Argumentative? How? I started out responding to the original, story post with a slight mention to another poster. I stated my viewpoint outside almost any other input so who was I arguing with? Perhaps you don't see logical thought, but I actually had been thinking about this for a little while, not just shoot from the hip spewing of fluff.
You rip my post, but don't rebuff it. You don't come back with points against my view, you only attack me so in that, you are more the blank, superficial post that we typically see on/. these days. Take me to task on my points, discuss with me why my view is wrong, but don't attack my character without some substance.
I'm intrigued, but not enough to still sit through 2 hours of weak plot. if the uber rich have all this capability then why would they ever have any need for contact with Earth. Their systems then treat it like an asteroid, a hostile environment with strict isolation guidelines. The summary indicates there is some interaction with humans on Earth and that is where this falls flat.
I'll think big for a moment and posit that in 150 years we have AI, semi-autonomous robots that do menial things for system maintenance. Can they cook, clean a living quarters? At what level do the rich have to work? There has to be a lower class on that platform and it has to be replaceable and that is why the whole story falls flat. Asimov wrote a book (off the I, Robot series) of a planet where Robots did everything, but the people were so isolated from their own humanity they had little to no contact with other humans. Given an Elysium you describe why would the people of Elysium ever need human contact with Earth.
As a story this movie has little to offer. As a thought experiment on what technology is needed to make such a space platform, interesting.
you're kidding, right? That happens on./ all the time. Yes, I did base it on the trailers, a couple of reviews, and my own viewpoint of the feasibility. I'm not the only one to project the say basic ideas of why it wont work. There have not been too many points on the viability of it happening any time soon.
There was a STOS show about a cloud city that abused the "earth dwellers" while they lived in good comfort. So from the start, this is not a new idea by Hollywood. At least in the original show there was a symbiotic relationship that had the Cloud people needing those on the ground and vice versa. In my reading, the world where Elysium exists, there is no co-dependencies. Those above have such technology that they can exist without the need of those on Earth (if they so chose to use their technology in that manner). Automated guards can be automated resource gatherers, rendering anything people on do moot. Yes, I rip the premise apart for the reason it is presented as a SciFi genre when iit should be viewed like Star Wars, Science Fantasy or Space Opera. It is Battleship, hokie and predictable. That from reviews, but yes, also what I saw in 2 minutes.
Like intermodal, I'll go with "No", but add a bit more.
First the basic premise that we "wreck/destroy/damage" the earth to the point where rich folk want to get off is pretty far fetched. I agree with the concept of climate change and I feel that humans have a nasty habit of pooping in their own house, but the Earth is a pretty large house. Given the resources to build a space station the size of Elysium it would be less expensive to carve out an area of land on earth and make it more habitable. Building a dome(s) over large areas of land is more plausible then Elysium.
If the earth is so wrecked/damaged/destroyed (and I have not seen nor will I see this movie), how are all those people still living on earth. From the trailer's I see damaged buildings, but breathable atmosphere. I see over turned cars, but sunlight and the few quick shots from orbit I see clouds and clear areas so that means rain. If the planet is toxic then the population would eventually die. If not then the population would die off to a level that allows for survival, then growth, then ultimately revenge. How does Elysium get supplied? If from Earth then it would not be that difficult to shut down launch facilities (lots of people still live on Earth I presume) thus eventually requiring the Orbitors to need to negotiate with those on the planet. if those in orbit don't need Eath then why not just commit genocide for any group put under the whip will eventually rise up angry.
Who builds this thing? It is not small so construction would take a large amount of human resources and the rich folk would (1) have to pay them (2) make up a story about how everyone working on the place will get to stay (3) be so united that not one hint of deception would get out. If it did, I figure construction would quickly stop. Rich people may be good at massaging money, but I doubt they have the requisite skills to perform orbital construction or the other countless jobs it takes to build Elysium. Along with that idea, once built, who maintains the place. Rich folk? Hardly for they still need waste/garbage disposal. They need life support crews to ensure air and water keep flowing and they need cleaning crews for all those mansions and quaffed grounds. It is not hard to imagine that at some point the "lower class" on the station will not like what they see going on on Earth and do something to make a change. On Earth, control the resources is hard but doable, on a station is is much easier to commit sabotage and compromise delicate systems.
If the rich folk have that much money, power, and high tech capability to create Elysium, why wait for the crash of Earth, but sue their skills to repair, then take over Earth. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. By isolating themselves on Elysium they actually make themselves more vulnerable then by being spread out on earth, manipulating and using the population to their own ends (kind of like today). Even better, keep the masses fat and happy and you would either not have need for an escape station, or you'll get long lines of people wanting to build the station, but stay on Earth.
tl;dr The premise is quite unbelievable, I dare say it is not really science fiction, more like the current trend of Hollywood to create action adventure in space, so they throw in CGI and space to make it seem different from the large number of films that have underdeveloped plots, weak characters, and forgettable eye candy.
Could we build it? Sure, but I'd rather hold out for a Ring World.
For a headline, what would be the right question? After reading the wiki bit on Betteridge's law it seems that almost any headline question is good only for trolling. however, I'll take the high road of seeing this as a vaild starting point for a/. discussion.
I took a look at this then pondered, why is it for free? TANSTAASFL. Given the security conversations these days it is not hard to imagine a company giving away "free" certificates with the string being a way for it to be used by a government agency (I don't know a lot about certs). I guess I can just ask them, but would it be so hard to state why they can give away something that other people seems to pay for? btw, I read the why choose comodo, but it does not explain we we doe this. Is it just drug pusher style marketing to later get you hooked and then "gee dude, sorry, I'm going to ahve to charge you now, we changed the program and "free wont work any more". I'm curious to try this out, but have questions.
Eminent Domain comes to mind to solve property issues. Seems to be working for the Keystone pipeline companies. There is a value in upgrading rail travel to the 21st Century, but it will take a better partnership between Government's ability to build infrastructure and private sector's ability to exploit a structure.
The core issue I see with trains is that the "road" and transportation mode are created by the companies, causing inefficiencies in the system. Imagine if air travel was run the same, or ground transportation. Airlines do not need to worry about flow control (other then pushing it for profit), Truck Freight companies don't worry about road maintenance, instead focusing on scheduling and delivery. Only in Railroad do you have infrastructure and operation under one roof.
What I'd see is having the Government be the focus of managing the Infrastructure of rail (tracks, paths, standards, regulations, flow) and open up competition to companies for the ability to use the system for freight or passenger. In short, rail should not be the exclusive use of one or two transportation companies, but be available to anyone who thinks they can run a train service.
There you go. Why back down when it was close to completion. Sure, adjust it later, but the NSA had to have some mojo on Utah politicians to get thm to change a tax law they all voted for.
In some other universe that could be called stealing....
Perhaps the lesson here is when local governments make deals like this they put into the contract a payback clause if the company pulls out. Duke made Billions on this deal and has no requirement to remit for lack of services rendered?
I believe he said "Corporations and their funds". Certain a CEO is a private citizen and can do what he/she will with their own money. Perhaps the point is that it is not right for a CEO to use the power and profit of a Corporation to influence votes. If they can pull millions of dollars out of their own (deep) pockets then fine, though they do run up against campaign finance laws. Corporations can now contribute with no caps and thus play a huge part in how a campaign plays out.
Completely off topic, but I was curious about the link in your sig so I clicked on it and it took me to a seemingly old site for a interesting space game. Is that still viable because I saw this "The page you requested could not be found. Perhaps it was attacked by a thargoid?" though I could link to download. Looks like fun (not that I have time).
To your comment, I am also a Private Pilot who started out with MSFS (4.0), but progressed into the real thing. Turns out the real thing was very expensive and not something I could maintain safely so I faded back into FS and now pour money into my horses. Some folks like the idea of a simulator so they don't have to have all the "formal" training and if you screw up, its not a one shot deal. Thus a game where you, I, and others found that it was more then a game and took it to the next level.
And for gods sake, most importantly, absolutely none of this should have been known by any law enforcement agency because they had no probable cause to start an investigation in the first place. There is a serious problem when everyone American citizen's internet activity and travel history are being constantly monitored.
This!!
The OP's statement "So you honestly think that no-one at all should pay attention to a person who:" misses the point. How would the Feds know that anyone is making this type of search unless they are monitoring in real time everyone's traffic. Were these people on a watchlist? Were they suspects in an ongoing investigation? Perhaps in the conversation with the "guests" the couple could ask, how did you know what we were doing? The answer could be fascinating. Perhaps their lawyer could ask Google how they were brought to the attention of the feds.
Time and time again people use the "I got nothing to hide" defense like they can trust the Government when time and time again the Government shows its self to be anything but trustworthy.
I found this in Wiki. Your question posed one of my own which was this, is a letter, a paper correspondence covered by the 4th. It would seem so by a ruling from the SCOTUS:
No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution.[4]
Now you raised a side thought which related to companies like FedEx, UPS, et al. If I send a package via a private (meaning public) company, not the Postal Service, is it too covered under the 4th. I could not find anything specific, but it would seem to cover them as well.
So we have an expectation of privacy with paper mail such that no one can open the envelope and read the contents without a warrant. Since the Court ruling was back in 1877 I don't think email's were known, but I'd argue that that the same rules apply. Mail is delivered in commercial transport objects, handled at times by private citizens so from the moment a letter leaves my hand, the expectation of privacy is held throughout no matter the transport process.
Just because an email goes through "public" routers does not mean I should lose an expectation of privacy. If digital was my only means to communicate does that mean I lose all rights to privacy or does it mean that the existing interpretation of 4th needs to be adjusted for current delivery means.*
Also at issue is the capturing of "meta-data" on people who have no connection with anything, the drag net approach. I would be uncomfortable if it was known that the Postal Service was recording the addresses of everyone I send a letter too. I accept that UPS and FedEx have from/to addresses, but the expectation there is that that data is private and not subject to search without reason (or my consent). It is beholding to the Government to prove why they need to watch a specific person. It should not be in their right to track everyone with the ability to mine the data at a later time. So it seems clear to me that if they were collecting information about American Citizens that had nothing to do with any terrorist activities or people, they were violating their rights.
I accept that we need to investigate bad guys. We need to gather information on bad guys which is why I would support actions by our three letter agencies when they prove the reason for such an act and obtain a warrant that can be reviewed and challenged at a later date. Being "secret" about a warrant before arrest is one thing, but being secret after is wrong. Being secret about capturing everyone's data without due cause is just bad.
* according to the NSA, if you encrypt you become suspicious. So your phrase about "in the clear" is spurious. When I write a letter in English and put it into a mail box I am sending it "in the clear". The point of a wiretap is to ensure that people who put a tap on a line are watched over by the Law. If they did not get permission then they should not be reading it and thus they have committed a crime. That is the law the NSA broke (IMHO)
No, it would not be obvious. Just take a look at Guantanamo as an example of how our American Justice can be abused. Once in custody he could be labeled an enemy combatant and hauled off to some dark hole. He is not a soldier in the US Military, thus us not even provided the limited protections Manning received and look how he was treated.
You are naive to think that the Justice department would allow any public trial to take place. Were Mr. Snowden to return to this country, he may not die (right away), but he will be buried. So far he has not lied about his stated facts, he has limited release to general programs, not specific items, and he has attempted to remind our politicians that they took an oath to defend the Constitution. What I am seeing right now are rats defending their piece of cheese.
Do you seriously believe this or am I biting on a troll. He did this for his ego? His life is over. What ever happens down the road he went from being an unknown analyst in a quasi-secret agency, living in a great location with a girlfriend and supportive family to a wanted man with a target on his back. He now gets to live in airports or secretive homes where his travel is limited. He can't work, he may be able to live in a country where he'll go back to being a nobody with little to show for his actions. He will never be able to enter the Country of his birth again (unless pardoned), potentially never see his family again. He will never get rid of the taint of the word "traitor" attached to his name, even if pardoned....and you say he did this for and because of his ego?
You are a tool.
What Snowden did was expose the actions of an agency that had no scruples in stomping on the Constitution. He also exposed the true colors of our Congress by their lack of even indignation at the NSA for not only subverting the 4th, but also out-right lying to them. If you want to talk about ego, how about the guy who sits in front of Congress and says "Hey everybody, I AM the NSA and we don't lie". Correction, that's not only ego, that is contempt.
While I would not give Mr. Snowden a parade, I would not call him a traitor. He was an average citizen who, upon discovering laws were being violated, made a decision to take a courageous, life altering act. I would not trust the USA to provide a fair trial or fair treatment to this man for nothing resembling reasonable is coming out of Washington DC these days.
Is there any Value Add to them
on
FAA OKs US UAVs
·
· Score: 0
What I am trying to understand is the rational for using UAV on US soil versus standard aircraft. It still requires a pilot even if the pilot is sitting in an office. The plane still has the same general costs so where is the savings? If we are talking programmed drones with no human connection, that is just scary.
I can see a UAV for flying into hostile territory, thus the military bent to using them and saving pilot lives, but on domestic soil I do not see what a drone or UAV can do that cannot be done with a GA type aircraft. From Gyro-Coptors, to balloons, to ultra-lights, helicopters, and finally to fixed wing it seems that we got the skies covered for everything from S&R (CAP does a great job assisting local/state groups), survey, and yes even surveillance. Like another/.er stated, an aircraft can sit pretty far away and still take close ups. These vehicles have similar fuel constraints so no gains in longer survey times and I'd rather have a human eye looking for me, not a camera.
I love RC aircraft as a hobby and some of the large planes are bigger then one of the planes mentioned though so will the FAA start to allow RC hobbyists the opportunity to DIY their own UAV for fun? For me, I do not see a need for UAVs other then the weak excuse to send it into harms way.
shhhh....American Idol is just about to come on, can I answer this later on?
I guess that means we have more in common with Australia then we thought....
Homeless people can demand three squares a day or sue the Government for human rights violations...
Perhaps ask the President why he thinks we are all criminals...oh wait, that would require reporters, we don't have them anymore
Make a lawyer really really happy by hiring him or her to file a class action suit in civil court, oh damn, the lawyer is a criminal as well
Wait, if the NSA was then collecting data on the President that makes him a criminal and thus could be impeached accept we just nullified Congress since they are all criminals...
I agree overall, but quibble on one point. 3.8 NM at 140 Kts may be minutes from threshold, but 600' above ground is cause for concern. The are still descending at @ 500 fpm which would indicate if they continued the current FP they would land in the water within a minute. At 600' above sea level there is still a reaction time to factor in (hey OMG WTF) as power is applied (first I hope) then pitch is changed to stop descent. At that point they may be even closer to the water (400' even) and that is not where you want a major airliner 2 miles from the runway.
Sensational reporting? Of course for this is/. after all. Non-issue? I don't think so for not only does it reflect an issue with pilot training, it also can shine a light on changes that could be made to limit future incidents. As a long time inactive pilot I don't want to judge these specific pilots, but my brother is a heavy Jet Captain and hes' mentioned to me on a number of occasions that the younger pilots do not have as much skill *flying* the airplane as they do managing the systems that fly the airplane. In asking one to manually land a DC-8 in generally benign conditions the FO was not very comfortable with the task.
The occupy movement failed for two reasons, (1) no clear message, (2) location. The only thing uniting folks in OWS was a hate for Wall street, not a real desire for change, reform, or justice. It quickly dissolved into small factions vying for their own sub issue. "Yeah we hate Wall street, but pay attention to our issue first". it also did not help to do stupid things like the human megaphone bit. It was lame and killed the message, because it took to long to get any point across. The civil rights movement worked, because MLK united Blacks under one goal, civil/equal rights for all people. it was not a Us Them, but a Everyone, *including Us* which is a stronger message.
Location also made difference. OWS needed to do one of two things, march/locate in NYC or better would have been in DC. They did not need to be in Oakland, LA, or whereever. That diluted the idea of strength in numbers. It is pretty damn hard to make 100,000 people move versus a few 100. The other issue I saw (in part because of location) was the OWS movement got hyjacked by more violent fringe groups that created a escalating force issue. Again I think about a moment with Gandhi when he leads a march against a British Company. Even as peopel are beaten the protesters move forward in non-violent action. Yes it was a movie scene, but given this quote I feel it may have been fairly accurate:
I have drawn the distinction between passive resistance as understood and practised in the West and satyagraha before I had evolved the doctrine of the latter to its full logical and spiritual extent. I often used “passive resistance” and “satyagraha” as synonymous terms: but as the doctrine of satyagraha developed, the expression “passive resistance” ceases even to be synonymous, as passive resistance has admitted of violence as in the case of the suffragettes and has been universally acknowledged to be a weapon of the weak. Moreover, passive resistance does not necessarily involve complete adherence to truth under every circumstance. Therefore it is different from satyagraha in three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatsoever; and it ever insists upon truth. I think I have now made the distinction perfectly clear."[8]
if a 100,000 people don't pay taxes then that is just a normal day at the IRS, if people stop their cars for a day around the country (it is a big place) then it is considered a traffic jam, neither gain support. If 100K, 200K travel to the nations capital, and not just perform passive non-violence, but perform Gandhi's satyagraha then there may be more opportunity for change.
At this point even I am getting disillusioned that our votes can make a difference. At least in the quiet sense of waiting to go to the booth every two years. What is needed is a cause the greater people can believe in, both progressives and conservatives. What that is I don't know, but our Congress is unwittingly added fuel to the fire pile. A pile just waiting for a match and a strong leader to light it.
I agree with your premise, but why must it be a large violent crowd to force change. Take the same 100,000 people, have them march on Washington demanding change and then stay there...like a st-in on a large scale. This worked for Gandhi, it worked for King, as I remember it worked for some during the Arab Spring. In part I feel it worked, because the message was clear and to the point. Once it fractures into competing wants then the power if deflated.
The best revolution for the United States today is to create our own Tarir Square in the Mall and keep it going till there is real change. Any act of overt violence will certainly result in your scenario (which really calls into question the validity of the 2nd Amendment in today's world. A well regulated militia will get its ass handed to it by a well maintain standing Army. I doubt the Government fears for armed insurrection. What it does fear is an enlightened populous standing strong in unarmed defiance). Non-violent protest seems to only come from conditions of extreme oppression and a leader not interested in personal gain/glory, but in the greater good of the oppressed.
And while they did not point it out, they still had a compass somewhere on the panel. Lucky to get that view. Just once I had a chance to sit up front in a DC-8 and it was amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
Argumentative? How? I started out responding to the original, story post with a slight mention to another poster. I stated my viewpoint outside almost any other input so who was I arguing with? Perhaps you don't see logical thought, but I actually had been thinking about this for a little while, not just shoot from the hip spewing of fluff.
You rip my post, but don't rebuff it. You don't come back with points against my view, you only attack me so in that, you are more the blank, superficial post that we typically see on /. these days. Take me to task on my points, discuss with me why my view is wrong, but don't attack my character without some substance.
I'm intrigued, but not enough to still sit through 2 hours of weak plot. if the uber rich have all this capability then why would they ever have any need for contact with Earth. Their systems then treat it like an asteroid, a hostile environment with strict isolation guidelines. The summary indicates there is some interaction with humans on Earth and that is where this falls flat.
I'll think big for a moment and posit that in 150 years we have AI, semi-autonomous robots that do menial things for system maintenance. Can they cook, clean a living quarters? At what level do the rich have to work? There has to be a lower class on that platform and it has to be replaceable and that is why the whole story falls flat. Asimov wrote a book (off the I, Robot series) of a planet where Robots did everything, but the people were so isolated from their own humanity they had little to no contact with other humans. Given an Elysium you describe why would the people of Elysium ever need human contact with Earth.
As a story this movie has little to offer. As a thought experiment on what technology is needed to make such a space platform, interesting.
you're kidding, right? That happens on ./ all the time. Yes, I did base it on the trailers, a couple of reviews, and my own viewpoint of the feasibility. I'm not the only one to project the say basic ideas of why it wont work. There have not been too many points on the viability of it happening any time soon.
There was a STOS show about a cloud city that abused the "earth dwellers" while they lived in good comfort. So from the start, this is not a new idea by Hollywood. At least in the original show there was a symbiotic relationship that had the Cloud people needing those on the ground and vice versa. In my reading, the world where Elysium exists, there is no co-dependencies. Those above have such technology that they can exist without the need of those on Earth (if they so chose to use their technology in that manner). Automated guards can be automated resource gatherers, rendering anything people on do moot. Yes, I rip the premise apart for the reason it is presented as a SciFi genre when iit should be viewed like Star Wars, Science Fantasy or Space Opera. It is Battleship, hokie and predictable. That from reviews, but yes, also what I saw in 2 minutes.
Like intermodal, I'll go with "No", but add a bit more.
First the basic premise that we "wreck/destroy/damage" the earth to the point where rich folk want to get off is pretty far fetched. I agree with the concept of climate change and I feel that humans have a nasty habit of pooping in their own house, but the Earth is a pretty large house. Given the resources to build a space station the size of Elysium it would be less expensive to carve out an area of land on earth and make it more habitable. Building a dome(s) over large areas of land is more plausible then Elysium.
If the earth is so wrecked/damaged/destroyed (and I have not seen nor will I see this movie), how are all those people still living on earth. From the trailer's I see damaged buildings, but breathable atmosphere. I see over turned cars, but sunlight and the few quick shots from orbit I see clouds and clear areas so that means rain. If the planet is toxic then the population would eventually die. If not then the population would die off to a level that allows for survival, then growth, then ultimately revenge. How does Elysium get supplied? If from Earth then it would not be that difficult to shut down launch facilities (lots of people still live on Earth I presume) thus eventually requiring the Orbitors to need to negotiate with those on the planet. if those in orbit don't need Eath then why not just commit genocide for any group put under the whip will eventually rise up angry.
Who builds this thing? It is not small so construction would take a large amount of human resources and the rich folk would (1) have to pay them (2) make up a story about how everyone working on the place will get to stay (3) be so united that not one hint of deception would get out. If it did, I figure construction would quickly stop. Rich people may be good at massaging money, but I doubt they have the requisite skills to perform orbital construction or the other countless jobs it takes to build Elysium. Along with that idea, once built, who maintains the place. Rich folk? Hardly for they still need waste/garbage disposal. They need life support crews to ensure air and water keep flowing and they need cleaning crews for all those mansions and quaffed grounds. It is not hard to imagine that at some point the "lower class" on the station will not like what they see going on on Earth and do something to make a change. On Earth, control the resources is hard but doable, on a station is is much easier to commit sabotage and compromise delicate systems.
If the rich folk have that much money, power, and high tech capability to create Elysium, why wait for the crash of Earth, but sue their skills to repair, then take over Earth. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. By isolating themselves on Elysium they actually make themselves more vulnerable then by being spread out on earth, manipulating and using the population to their own ends (kind of like today). Even better, keep the masses fat and happy and you would either not have need for an escape station, or you'll get long lines of people wanting to build the station, but stay on Earth.
tl;dr The premise is quite unbelievable, I dare say it is not really science fiction, more like the current trend of Hollywood to create action adventure in space, so they throw in CGI and space to make it seem different from the large number of films that have underdeveloped plots, weak characters, and forgettable eye candy.
Could we build it? Sure, but I'd rather hold out for a Ring World.
For a headline, what would be the right question? After reading the wiki bit on Betteridge's law it seems that almost any headline question is good only for trolling. however, I'll take the high road of seeing this as a vaild starting point for a /. discussion.
who is the author? Sounds like a good read and google have too many 'fallen angel' books to pick through.
I took a look at this then pondered, why is it for free? TANSTAASFL. Given the security conversations these days it is not hard to imagine a company giving away "free" certificates with the string being a way for it to be used by a government agency (I don't know a lot about certs). I guess I can just ask them, but would it be so hard to state why they can give away something that other people seems to pay for? btw, I read the why choose comodo, but it does not explain we we doe this. Is it just drug pusher style marketing to later get you hooked and then "gee dude, sorry, I'm going to ahve to charge you now, we changed the program and "free wont work any more". I'm curious to try this out, but have questions.
I'll be happy to tell you after I've received payment.
Eminent Domain comes to mind to solve property issues. Seems to be working for the Keystone pipeline companies. There is a value in upgrading rail travel to the 21st Century, but it will take a better partnership between Government's ability to build infrastructure and private sector's ability to exploit a structure.
The core issue I see with trains is that the "road" and transportation mode are created by the companies, causing inefficiencies in the system. Imagine if air travel was run the same, or ground transportation. Airlines do not need to worry about flow control (other then pushing it for profit), Truck Freight companies don't worry about road maintenance, instead focusing on scheduling and delivery. Only in Railroad do you have infrastructure and operation under one roof.
What I'd see is having the Government be the focus of managing the Infrastructure of rail (tracks, paths, standards, regulations, flow) and open up competition to companies for the ability to use the system for freight or passenger. In short, rail should not be the exclusive use of one or two transportation companies, but be available to anyone who thinks they can run a train service.
Washington DC?
There you go. Why back down when it was close to completion. Sure, adjust it later, but the NSA had to have some mojo on Utah politicians to get thm to change a tax law they all voted for.
In some other universe that could be called stealing....
Perhaps the lesson here is when local governments make deals like this they put into the contract a payback clause if the company pulls out. Duke made Billions on this deal and has no requirement to remit for lack of services rendered?
Amerika, what a country :-/
or we could look at it this way
Dim Character as new Moderator
Dim Post as new Message
if Character.GetType().Name = global.LEFTISH_LIBERAL_WORLD_VIEW then
Post.Mod += 1
else
Post.Mod -= 1
end if
Post.Update
Character.Dispose()
I've now blinded the eyes of most the /.'ers here (if they can even read it).
I believe he said "Corporations and their funds". Certain a CEO is a private citizen and can do what he/she will with their own money. Perhaps the point is that it is not right for a CEO to use the power and profit of a Corporation to influence votes. If they can pull millions of dollars out of their own (deep) pockets then fine, though they do run up against campaign finance laws. Corporations can now contribute with no caps and thus play a huge part in how a campaign plays out.
Completely off topic, but I was curious about the link in your sig so I clicked on it and it took me to a seemingly old site for a interesting space game. Is that still viable because I saw this "The page you requested could not be found. Perhaps it was attacked by a thargoid?" though I could link to download. Looks like fun (not that I have time).
To your comment, I am also a Private Pilot who started out with MSFS (4.0), but progressed into the real thing. Turns out the real thing was very expensive and not something I could maintain safely so I faded back into FS and now pour money into my horses. Some folks like the idea of a simulator so they don't have to have all the "formal" training and if you screw up, its not a one shot deal. Thus a game where you, I, and others found that it was more then a game and took it to the next level.
And for gods sake, most importantly, absolutely none of this should have been known by any law enforcement agency because they had no probable cause to start an investigation in the first place. There is a serious problem when everyone American citizen's internet activity and travel history are being constantly monitored.
This!!
The OP's statement "So you honestly think that no-one at all should pay attention to a person who:" misses the point. How would the Feds know that anyone is making this type of search unless they are monitoring in real time everyone's traffic. Were these people on a watchlist? Were they suspects in an ongoing investigation? Perhaps in the conversation with the "guests" the couple could ask, how did you know what we were doing? The answer could be fascinating. Perhaps their lawyer could ask Google how they were brought to the attention of the feds.
Time and time again people use the "I got nothing to hide" defense like they can trust the Government when time and time again the Government shows its self to be anything but trustworthy.
I found this in Wiki. Your question posed one of my own which was this, is a letter, a paper correspondence covered by the 4th. It would seem so by a ruling from the SCOTUS:
No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution.[4]
Now you raised a side thought which related to companies like FedEx, UPS, et al. If I send a package via a private (meaning public) company, not the Postal Service, is it too covered under the 4th. I could not find anything specific, but it would seem to cover them as well.
So we have an expectation of privacy with paper mail such that no one can open the envelope and read the contents without a warrant. Since the Court ruling was back in 1877 I don't think email's were known, but I'd argue that that the same rules apply. Mail is delivered in commercial transport objects, handled at times by private citizens so from the moment a letter leaves my hand, the expectation of privacy is held throughout no matter the transport process.
Just because an email goes through "public" routers does not mean I should lose an expectation of privacy. If digital was my only means to communicate does that mean I lose all rights to privacy or does it mean that the existing interpretation of 4th needs to be adjusted for current delivery means.*
Also at issue is the capturing of "meta-data" on people who have no connection with anything, the drag net approach. I would be uncomfortable if it was known that the Postal Service was recording the addresses of everyone I send a letter too. I accept that UPS and FedEx have from/to addresses, but the expectation there is that that data is private and not subject to search without reason (or my consent). It is beholding to the Government to prove why they need to watch a specific person. It should not be in their right to track everyone with the ability to mine the data at a later time. So it seems clear to me that if they were collecting information about American Citizens that had nothing to do with any terrorist activities or people, they were violating their rights.
I accept that we need to investigate bad guys. We need to gather information on bad guys which is why I would support actions by our three letter agencies when they prove the reason for such an act and obtain a warrant that can be reviewed and challenged at a later date. Being "secret" about a warrant before arrest is one thing, but being secret after is wrong. Being secret about capturing everyone's data without due cause is just bad.
* according to the NSA, if you encrypt you become suspicious. So your phrase about "in the clear" is spurious. When I write a letter in English and put it into a mail box I am sending it "in the clear". The point of a wiretap is to ensure that people who put a tap on a line are watched over by the Law. If they did not get permission then they should not be reading it and thus they have committed a crime. That is the law the NSA broke (IMHO)
No, it would not be obvious. Just take a look at Guantanamo as an example of how our American Justice can be abused. Once in custody he could be labeled an enemy combatant and hauled off to some dark hole. He is not a soldier in the US Military, thus us not even provided the limited protections Manning received and look how he was treated.
You are naive to think that the Justice department would allow any public trial to take place. Were Mr. Snowden to return to this country, he may not die (right away), but he will be buried. So far he has not lied about his stated facts, he has limited release to general programs, not specific items, and he has attempted to remind our politicians that they took an oath to defend the Constitution. What I am seeing right now are rats defending their piece of cheese.
Do you seriously believe this or am I biting on a troll. He did this for his ego? His life is over. What ever happens down the road he went from being an unknown analyst in a quasi-secret agency, living in a great location with a girlfriend and supportive family to a wanted man with a target on his back. He now gets to live in airports or secretive homes where his travel is limited. He can't work, he may be able to live in a country where he'll go back to being a nobody with little to show for his actions. He will never be able to enter the Country of his birth again (unless pardoned), potentially never see his family again. He will never get rid of the taint of the word "traitor" attached to his name, even if pardoned....and you say he did this for and because of his ego?
You are a tool.
What Snowden did was expose the actions of an agency that had no scruples in stomping on the Constitution. He also exposed the true colors of our Congress by their lack of even indignation at the NSA for not only subverting the 4th, but also out-right lying to them. If you want to talk about ego, how about the guy who sits in front of Congress and says "Hey everybody, I AM the NSA and we don't lie". Correction, that's not only ego, that is contempt.
While I would not give Mr. Snowden a parade, I would not call him a traitor. He was an average citizen who, upon discovering laws were being violated, made a decision to take a courageous, life altering act. I would not trust the USA to provide a fair trial or fair treatment to this man for nothing resembling reasonable is coming out of Washington DC these days.
What I am trying to understand is the rational for using UAV on US soil versus standard aircraft. It still requires a pilot even if the pilot is sitting in an office. The plane still has the same general costs so where is the savings? If we are talking programmed drones with no human connection, that is just scary.
I can see a UAV for flying into hostile territory, thus the military bent to using them and saving pilot lives, but on domestic soil I do not see what a drone or UAV can do that cannot be done with a GA type aircraft. From Gyro-Coptors, to balloons, to ultra-lights, helicopters, and finally to fixed wing it seems that we got the skies covered for everything from S&R (CAP does a great job assisting local/state groups), survey, and yes even surveillance. Like another /.er stated, an aircraft can sit pretty far away and still take close ups. These vehicles have similar fuel constraints so no gains in longer survey times and I'd rather have a human eye looking for me, not a camera.
I love RC aircraft as a hobby and some of the large planes are bigger then one of the planes mentioned though so will the FAA start to allow RC hobbyists the opportunity to DIY their own UAV for fun? For me, I do not see a need for UAVs other then the weak excuse to send it into harms way.
shhhh....American Idol is just about to come on, can I answer this later on?
I guess that means we have more in common with Australia then we thought....
Homeless people can demand three squares a day or sue the Government for human rights violations...
Perhaps ask the President why he thinks we are all criminals...oh wait, that would require reporters, we don't have them anymore
Make a lawyer really really happy by hiring him or her to file a class action suit in civil court, oh damn, the lawyer is a criminal as well
Wait, if the NSA was then collecting data on the President that makes him a criminal and thus could be impeached accept we just nullified Congress since they are all criminals...
man what a mess.
I agree overall, but quibble on one point. 3.8 NM at 140 Kts may be minutes from threshold, but 600' above ground is cause for concern. The are still descending at @ 500 fpm which would indicate if they continued the current FP they would land in the water within a minute. At 600' above sea level there is still a reaction time to factor in (hey OMG WTF) as power is applied (first I hope) then pitch is changed to stop descent. At that point they may be even closer to the water (400' even) and that is not where you want a major airliner 2 miles from the runway.
Sensational reporting? Of course for this is /. after all. Non-issue? I don't think so for not only does it reflect an issue with pilot training, it also can shine a light on changes that could be made to limit future incidents. As a long time inactive pilot I don't want to judge these specific pilots, but my brother is a heavy Jet Captain and hes' mentioned to me on a number of occasions that the younger pilots do not have as much skill *flying* the airplane as they do managing the systems that fly the airplane. In asking one to manually land a DC-8 in generally benign conditions the FO was not very comfortable with the task.
The occupy movement failed for two reasons, (1) no clear message, (2) location. The only thing uniting folks in OWS was a hate for Wall street, not a real desire for change, reform, or justice. It quickly dissolved into small factions vying for their own sub issue. "Yeah we hate Wall street, but pay attention to our issue first". it also did not help to do stupid things like the human megaphone bit. It was lame and killed the message, because it took to long to get any point across. The civil rights movement worked, because MLK united Blacks under one goal, civil/equal rights for all people. it was not a Us Them, but a Everyone, *including Us* which is a stronger message.
Location also made difference. OWS needed to do one of two things, march/locate in NYC or better would have been in DC. They did not need to be in Oakland, LA, or whereever. That diluted the idea of strength in numbers. It is pretty damn hard to make 100,000 people move versus a few 100. The other issue I saw (in part because of location) was the OWS movement got hyjacked by more violent fringe groups that created a escalating force issue. Again I think about a moment with Gandhi when he leads a march against a British Company. Even as peopel are beaten the protesters move forward in non-violent action. Yes it was a movie scene, but given this quote I feel it may have been fairly accurate:
I have drawn the distinction between passive resistance as understood and practised in the West and satyagraha before I had evolved the doctrine of the latter to its full logical and spiritual extent. I often used “passive resistance” and “satyagraha” as synonymous terms: but as the doctrine of satyagraha developed, the expression “passive resistance” ceases even to be synonymous, as passive resistance has admitted of violence as in the case of the suffragettes and has been universally acknowledged to be a weapon of the weak. Moreover, passive resistance does not necessarily involve complete adherence to truth under every circumstance. Therefore it is different from satyagraha in three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatsoever; and it ever insists upon truth. I think I have now made the distinction perfectly clear."[8]
if a 100,000 people don't pay taxes then that is just a normal day at the IRS, if people stop their cars for a day around the country (it is a big place) then it is considered a traffic jam, neither gain support. If 100K, 200K travel to the nations capital, and not just perform passive non-violence, but perform Gandhi's satyagraha then there may be more opportunity for change.
At this point even I am getting disillusioned that our votes can make a difference. At least in the quiet sense of waiting to go to the booth every two years. What is needed is a cause the greater people can believe in, both progressives and conservatives. What that is I don't know, but our Congress is unwittingly added fuel to the fire pile. A pile just waiting for a match and a strong leader to light it.
I agree with your premise, but why must it be a large violent crowd to force change. Take the same 100,000 people, have them march on Washington demanding change and then stay there...like a st-in on a large scale. This worked for Gandhi, it worked for King, as I remember it worked for some during the Arab Spring. In part I feel it worked, because the message was clear and to the point. Once it fractures into competing wants then the power if deflated.
The best revolution for the United States today is to create our own Tarir Square in the Mall and keep it going till there is real change. Any act of overt violence will certainly result in your scenario (which really calls into question the validity of the 2nd Amendment in today's world. A well regulated militia will get its ass handed to it by a well maintain standing Army. I doubt the Government fears for armed insurrection. What it does fear is an enlightened populous standing strong in unarmed defiance). Non-violent protest seems to only come from conditions of extreme oppression and a leader not interested in personal gain/glory, but in the greater good of the oppressed.
And while they did not point it out, they still had a compass somewhere on the panel. Lucky to get that view. Just once I had a chance to sit up front in a DC-8 and it was amazing.