Not legal. Compliant with regulation. There's a difference. The FAA doesn't pass bills or sign them into law. They establish regulations, a very different process.
That such regulations tend to carry the force of law is irrelevant.
Until the FAA (a government organization) addresses this issue directly, their edict is essentially the law of the land. Spare me the flamewar about how the FAA can't enact laws - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
The end result - rescue organizations will now have to refuse to accept his aid if they are aware that his operation of drones is in violation of FAA regulations. Consider the extreme edge case - can a rescuer use illicit drugs donated by a drug dealer to treat an injured subject in the field? Even in the absence of lawfully acceptable options, using illicit drugs would be illegal even if it relieved a victim's suffering and caused no harm, even if it saved lives. I personally would admire and support the moral and ethical decision to take such action, but law and regulation have to do with justice and control, not fairness or right and wrong.
Incidentally, this also applies to sport/recreational pilots. You want to fly your one-man light sports plane to provide unpaid support of a rescue operation? You're may be violating FAA regulations, and you may even become an impediment to others who operate within the guidelines. It also applies to private pilots. You want to fly your privately-owned Cessna 172G to provide support of a rescue operation? Same case. You may be violating FAA regulation. I'm not going to argue the wisdom of this condition, I'm merely pointing out what the condition is.
US law and FAA regulation have this in common - the ends cannot justify the means under either system - and in both cases, attempting to do otherwise will put an individual in direct conflict with a large, powerful government entity. Certainly better to document cases where such assistance might reasonably have been expected to produce a desirable result and work to correct that problem. It's a long way from an ideal solution, but it seems likely to me in my personal opinion (enough qualification there?) to be the fastest and most effective way to permanently and correctly fix the problem.
I have many non-technically gifted friends. I've heard at least two of them state "XP is great - I can make it do whatever I want, better than any other version of Windows." Even among my (non-techie) friends, the prevalent attitude is "Why should I upgrade?" - several have made it clear to me that they don't care if their machines are botted, as long as their games run okay. As non-techies, they insist that they're not at risk for identity theft, often saying "I don't do banking/online shopping/anything involving money or credit", and in general refuse to change their minds (and yes - when I failed, I've tried bringing in other technically aware people to try their hand at convincing them. I only convinced my wife by force, not a very good way to go).
What makes XP so great to them? The ease with which software may be installed and configured. The stability of the platform to play Grand Theft Auto, et. al. What makes XP so terrible to technically knowledgeable people? The ease with which software may be installed and configured. The stability of the platform to provide elevated privileges and get an open connection on port 113 and run Sasser, et. al.
Two factors - first, does prejudice apply, or was the conviction vacated without prejudice?
Second - charges brought in New Jersey don't have any bearing on charges brought in California/Arkansas/(anywhere but New Jersey)? Different state, different state laws being applied, different crime being alleged. I doubt that the charges in California would specifically be about the 4,500 New Jersey residents whose personal information was compromised. If necessary, they could simply exclude that evidence as not pertinent to their case and proceed with charges based on all the remaining evidence. Seems ridiculous, but much of US law is like that - swallowing camels whole but straining to swallow gnats is the expression I read somewhere once.
The implication I've drawn from recent theories is that the Universe is finite in both age and size; but the "bulk" in which our Universe resides isn't.
Not sure I understand why we even call it a Universe anymore - if it exists inside of something else, isn't "Universe" a misnomer?
I believe at least one quantum theory suggests that the universe is contstantly disappearing and re-forming. It only appears to form a continuous existence because the most probably universe in any given instant tends to be almost identical to the one which came before it.
(I've probably described this very poorly - IANAC, IANAP, IANAL, etc.)
If you are employed, the AHCA simply prevented a bunch of liars from selling you expensive wallpaper and pretending it was healthcare.
Huh? I haven't always been unemployed - and I have received medical care while employed and privately insured, without incurring debts I couldn't pay. That is no longer true.
Given a choice between believing what you post and my personal experience, I think I'm going to trust my personal experience. Of course, it could be the way it's implemented here in the state of Washington - but that's irrelevant. The Affordable Health Care Act is the underlying cause of my current inability to access health care without incurring debts which I currently cannot pay. What was once accessible to me is no longer so.
Yes, I checked. I really love/., where anybody with a keyboard can feel free to tell me that my personal experience either never happened, isn't happening, and/or never was like I personally experienced or am currently experiencing it. Between posters here and my personal experience, I think I'll trust my personal experience.
At the end of the day, all I know is that under the Affordable Health Care Act I have no access to medical care unless I'm prepared to accept and cover both a large deductable and a significant portion of the overall bill. I suppose that being between jobs right now, I shouldn't worry bills I can't pay and money I don't have, but I'm not planning to remain unemployed and broke forever.
I got health care by going to a hospital. Medicare paid for it.
If the same thing happens to me today, you're right. I'll be on the hook for a $5,200 deductable plus a considerably higher balance of unpaid expenses (the "walletectomy" you described.
Lacking $5k now means incurring unpaid debt - and that's only for the deductable. Further medical expenses will not be fully paid - in fact, I could reasonable expect to incur considerably more debt should I suffer an injury like that which I suffered in the nineties. It's not just the deductable, it's the number of riders and exceptions on the "free" health care plan. Hell, I'm already getting billed $100 for the supposedly "covered" annual physical I just underwent.
Beyond that, there's the impact on my credit rating. A poor credit rating can even be cited as a reason for not hiring a person, making it doubly hard to overcome.
Oh, well - a cane is a reasonably cheap object. I could even make one myself for free, if needed.
Slashdot Mirror
We used to be These United States.
That such regulations tend to carry the force of law is irrelevant.
This isn't the IRS. It's the FAA. Their bat, their ball, their rules.
The end result - rescue organizations will now have to refuse to accept his aid if they are aware that his operation of drones is in violation of FAA regulations. Consider the extreme edge case - can a rescuer use illicit drugs donated by a drug dealer to treat an injured subject in the field? Even in the absence of lawfully acceptable options, using illicit drugs would be illegal even if it relieved a victim's suffering and caused no harm, even if it saved lives. I personally would admire and support the moral and ethical decision to take such action, but law and regulation have to do with justice and control, not fairness or right and wrong.
Incidentally, this also applies to sport/recreational pilots. You want to fly your one-man light sports plane to provide unpaid support of a rescue operation? You're may be violating FAA regulations, and you may even become an impediment to others who operate within the guidelines. It also applies to private pilots. You want to fly your privately-owned Cessna 172G to provide support of a rescue operation? Same case. You may be violating FAA regulation. I'm not going to argue the wisdom of this condition, I'm merely pointing out what the condition is.
US law and FAA regulation have this in common - the ends cannot justify the means under either system - and in both cases, attempting to do otherwise will put an individual in direct conflict with a large, powerful government entity. Certainly better to document cases where such assistance might reasonably have been expected to produce a desirable result and work to correct that problem. It's a long way from an ideal solution, but it seems likely to me in my personal opinion (enough qualification there?) to be the fastest and most effective way to permanently and correctly fix the problem.
He's trying to avoid being led to the slaughter. Not sheeplike, IMHO.
What makes XP so great to them? The ease with which software may be installed and configured. The stability of the platform to play Grand Theft Auto, et. al. What makes XP so terrible to technically knowledgeable people? The ease with which software may be installed and configured. The stability of the platform to provide elevated privileges and get an open connection on port 113 and run Sasser, et. al.
(n/t)
Thank you.
Until somebody managed to get the sentence vacated with prejudice.
Second - charges brought in New Jersey don't have any bearing on charges brought in California/Arkansas/(anywhere but New Jersey)? Different state, different state laws being applied, different crime being alleged. I doubt that the charges in California would specifically be about the 4,500 New Jersey residents whose personal information was compromised. If necessary, they could simply exclude that evidence as not pertinent to their case and proceed with charges based on all the remaining evidence. Seems ridiculous, but much of US law is like that - swallowing camels whole but straining to swallow gnats is the expression I read somewhere once.
Agreed - A/C's all look like they're at -1 to me anyhow . . .
He didn't say it never happens. He said it isn't a good enough reason for it to happen.
The insecure media are still out there. No redacting that (unless it's on the web, of course; that's even worse.
Not sure I understand why we even call it a Universe anymore - if it exists inside of something else, isn't "Universe" a misnomer?
Why'd you post as A/C? Your post was eloquent, elegant and well thought-out.
(I've probably described this very poorly - IANAC, IANAP, IANAL, etc.)
Here you go.
Huh? I haven't always been unemployed - and I have received medical care while employed and privately insured, without incurring debts I couldn't pay. That is no longer true.
Given a choice between believing what you post and my personal experience, I think I'm going to trust my personal experience. Of course, it could be the way it's implemented here in the state of Washington - but that's irrelevant. The Affordable Health Care Act is the underlying cause of my current inability to access health care without incurring debts which I currently cannot pay. What was once accessible to me is no longer so.
At the end of the day, all I know is that under the Affordable Health Care Act I have no access to medical care unless I'm prepared to accept and cover both a large deductable and a significant portion of the overall bill. I suppose that being between jobs right now, I shouldn't worry bills I can't pay and money I don't have, but I'm not planning to remain unemployed and broke forever.
I got health care by going to a hospital. Medicare paid for it.
If the same thing happens to me today, you're right. I'll be on the hook for a $5,200 deductable plus a considerably higher balance of unpaid expenses (the "walletectomy" you described.
Sorry - I mean't under the Affordable Health Care Act. I figured /.'ers would be able to handle an acronym.
Precisely my point.
More than I have.
Beyond that, there's the impact on my credit rating. A poor credit rating can even be cited as a reason for not hiring a person, making it doubly hard to overcome.
Oh, well - a cane is a reasonably cheap object. I could even make one myself for free, if needed.
We're very proud here. We have the best government that money can buy!