson fans are more rabid than they appear.
Michael Jackson fans are more more rabid they appear. My pedo joke (one of many that are showing up) got Flamebaited. Normally that would be appropriate, but in this case it's actually relevant to the subject at hand. The man was a pedophile.
Ah well. Once again, "flamebait" is used as the "your voice will not be heard" button.
A/S/L ?
Requests for user information is not censorship, as speech is not being blocked. It is being traced to its origin. The map is a "spy on your citizens" map, NOT a censorship map. Different thing.
Potentially every bit as bad, but let's use accurate terminology. The "scare you into accepting draconian laws" people use distortions and bad use of emotionally loaded terms; it's one of the things that makes them evil. Journalists calling information requests (lawful or otherwise) "censorship" shows the journalist to be, shall we say, uneducated about what they say they are qualified to report upon. And people coming up with article titles on Slashdot really, really need to RTFA and get their titles right.
It's as much metallurgy as anything else. Until pattern-welding became widespread around 800AD, blades much longer than 24" just didn't have the strength needed in combat, particularly for swords intended for slashing motions.
There are some excellent websites for smiths doing reproduction historical swords with well-researched historical techniques which make for a fascinating read (to nerds like myself anyway). Start with Patrick Barta at www.templ.net and Jim Hrisoulas at www.atar.com, then move on to www.myarmoury.com for hands-on reviews and photos.
One of the most effective ways to penetrate a company is to drop a couple of USB sticks in their parking lot with some "special" autoinstalled software. Someone sees it, picks it up, takes it in side and plugs it in to see what's on it. A few boring things, maybe a naked picture of someone, and a rootkit.
I've worked for a couple of companies which have had security audits performed on them that included hiring outside firms to do "social engineering" penetration tests to see how good the employees are about that sort of thing. It's strange... someone who won't be fooled by "we're from IT and need your password" sweet-talk and who would never open an attachment to an email will happily stuff a flash drive into their computer. The penetration testing firms tell me they almost always get a hit with the USB drive trick. (And, for the record, one of my companies passed the test, 100%. Woot! Let's not talk about the other, though...)
So yeah, physical devices > air-gap.
I thought that was part of the axioms and was "taken as read"...
What are you wearing?
This way, the clean-up crew at the gate can instantly see where they need to bring the barf-bucket to.
And those of us amateur astronomers with good 'scopes and optical object-tracking software can get upskirt shots from 35,000 feet below.
fatfingered the first. CVE-2007-0066
CVE-2007-0069
CVE-2007-0069
CVE-2010-1893
Though the last one really doesn't count for ZoneAlarm's intended function, as it's a local privilege escalation.
Reference: http://cve.mitre.org/index.html
Search terms: Windows kernel tcp/ip
Having RTFA and the comments on the FA, I'd say that targeting rats was the wrong effort. They need to breed an oppossum that eats trolls. Man, that was a pretty intense display. I'll never complain about /. trolls again.
As ostensibly noble-minded as this is, it's a means of saying "an international body should make internet rules". If they can have authority to force some things to be allowed, that same authority can be used to have other things banned. I would worry over any treaty that allows other nations sovereignty over what I can view or post, as many of my views on individual rights run counter to European governmental values (the freedom to own weapons that are effective against modern police and infantry, and to use them in violent acts of rebellion and insurgency should the need ever arise; the freedom to criticize religious organizations and dogma when they demonize me or attempt to seize secular power; the freedom to keep the rewards of my work rather than subsidizing others who have no intent to work at all).
Thanks, but no thanks. My political speech is already protected, I can already look at jigglers and danglers belonging to consenting adults, and there is no circumstance under which I would permit a European treaty body to have even the slightest authority over me, regardless of its stated purpose. Bureaucracies only grow, and they only do so by expanding their realm of control.
Software pirates (commercial and noncommercial alike) certainly need to be caught and punished. However, when people like the BSA prove themselves to be liars, there aren't any "good guys" in the picture. When the enforcers are as much scumbags as the pirates are scumbags, there is no credibility. It's like being in New Orleans - deal with a mugger or deal with one of the corrupt cops. Hell of a choice.
It should be sufficient to be able to say "Software is not a pirate's property for him to take or use, but they're doing it anyway" and prosecute on that basis. An argument of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" should be wholly irrelevant. But resorting to histrionics like this just plays into the hands of the pirates and stirs up anger against the people who should have been the ones on the moral high ground, and makes the enforcers rightfully more despised than the pirates.
No, it's not a red herring argument. It's a question. The "?" is the indicator.
Given the state of Android, its mutability, and the hardware it runs on, is compatibility a serious concern? If not, is it likely to become a concern? If not, what controls are in place to ensure it does not become a concern? If so, is it going to get worse or is there an initiative to rein it back in? And in any of the above questions, how can I verify whatever answers I get beyond the "argument by loud assertion" proofs?
I think those are wholly legitimate questions, particularly given that many knowledgeable people are becoming worried about this.
If I wanted to develop an app for Android, with the OS fragmentation going on and wide variety of hardware out there, just how many Android phones would I expect an app to work on? Would I have to do extensive compatibility testing, and what would that list look like? Would I face angry customers wanting refunds and smearing my name because the app didn't work on their particular combination of hardware and software?
This is a real issue. Precisely because Android is open-source, hardware vendors can and do alter it to suit their own preferences and needs, which will inescapably lead to compatibility problems. A small-time developer with one phone and the Android SDK faces a lot of uncertainty. If a developer needs to own and feed contracts on many different Android phones, the fact that the Android SDK is free and runs on a computer you already own becomes irrelevant in the big picture. It seems strange, but with iOS and its simpler compatibility requirements, it may actually be cheaper to develop for iOS even though you have to pay 99 bucks for the SDK and buy a Mac Mini to run the SDK and simulator upon.
Is anything being done to address this? (Something like including vendor-specific and hardware-specific simulators, copies of firmware always freely available for testing in the simulator, etc. as part of the SDK) I want Android to succeed, but it could shoot itself in the foot over the fragmentation issue.
The question is jurisdiction. I CAN drive with a loaded gun in my lap in some states. I CAN drive with an unloaded gun in my trunk in ALL states regardless of local law. I CAN fly with a loaded gun in my lap in my own plane in the United States regardless of local law.
International law is somewhat murky over jurisdiction. Does Japan have jurisdiction over the airport? Absolutely. Does Japan have jurisdiction over the interior of an American-registered aircraft in Japan? Absolutely not... that's American soil, and basic international law says that a Japanese customs officer or police officer has no more authority there than in my living room. However, there are agreements in place that allow some cross-agency authority with regard to airport security. Some of those agreements are contradictory (it really is a mess, ask anyone who has to work with customs agents in an export role and what hoops you have to jump through sometimes), and some are contradictory with both international and local law. There's also the problem of mordidas, to which no country (U.S., Japan, England, NotFromAroundHereIstan) is immune.
Legally, could I fly my plane (assuming it could reach that far) into Japan with a gun? Yes. Would I? Hell no; I've heard horror stories about Japanese jails and the huge engine of bureaucracy that can be used to harass even if a jail isn't involved. Just because something is legal that doesn't mean an overzealous agency (I'm looking at YOU, TSA) or corrupt petty official (still looking at you, TSA) will obey that law.
As a side note. I RTFA, and there is no confirmation in any way that Jobs "swore to never return to Japan". It's a chain of hearsay. The only confirmable facts seem to be "something was disallowed and the passenger complied". Yet another reason to not believe everything you read on the internet; it's packed full of people who will make shit up to attack people/organizations/countries they don't like or to use the Slashdot effect to spike their per-view ad revenues, and some of them have slick-looking websites.
Cue the rumors that Jobs and Ellison are preparing for a throwing star battle to the death....
Jobs and Ellison are reportedly good friends. What WOULD be pure popcorn-munchin' entertainment would be to see what would happen if both Apple and Oracle wanted something (a company to acquire, a market segment) that only one could have. I would predict one of two outcomes, no intermediate "compromises" (since when do Ellison or Jobs compromise on anything important to them?), and flip a coin for which:
1. A closed-door deal concluded with a handshake and a "you OWE me, you bastard" or
2. A sudden, vicious war in the marketplace, the courts, and the financial sector that was as much a personal dominance-fight as a business contention.
For scenario 2, I'd grant it to Jobs 2 out of 3. Nobody works the marketplace as well as Apple, and they have the huge warchest and stock market position to take on Oracle. Apple also seems to do better in court, though by no means batting 1.000 (note please, no value judgment on the merit of that). Ellison is almost certainly better at company-vs-company boardroom-level politics, but poorer at populist actions, and more likely to just plain piss off a judge. Ultimately, charisma, legal savvy and raw financial power would carry the day for Jobs and Apple, though Oracle could make it a Pyrrhic victory.
Next up: Captain Picard vs. Captain Kirk! we'll call it Slashdot-fiction...
I can carry a gun in my private car, even onto an airport, even in Washington DC or New York City. I do not need a permit to do so. Federal law and legal precedent clearly state that you may transport a firearm from place A to place B as long as it is legal in the endpoints, and intermediate jurisdictions may not interfere as long as the firearm is secured. I can even take it INTO an airport, as long as it's unloaded and in my luggage and is declared at the counter for tagging so some TSA monkey can steal it.
When I fly my own plane, I can carry a gun, not just in my baggage, but on my hip. For private aircraft, it's the pilot-in-command that makes that decision, and has full legal authority to do so. I can also choose to allow my passengers to do the same. I can also let them have as much alcohol as I, the pilot, think is prudent (though I can't have any. I don't work for Northwest, after all...) As long as the gun stays in the airplane, no local authority can gainsay me. That's the law too. Note the difference between "private plane" and "chartered plane".
The above are US laws, applicable to US territory. Japanese laws are more restrictive. While the interior of an aircraft registered in a given country is technically the sovereign territory of that country (same laws as a ship), the fact is that local law enforcement does have considerable authority as to what happens on their airports. Not everybody is aware of this. Assuming this story is true-as-reported (and I am not assuming that, given the... bias which a lot of people have about Mr. Jobs, both against and for), it's likely that Jobs was thinking American laws apply on American planes regardless of location. That's true, but only to an extent. And there IS the possibility that the Japanese authorities overstepped their bounds. To know for sure would require a careful examination of AMerican law, international law, Japanese law, and any treaties which may be in effect. We don't have that information.
It's also worth noting that other high-profile CEOs (Larry Ellison) have run into issues with the Japanese authorities regarding export and carrying of Japanese bladed weaponry, though in Ellison's case it has to do with laws regarding antiquities. Ellison is a well-known fan of Shogunate-era arms and armor, and has a substantial collection (one of the largest). However, Japan does not allow the export of antiquities without a permit, and Ellison has run afoul of this from time to time. Japan's export laws arose in response to the very large amount of antiquities which were claimed as war prizes following World War II, and as soon as Japan regained its sovereignty it passed those laws to stem the flow of its cultural heritage out of the country. It is possible that, if the shuriken in question were old and "real" (as opposed to cheap tourist-trap knockoffs), that Jobs ran afoul of the same law. Again, we don't know. The law might not differentiate between new and antique items in that category.
Like most sensationalist stories which are relevant to nothing in particular except fueling dislike for someone famous and controversial, I'd take this one with a huge grain of salt.
The filter wasn't rolled out (i.e. preemptive enforcement). The laws regarding hosting and access, however, remain in place, and have been there for some time. Put naked pictures on a website, and they still can arrest you and label you a sex offender, whether the filtering firewall exists or not.
Welcome to Australistan.
Why do Aussie government "officials" have to subscribe to some kind of puritanical standard not applicable to ordinary citizens to get on the Internet?
Oh, wait. Australia. Never mind...
All of this points out what many have known for a while:
The most important knowledge-based skill is no longer memorization, It is research and indexing skills, i.e. making Google your bitch. But hand-in-hand with that, an equally important skill, moreso than ever before, is critical thinking, because on the Internet people can and do lie, and it's harder to tell the difference when a lie, propaganda, or faith masquerading as science can be presented with good layouts and well-wordcrafted bullshit. (cf. Wikipedia and vandalism).
People must internalize this: form and eloquence do not equal truth.
Wow. Your reply gets angrier with each sentence. You need to cut down on the coffee before bed.
Brochures? Um, no. You have no basis to come to that conclusion. Empennage, tailcone and wings done, fuselage section queued up. I'm not whining and pining. I'm mashing rivets. What are you doing?
MTBF is not the same as MTBO. MTBF is Mean Time Between Failures, and is a reliability calculation. MTBO is Maximum Time Between Overhaul, and is a maintenance interval and a regulatory requirement. I think you have the two confused. And yes, 2000 hours is the most common value for MTBO for engines in GA. But that's irrelevant to the discussion.
3000 hour MTBF is typical for general aviation aircraft, with the failure defined as an emergency-inducing loss of power or other similar event. Asking for 5000 is not at all out of the question, not by a long shot. A great deal of that can be achieved just by using newer equipment... the certified general aviation fleet in the US averages something in the 35-years range (not the pilots.. the planes themselves).
My favorite rental, a Cessna 172SP, does indeed have 4 hours plus IFR reserve (53 gallons usable, 9 gallons per hour = 5 hours and change). And I think it's pretty hard to claim that the 172 represents a tiny, elite niche within the general aviation world; it's the workhorse, it's the most common certified GA airplane in history, and its competition from Piper and Beechcraft have similar specifications. 4 hours plus IFR reserve is, inarguably, the most common range specification in the industry, in the most ordinary aircraft imaginable. If that's my standard, the overwhelming majority of GA single-engine aircraft meet it.
The RV-10 is better (60 gallons, 10 gallons per hour, 6 hours) and half again faster. My RV10 will also demonstrate simple aerobatics as part of the airworthiness trial period (no hammerheads or outside loops, guess I'm not a real pilot). I'll be able to put it upside down, no problem. You can also do the same in a 172, though you can't hold inverted flight. That doesn't make it an "aerobatic craft", but it does mean you can do some aerobatics.
Go get some stick time. You'll feel less angry.
The Ballistic Recovery System. A fine idea, but heavy. For a Cessna 172 (2700 pounds max weight), it's 79 pounds, which is 13 gallons of fuel, or about 180 miles farther you can fly. The smaller version for 500-ish pound ultralights is 18 pounds. I'm not certain that's the best possible way to spend the weight. Of course, if I really want one, I can go to the gym and get at least part of that weight back. :)
See http://www.brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx for details on what is certainly a fascinating piece of tech.