Legal interpretations are a grey area; that's why lawyers get paid big bucks to argue the finer points of such interpretations. Having said that, I'm not sure how one would get the idea that the 4th Amendment only applies if government attempts to use the data it gathered against you. From the original text:
It goes on to say that the government cannot issue a warrant based upon illegally obtained data, but it would seem to me that you would be stretching the 4th Amendment to an absurd degree to claim that the government has the right to conduct a search whenever, wherever and however they want so long as they don't actually attempt to prosecute you based on the information they obtain.
Would anyone with some actual legal education care to chime in on this?
If you want to paint everyone who claims any kind of faith with the same brush, then you are every bit as delusional and ignorant as any racist, as any xenophobe, or as any other bigot who every existed. Are you a white guy? Congratulations, you are guilty of every evil that white people have ever perpetrated against any other minority "until you [personally] do something about those [other white] people". Oh...my mistake, you are of Middle Eastern heritage...can you say 9/11? Are you male? Then you are guilty of every rape, every abuse, every violent or discriminatory act that males have ever perpetrated against women until you do something about men abusing women. American? Guantanamo Bay, Bay of Pigs, Manifest Destiny...I could go on and on and on, but hopefully, you get the picture. See how that works? Prejudice, no matter how you try to justify it or sugar coat it, is IGNORANCE. Pre-judging any member of any group based on the actions of some other member of that group is stupid. Every person deserves to be judged on the basis of their own actions.
In other words, you are every bit as narrow-minded and bigoted as the people you despise. That's fine with me...if you have to look down on others who don't see things the same way you do in order to feel good about yourself, that's not my problem. But don't mistake your own prejudice for wisdom or enlightenment because it most certainly is neither of those things.
Religious people want censorship. The internet's free flow of information is anathema to their shackled minds and irrational fear of truth.
Stereotype much? Yes, there are "religious" people who do -- and have done -- some pretty crappy things throughout history. There are "religious nutcases" who are certainly the "shackled minds" that you mention above. There are also those who claim religious affiliation (for more than purposes of securing a position in a will) who don't fit that mold -- those who are vocal Libertarians, who love science and technology and who abhor censorship. I am one. So are a number of my friends. Kindly refrain from confusing us with those who truly are as bad as you claim, 'kay? Thanks.
Yes. Ron Paul is an anti-constitutionalist, anti-libertarian (he only cares that the federal government is neutered, he loves the idea of the individual states violating peoples rights), a hypocrite, a liar, a theocrat and anti-American traitor.
Really? You think that because he maintains the position that the powers of government not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states, Ron Paul is anti-Constitutionalist, a hypocrite, a liar and a traitor? Even though I can see how you might think that refusing to support a bill that might, in fact, be Libertarian and even good for the country on the basis that it requires the federal government to usurp a power that it does not legally have as being entirely a Bad Thing, I find it consistent with his philosophy of government, and even a Good Thing. There is a mechanism in place to grant power to the federal government that the Constitution does not already grant: it's called a Constitutional amendment. If the law really is that good, pass an amendment. If the amendment doesn't pass, then there's a pretty good chance that the value of the bill has not been adequately established. If the failure to pass such a bill means that individual states pass bad laws, well, at least it's easier to change a local government than a federal one. Furthermore, if a state law truly sucks that bad, it's far easier to move to another state than to another country. Depending upon where you live and where you move to, you might not even have to quit your job to move (even though I would...it's a heck of a commute to Alaska from anywhere else).
Of course, based exclusively upon his (her?) account name. I mean, that's the only rational basis for agreeing or disagreeing with someone, right? After all, objectively the weighing the veracity (or lack thereof) of a person's comments makes no sense whatsoever, right? </sarc>
This seems to be the most ridiculous form of security but mentality of people of this country are all going nutzoid...
So, in other words, because the end results don't match your preconceived notions of how things *should* work, those who say, "This clearly isn't working; let's try something else." are "nutzoid"? As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away." I don't see what's so "nutzoid" about accepting the fact that the only person you can count on to "protect" you is you.
Think it through for a second. Murder is already illegal, so what makes you think that a potential murderer is going to care if it's illegal to bring a handgun to school or the courthouse or...? "Well, gee...I was going to shoot my teacher today, but, well...you're not allowed to bring guns to school, so I decided not to." All you've done by banning concealed weapons at certain places is disarm those who respect the law -- the very ones who might be inclined to intervene.
Yet, despite their rules, TSOs sometimes still prohibit passengers from bringing meds, despite the fact that TSA's regulations say that's okay (disclaimer: TSA officially claims that they allowed the insulin, but not the gel packs to keep it cool; the woman claims otherwise. You decide who is telling the truth).
So then you have to secure everything then the country becomes a prison and basically a non-economy.
Have you been paying attention lately? Google "ViPR train station bus station Tennessee highway" and see what you find. Then, turn to the financial section of your local newspaper and read about how our economy has been doing. Can you honestly tell me that the U.S. isn't already there (or at the very least, quickly heading that direction)?
I almost forgot, but here's the video. It's not a great edit, but it should give you some idea of the capability of the heli. Ignore the paper "flowers" hanging from the ceiling...they were decorations for my step-daughter's baby shower;)
Yeah, with a 105 mile daily commute, this car probably doesn't have enough range for days when you might have extra errands to run, unless you can charge your car while at work (although I suspect not). But as you said, even in your somewhat extreme case, it still might be a viable option most of the time.
Off-topic: 105 miles per day?!?! Times five days a week, I presume? In my truck, that would be roughly $7500 per year, not including maintenance, oil changes, etc. Even on my motorcycle, that's $2600 per year. I'm glad I don't have your gasoline bill!
How many people routinely drive 200-300 miles? That's somewhere between 2 1/2 and 4 hours at highway speeds, depending on the speed limits where you live. In my neck of the woods, 120 miles is a really long commute. Yeah, people sometimes drive cross-country to visit relatives and friends or for business, but that's hardly typical (i.e., day-in, day-out) usage. And if you can afford a high-end luxury sedan, you probably can afford more than one car, so the luxury sedan is your commuter vehicle and you have a conventional vehicle for those other times when you need the ability to go farther.
I'm skeptical that a "Battery Exchange" solution will catch on. How many batteries does it take to power the Model S? Are they easily accessible? How difficult is it to replace them? Is this something that the owner will be able to do, or do you have to wait for the "Battery Exchange" attendant to service your car?
While any moron with even half a brain can top off the gas tank on a conventional car, working with high current batteries is considerably riskier. I once shorted the positive lead on a 24V airplane battery to the frame of the aircraft with a Leatherman...I still have a blob of molten metal on the front of the parka I was wearing at the time (note to self: ALWAYSdisconnect the negative terminal before attempting to disconnect the positive terminal!!!). I also once watched a guy try to jump start his car by connecting the negative lead on a set of booster cables to the positive terminal on the battery and the positive lead on the booster cables to a metal bracket on the engine. Neither one of us caught the mistake until the metal bracket started glowing red...in full daylight. That was impressive;) Trust me, you don't want Joe Average swapping out batteries himself.
Because most of your driving time is commuting around town, and you (or your spouse) has a second car for those few trips where the EV won't cut it?
My ideal scenario would be an electric motorcycle for commuting in the summer, something like a Tesla or equivalent for my wife to commute in, and then one of our current ICE-powered trucks (probably my wife's -- it's got full sized rear seats for our daughter or other passengers, whereas mine is a king cab, suitable only for small children or double amputees) for making longer trips. Having said that, I won't be swapping out my existing motorcycle or truck until the price on EV's drops significantly.
It's not a life-threatening problem unless you live in the remote hills of North Dakota or something.
Or Alaska, like me. I've seen as much as 246 miles on a single tank of gas on my motorcycle, although 200 miles is more typical. However, there are trips I've planned where range was a concern -- for example, riding the Haul Road to Deadhorse, a trip I'd like to make some time in the next couple of years, and for which I will probably rig up some way to carry an extra gallon or two of gas.
On the eastern seaboard, where I spent my teenage years, you can walk five minutes and cross through three different municipalities. However, where I live now, there are roads where you stop to fill up with gas at every opportunity whether you need it or not, because the next gas station might not be open and if don't top off now, you might not be able to reach the one after that;)
Sure...it would just be easier to shoot down (because it's wider), couldn't carry as much load, and wouldn't be able to operate at as high an altitude, which is kind of important in places like Afghanistan. Helicopters designed for heavy lifting generally are not as svelte as helicopters designed as status symbols for CEOs. As the Shorts Brothers said in reply to someone criticizing the looks of their (phenomenal, but ugly) cargo airplanes, "If you want to ship something, you put it in a box, right?"
Yes, actually I have. Aside from the fact that MREs are frikken heavy compared to freeze dried food, I'd much rather take them than Mountain House food (and the like) when backpacking or camping.
What he is talking about is a remotely piloted vehicle, rather than the largely (or completely) autonomous vehicle you are describing. I suspect the KMAX is autonomous rather than merely remotely piloted, but then again, I didn't RTFA (yet).
The effect isn't due strictly to the pressure of the air. Having a little bit of high pressure air in your lungs isn't that different than having a lot of low pressure air.
Uh, yeah, it is. There's a vast difference between having 14.7 PSI in your lungs and having 3.5 PSI in your lungs (at 35,000 feet). Go to your local library and check out a physics or chemistry text book, then look up "partial pressure". There comes an altitude at which the air pressure is too low to supply sufficient oxygen to your body, even if you are breathing pure oxygen. You can't simulate that on the ground by simply exhaling and holding your breath. Period.
Seriously? You, my friend, are very likely under-studied and dangerously over-confident. If you are newly minted private pilot, there's a chance that you just might -- maybe, if your CFI was reasonably conscientious -- have received enough IMC training recently enough to keep yourself from entering a graveyard spiral if you inadvertently penetrate instrument meteorological conditions..assuming that VFR into IMC is the *only* emergency you face and that you've got the wisdom to get your butt out of IMC ASAP.
However, I guarantee you that your average non-instrument rated private pilot does not even remotely have the skills to operate in the IFR system. For that matter, your average instrument rated but not instrument current pilot (such as myself) doesn't have those skills either. IFR flight requires consistent, recent practice. I've been instrument rated since 1994, and I've logged plenty of actual IMC. But there's no way on God's green earth that I'd spend any longer than necessary in IMC right now because I haven't kept my IFR skills current and I'm smart enough to know that my lack of proficiency in IFR flight makes me unsafe in the IFR system. And, if you think that the biggest difference between IFR and VFR pilots is the ability to shoot an approach, then I humbly submit that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. How about the ability to recognize a vacuum system/gyroscopic instrument failure (hint: gyros don't fail suddenly, they slowly drift out of alignment while you think you are still getting good data from them), or the ability to fly partial panel after recognizing such a failure, or recovering from unusual attitudes solely by reference to instruments (it makes a difference if you change your pitch, your bank or your power first, and if you make the wrong choice, you could end up in a spin or your wings might depart formation with your airplane...and the procedure is different depending upon whether or not your nose is above or below the horizon), or flying a holding pattern, or understanding the difference between MEA, MOCA, etc. </rant>
Do yourself -- and your passengers -- a favor and get your instrument ticket. Even if you don't keep current, you'll at least have an idea how much more there is to know about flying safely in instrument conditions. I don't know you, but I nevertheless, I really don't want to read about you in an NTSB report.
Slashdot Mirror
It goes on to say that the government cannot issue a warrant based upon illegally obtained data, but it would seem to me that you would be stretching the 4th Amendment to an absurd degree to claim that the government has the right to conduct a search whenever, wherever and however they want so long as they don't actually attempt to prosecute you based on the information they obtain.
Would anyone with some actual legal education care to chime in on this?
We don't do torture, we just waterboard people. Those are two entirely different things.
Don't be asinine.
If you want to paint everyone who claims any kind of faith with the same brush, then you are every bit as delusional and ignorant as any racist, as any xenophobe, or as any other bigot who every existed. Are you a white guy? Congratulations, you are guilty of every evil that white people have ever perpetrated against any other minority "until you [personally] do something about those [other white] people". Oh...my mistake, you are of Middle Eastern heritage...can you say 9/11? Are you male? Then you are guilty of every rape, every abuse, every violent or discriminatory act that males have ever perpetrated against women until you do something about men abusing women. American? Guantanamo Bay, Bay of Pigs, Manifest Destiny...I could go on and on and on, but hopefully, you get the picture. See how that works? Prejudice, no matter how you try to justify it or sugar coat it, is IGNORANCE. Pre-judging any member of any group based on the actions of some other member of that group is stupid. Every person deserves to be judged on the basis of their own actions.
In other words, you are every bit as narrow-minded and bigoted as the people you despise. That's fine with me...if you have to look down on others who don't see things the same way you do in order to feel good about yourself, that's not my problem. But don't mistake your own prejudice for wisdom or enlightenment because it most certainly is neither of those things.
Religious people want censorship. The internet's free flow of information is anathema to their shackled minds and irrational fear of truth.
Stereotype much? Yes, there are "religious" people who do -- and have done -- some pretty crappy things throughout history. There are "religious nutcases" who are certainly the "shackled minds" that you mention above. There are also those who claim religious affiliation (for more than purposes of securing a position in a will) who don't fit that mold -- those who are vocal Libertarians, who love science and technology and who abhor censorship. I am one. So are a number of my friends. Kindly refrain from confusing us with those who truly are as bad as you claim, 'kay? Thanks.
Yes. Ron Paul is an anti-constitutionalist, anti-libertarian (he only cares that the federal government is neutered, he loves the idea of the individual states violating peoples rights), a hypocrite, a liar, a theocrat and anti-American traitor.
Really? You think that because he maintains the position that the powers of government not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states, Ron Paul is anti-Constitutionalist, a hypocrite, a liar and a traitor? Even though I can see how you might think that refusing to support a bill that might, in fact, be Libertarian and even good for the country on the basis that it requires the federal government to usurp a power that it does not legally have as being entirely a Bad Thing, I find it consistent with his philosophy of government, and even a Good Thing. There is a mechanism in place to grant power to the federal government that the Constitution does not already grant: it's called a Constitutional amendment. If the law really is that good, pass an amendment. If the amendment doesn't pass, then there's a pretty good chance that the value of the bill has not been adequately established. If the failure to pass such a bill means that individual states pass bad laws, well, at least it's easier to change a local government than a federal one. Furthermore, if a state law truly sucks that bad, it's far easier to move to another state than to another country. Depending upon where you live and where you move to, you might not even have to quit your job to move (even though I would...it's a heck of a commute to Alaska from anywhere else).
Of course, based exclusively upon his (her?) account name. I mean, that's the only rational basis for agreeing or disagreeing with someone, right? After all, objectively the weighing the veracity (or lack thereof) of a person's comments makes no sense whatsoever, right? </sarc>
This seems to be the most ridiculous form of security but mentality of people of this country are all going nutzoid...
So, in other words, because the end results don't match your preconceived notions of how things *should* work, those who say, "This clearly isn't working; let's try something else." are "nutzoid"? As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away." I don't see what's so "nutzoid" about accepting the fact that the only person you can count on to "protect" you is you.
Think it through for a second. Murder is already illegal, so what makes you think that a potential murderer is going to care if it's illegal to bring a handgun to school or the courthouse or...? "Well, gee...I was going to shoot my teacher today, but, well...you're not allowed to bring guns to school, so I decided not to." All you've done by banning concealed weapons at certain places is disarm those who respect the law -- the very ones who might be inclined to intervene.
Yet, despite their rules, TSOs sometimes still prohibit passengers from bringing meds, despite the fact that TSA's regulations say that's okay (disclaimer: TSA officially claims that they allowed the insulin, but not the gel packs to keep it cool; the woman claims otherwise. You decide who is telling the truth).
So then you have to secure everything then the country becomes a prison and basically a non-economy.
Have you been paying attention lately? Google "ViPR train station bus station Tennessee highway" and see what you find. Then, turn to the financial section of your local newspaper and read about how our economy has been doing. Can you honestly tell me that the U.S. isn't already there (or at the very least, quickly heading that direction)?
I'll check it out, thanks! :)
I almost forgot, but here's the video. It's not a great edit, but it should give you some idea of the capability of the heli. Ignore the paper "flowers" hanging from the ceiling...they were decorations for my step-daughter's baby shower ;)
Ahh...that makes sense. Thanks!
There's one in every crowd...
Yeah, with a 105 mile daily commute, this car probably doesn't have enough range for days when you might have extra errands to run, unless you can charge your car while at work (although I suspect not). But as you said, even in your somewhat extreme case, it still might be a viable option most of the time.
Off-topic: 105 miles per day?!?! Times five days a week, I presume? In my truck, that would be roughly $7500 per year, not including maintenance, oil changes, etc. Even on my motorcycle, that's $2600 per year. I'm glad I don't have your gasoline bill!
Bovine scatology, "B.S." for short.
How many people routinely drive 200-300 miles? That's somewhere between 2 1/2 and 4 hours at highway speeds, depending on the speed limits where you live. In my neck of the woods, 120 miles is a really long commute. Yeah, people sometimes drive cross-country to visit relatives and friends or for business, but that's hardly typical (i.e., day-in, day-out) usage. And if you can afford a high-end luxury sedan, you probably can afford more than one car, so the luxury sedan is your commuter vehicle and you have a conventional vehicle for those other times when you need the ability to go farther.
I'm skeptical that a "Battery Exchange" solution will catch on. How many batteries does it take to power the Model S? Are they easily accessible? How difficult is it to replace them? Is this something that the owner will be able to do, or do you have to wait for the "Battery Exchange" attendant to service your car?
;) Trust me, you don't want Joe Average swapping out batteries himself.
While any moron with even half a brain can top off the gas tank on a conventional car, working with high current batteries is considerably riskier. I once shorted the positive lead on a 24V airplane battery to the frame of the aircraft with a Leatherman...I still have a blob of molten metal on the front of the parka I was wearing at the time (note to self: ALWAYS disconnect the negative terminal before attempting to disconnect the positive terminal!!!). I also once watched a guy try to jump start his car by connecting the negative lead on a set of booster cables to the positive terminal on the battery and the positive lead on the booster cables to a metal bracket on the engine. Neither one of us caught the mistake until the metal bracket started glowing red...in full daylight. That was impressive
Because most of your driving time is commuting around town, and you (or your spouse) has a second car for those few trips where the EV won't cut it?
My ideal scenario would be an electric motorcycle for commuting in the summer, something like a Tesla or equivalent for my wife to commute in, and then one of our current ICE-powered trucks (probably my wife's -- it's got full sized rear seats for our daughter or other passengers, whereas mine is a king cab, suitable only for small children or double amputees) for making longer trips. Having said that, I won't be swapping out my existing motorcycle or truck until the price on EV's drops significantly.
As they push into the realm of 300 m.p.c.
Miles per Coulomb?
It's not a life-threatening problem unless you live in the remote hills of North Dakota or something.
Or Alaska, like me. I've seen as much as 246 miles on a single tank of gas on my motorcycle, although 200 miles is more typical. However, there are trips I've planned where range was a concern -- for example, riding the Haul Road to Deadhorse, a trip I'd like to make some time in the next couple of years, and for which I will probably rig up some way to carry an extra gallon or two of gas.
;)
On the eastern seaboard, where I spent my teenage years, you can walk five minutes and cross through three different municipalities. However, where I live now, there are roads where you stop to fill up with gas at every opportunity whether you need it or not, because the next gas station might not be open and if don't top off now, you might not be able to reach the one after that
Sure...it would just be easier to shoot down (because it's wider), couldn't carry as much load, and wouldn't be able to operate at as high an altitude, which is kind of important in places like Afghanistan. Helicopters designed for heavy lifting generally are not as svelte as helicopters designed as status symbols for CEOs. As the Shorts Brothers said in reply to someone criticizing the looks of their (phenomenal, but ugly) cargo airplanes, "If you want to ship something, you put it in a box, right?"
Have you ever had an MRE?
Yes, actually I have. Aside from the fact that MREs are frikken heavy compared to freeze dried food, I'd much rather take them than Mountain House food (and the like) when backpacking or camping.
What he is talking about is a remotely piloted vehicle, rather than the largely (or completely) autonomous vehicle you are describing. I suspect the KMAX is autonomous rather than merely remotely piloted, but then again, I didn't RTFA (yet).
It's not perfectly accurate
No, it's not. It isn't even remotely accurate.
The effect isn't due strictly to the pressure of the air. Having a little bit of high pressure air in your lungs isn't that different than having a lot of low pressure air.
Uh, yeah, it is. There's a vast difference between having 14.7 PSI in your lungs and having 3.5 PSI in your lungs (at 35,000 feet). Go to your local library and check out a physics or chemistry text book, then look up "partial pressure". There comes an altitude at which the air pressure is too low to supply sufficient oxygen to your body, even if you are breathing pure oxygen. You can't simulate that on the ground by simply exhaling and holding your breath. Period.
Seriously? You, my friend, are very likely under-studied and dangerously over-confident. If you are newly minted private pilot, there's a chance that you just might -- maybe, if your CFI was reasonably conscientious -- have received enough IMC training recently enough to keep yourself from entering a graveyard spiral if you inadvertently penetrate instrument meteorological conditions..assuming that VFR into IMC is the *only* emergency you face and that you've got the wisdom to get your butt out of IMC ASAP.
However, I guarantee you that your average non-instrument rated private pilot does not even remotely have the skills to operate in the IFR system. For that matter, your average instrument rated but not instrument current pilot (such as myself) doesn't have those skills either. IFR flight requires consistent, recent practice. I've been instrument rated since 1994, and I've logged plenty of actual IMC. But there's no way on God's green earth that I'd spend any longer than necessary in IMC right now because I haven't kept my IFR skills current and I'm smart enough to know that my lack of proficiency in IFR flight makes me unsafe in the IFR system. And, if you think that the biggest difference between IFR and VFR pilots is the ability to shoot an approach, then I humbly submit that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. How about the ability to recognize a vacuum system/gyroscopic instrument failure (hint: gyros don't fail suddenly, they slowly drift out of alignment while you think you are still getting good data from them), or the ability to fly partial panel after recognizing such a failure, or recovering from unusual attitudes solely by reference to instruments (it makes a difference if you change your pitch, your bank or your power first, and if you make the wrong choice, you could end up in a spin or your wings might depart formation with your airplane...and the procedure is different depending upon whether or not your nose is above or below the horizon), or flying a holding pattern, or understanding the difference between MEA, MOCA, etc. </rant>
Anyway, you requested citations. For your reading pleasure (some more on topic than others; I still recommend you at least skim most, if not all, of them, based upon your comments above):
178 Seconds to Live This isn't the actual study itself, but it is based upon that study. It should give you enough information to find the study yourself, if you are so inclined.
VFR into IMC leads to in-flight breakup. Case study of a pilot who didn't make it out of his inadvertent flight into IMC.
Searching AOPA/Air Safety Foundation's accident database for "VFR into IMC" returned 1739 results (I don't know how far back the database goes, so that number alone doesn't provide a great deal of information on how pervasive this problem is).
StudentPilot.com thread on IMC fatality statistics
Do yourself -- and your passengers -- a favor and get your instrument ticket. Even if you don't keep current, you'll at least have an idea how much more there is to know about flying safely in instrument conditions. I don't know you, but I nevertheless, I really don't want to read about you in an NTSB report.