From the article - The Laddermill would only be flown where aircraft are banned. One such area is the zone along the US-Mexican border, where high-flying balloons fitted with radar are used to combat drug traffickers.
Unless I did worse in Geography than I thought, the US-Mexico border is not in the Netherlands.
As for FAA rules, you are right - they don't apply in Europe. I'm sure that if you check, however, the airspace rules for each country in Europe will be remarkably similar to the FAA rules, so similar problems will be encountered.
Most of the places where aircraft are banned are due to other dangerous activities, such as live weapons testing. Not a good place to put infrastructure.
As far as the balloons on the border, here is an example from the descriptions on the appropriate aeronautical charts (referring to the few balloons on the border) -
CAUTION UNMARKED BALLOON AND CABLE TO 15000 FEET IN R-6317
The entries for the few other sites list alitudes of 14000 or 15000 feet. The chart doesn't say that aircraft are banned, but most pilots would avoid flying around the balloons just to be safe. In any case, it probably isn't a good idea to put kites on a cable in the same place as balloons on a cable, due to the risk of becoming entangled.
My personal guess is that the FAA will shoot this project down well before it gets off of the ground, unless the kites are equipped with transponders (since they will be in CLASS A* airspace) and lights (so that pilots flying VFR can see and avoid).
* For those without an aviation background, all aircraft in CLASS A airspace are required to fly instrument rules, have transponders, and are controlled by controllers on the ground. In the US, Class A airspace is all airspace between FL180 (about 18,000 feet) and FL600 (about 60,000 feet).
State v. Gladstone would be a similar case, except Gladstone was acquitted. (You are right, I am not a lawyer, but from what I can glean, the acquittal was based on the fact that he didn't actually know the person selling the drugs, and didn't know for sure if that person had the drugs. Neither of those reasons could be applied in the case above.)
I don't think the reasoning for Gladsone's acquittal would apply to LokiTorrent, so I think the grandparent is still applicable, and no, I did not "make it up".
Again, a lawyer could clear a lot up here, and I welcome such.
Because this is about defending the right to say "There's a guy over there in that place illegally distributing software", not about getting access to said software.
I know of someone who did time for a similar situation. Short version - When asked, she answered "I don't sell drugs, the guy in that apartment over there is the one selling crack." That is when she found out the skinny guy with a crack pipe was an undercover policeman, and pointing out that apartment as a source made her an accessory/accomplice(?).
Possibly a case of entrapment, and a better lawyer than hers could probably clarify a lot of the issues involved, but I believe this demonstrates a parallel as far as Free Speech is concerned.
The original post linked probability to the size of the shadow and described a good analogy to demonstrate. My sole point is that you can't use the sun for illumination in that demonstration of probability because the shadow size doesn't change, which wouldn't demonstrate a reduced likely area of impact in the original post's demonstration.
If, during any demonstration, whether the sun is used or not, a path not directly from the light source to the target is followed by the hand, the shadow will gradually move from the dot. I get that point.
With the sun low on the horizon, even with your hand on the ground, there will be shadow on the other side of your hand cast by the vertical profile of your hand. If it is almost sunset or just after sunrise, the amount of shadow cast by the horizontal profile of your hand would be less than that cast by the vertical profile of your hand.
Not true - try it. As long as your hand doesn't change position relative to the ground, and the sun doesn't move appreciably while conducting the experiment, the shadow will be the same size and shape. This assumes that the person conducting the experiment is not moving the height of his hand more than a fraction of a percentage of the distance to the Sun.
Of course, it also has to be a sunny day for this to work. It will definitely not work on rainy nights.
At least we can hope thesetwo don't do a remake that year. That would save the planet from one disaster. Of course, that potential disaster probably wouldn't actually kill anyone. It would be more likely to make hundreds of thousands of people sick.
Interesting. (Pages 21 and 22 of the settlement apply, for those interested.) From what I read, you could use the voucher to purchase Linux or OS X, provided the version purchased wasn't considered server software.
That introduces Case 3, where someone uses their voucher to purchase non-Microsoft products. This would actually remove potential profit from Microsoft's bottom line.
Unfortunately, it is all in the form of vouchers. (I can't take credit for this, it was pointed out by someone else, earlier.) So, for a single Windows/Office install, someone would get vouchers good toward a minor portion of the next purchase of Microsoft Products.
What is interesting is the effect of the vouchers on the profitability of Microsoft. Two cases are possible when someone is going to use a voucher -
Case 1: Someone uses the voucher to purchase software that they originally would not have purchased: Since fix costs have already been covered and variable costs are so small, the additional purchase results in profit for Microsoft.
Case 2: Someone uses the voucher to purchase software that they were going to purchase, anyway: Since the amount of the voucher is less than the gross margin on the software, Microsoft profits from the purchase, just not as much as they would have if the voucher was not used.
In both cases, Microsoft profits as far as I can see. If more than enough people are in the Case 1 group to offset the reduced revenue due to those in the Case 2 group, it would result in an increase in Microsoft's net profit. Wow, what a way to punish them.
Of course, I could be mistaken about Microsoft's variable costs. It could be that the costs of media, packaging, and distribution are high enough that the discount from the voucher results in a net loss to the bottom line. I seriously doubt it, though.
So, if the settlement involves SCO paying IBM, do David Boies and company get a 33 percent piece of that action, as in paying a third of the settlement to IBM?
(I know that the answer is "no", but I figured I should go for the cheap chuckle.)
Installing Firefox requires downloading an unsigned binary from a random web server
Installing unsigned extensions is the default action in the Extensions dialog
There is no way to check the signature on downloaded program files
There is no obvious way to turn off plug-ins once they are installed
There is an easy way to bypass the "This might be a virus" dialog...
...but we'll never get past the spyware / adware problem if people continue to think that installing unsigned code from random web sites is A Good Idea.
Okay, if I read this correctly, the gist of his argument seems to be that the Internet Exploitme warnings say the Firefox installation is unsafe, he had a few redirections and such to get the download, and therefor, a sucessful Firefox installation encourages unsafe behavior. As the parent stated, most internet content is unsigned, and thus would also be considered unsafe. The more relevant question is which is safer to use once installed? I didn't really see that addressed. Did I miss something again?
What is the current rate for headphone rental on airlines?
American sells you a headset for $5, and encourages you to reuse it on your next flight. It was $2 last month, and $1 in March. Their seats have the same adapter as most personal stereos, and they allow you to bring your own.
The television programs will be delivered across the Connexion network, which uses satellites to provide high-speed data connections between aircraft in-flight and ground stations linked to the Internet.
So those long TransPacific flights will only have sporadic TV coverage? Those are the ones that could use it the most. Or will 747 aircraft start following the equivalent of ETOPS routes to ensure internet coverage?
* ETOPS Routes - Routes flown by twin engine aircraft on extended overwater flights to ensure that they can reach land within a certain amount of time in the event of an engine failure.
Re:Self-awareness does not necessarily grant right
on
Legal Rights for Computers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I forgot to summarize my main point - Legal rights are granted to human beings. For instance, the U.S. Constitution starts We, the People of the United States..., not We, the Self-aware, Intelligent beings of the United States.
Self-awareness does not necessarily grant rights.
on
Legal Rights for Computers
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I had a couple of dogs that seemed to me to be self-aware. They did not have the same legal rights I did as far as I know. So why would a computer be granted legal rights based on self-awareness?
Chimpanzees have some intelligence, as do dolphins, but we still confine them to zoos and do not afford them the right to a public attorney to work toward securing their freedom.
If we base legal rights solely on intelligence, than when someone has a stroke, enters a severe coma and is no longer able to demonstrate cohesive thought, does that mean they should not have rights anymore?
Just food for thought. Soemone with a better philosophy background than I (he or she took TWO or more philosophy classes) will probably be able to answer these questions better than I.
The discussion is pretty big, and i really wont trust his own site in explaining it, so can anyone here tell me who he is, and what he has done (with proof)?
He's the guy from the fourth book of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker Trilogy - you know, Sollog, and Thanks for All the Fish.
I know people who would/will/have done this. Later, they will ask me to fix whatever is making their computer run slower, and keeping their internet connection busy.
The toolbar claims to block annoying popups, but the most annoying pop-up on my work computer (where I am forced to use Internet Exploder) is the one that says I have Active X disabled.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article - The Laddermill would only be flown where aircraft are banned. One such area is the zone along the US-Mexican border, where high-flying balloons fitted with radar are used to combat drug traffickers.
Unless I did worse in Geography than I thought, the US-Mexico border is not in the Netherlands.
As for FAA rules, you are right - they don't apply in Europe. I'm sure that if you check, however, the airspace rules for each country in Europe will be remarkably similar to the FAA rules, so similar problems will be encountered.
Most of the places where aircraft are banned are due to other dangerous activities, such as live weapons testing. Not a good place to put infrastructure.
As far as the balloons on the border, here is an example from the descriptions on the appropriate aeronautical charts (referring to the few balloons on the border) -
CAUTION UNMARKED BALLOON AND CABLE TO 15000 FEET IN R-6317
The entries for the few other sites list alitudes of 14000 or 15000 feet. The chart doesn't say that aircraft are banned, but most pilots would avoid flying around the balloons just to be safe. In any case, it probably isn't a good idea to put kites on a cable in the same place as balloons on a cable, due to the risk of becoming entangled.
My personal guess is that the FAA will shoot this project down well before it gets off of the ground, unless the kites are equipped with transponders (since they will be in CLASS A* airspace) and lights (so that pilots flying VFR can see and avoid).
* For those without an aviation background, all aircraft in CLASS A airspace are required to fly instrument rules, have transponders, and are controlled by controllers on the ground. In the US, Class A airspace is all airspace between FL180 (about 18,000 feet) and FL600 (about 60,000 feet).
State v. Gladstone would be a similar case, except Gladstone was acquitted. (You are right, I am not a lawyer, but from what I can glean, the acquittal was based on the fact that he didn't actually know the person selling the drugs, and didn't know for sure if that person had the drugs. Neither of those reasons could be applied in the case above.)
I don't think the reasoning for Gladsone's acquittal would apply to LokiTorrent, so I think the grandparent is still applicable, and no, I did not "make it up".
Again, a lawyer could clear a lot up here, and I welcome such.
Because this is about defending the right to say "There's a guy over there in that place illegally distributing software", not about getting access to said software.
I know of someone who did time for a similar situation. Short version - When asked, she answered "I don't sell drugs, the guy in that apartment over there is the one selling crack." That is when she found out the skinny guy with a crack pipe was an undercover policeman, and pointing out that apartment as a source made her an accessory/accomplice(?).
Possibly a case of entrapment, and a better lawyer than hers could probably clarify a lot of the issues involved, but I believe this demonstrates a parallel as far as Free Speech is concerned.
The original post linked probability to the size of the shadow and described a good analogy to demonstrate. My sole point is that you can't use the sun for illumination in that demonstration of probability because the shadow size doesn't change, which wouldn't demonstrate a reduced likely area of impact in the original post's demonstration.
If, during any demonstration, whether the sun is used or not, a path not directly from the light source to the target is followed by the hand, the shadow will gradually move from the dot. I get that point.
It is Schroedinger's sky...
That explains why the sky is (or isn't) going to rain cats and dogs...
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
With the sun low on the horizon, even with your hand on the ground, there will be shadow on the other side of your hand cast by the vertical profile of your hand. If it is almost sunset or just after sunrise, the amount of shadow cast by the horizontal profile of your hand would be less than that cast by the vertical profile of your hand.
Really, try it tomorrow.
I thought there was - it is disguised as "+1, Funny"
(I was going to suggest a "+1, Insightful", but I don't think anyone would fall for that one.)
Not true - try it. As long as your hand doesn't change position relative to the ground, and the sun doesn't move appreciably while conducting the experiment, the shadow will be the same size and shape. This assumes that the person conducting the experiment is not moving the height of his hand more than a fraction of a percentage of the distance to the Sun.
Of course, it also has to be a sunny day for this to work. It will definitely not work on rainy nights.
Make sure you use a lamp for this experiment instead of sunlight. The shadow won't change size if sunlight is used.
At least we can hope these two don't do a remake that year. That would save the planet from one disaster. Of course, that potential disaster probably wouldn't actually kill anyone. It would be more likely to make hundreds of thousands of people sick.
Interesting. (Pages 21 and 22 of the settlement apply, for those interested.) From what I read, you could use the voucher to purchase Linux or OS X, provided the version purchased wasn't considered server software.
That introduces Case 3, where someone uses their voucher to purchase non-Microsoft products. This would actually remove potential profit from Microsoft's bottom line.
Unfortunately, it is all in the form of vouchers. (I can't take credit for this, it was pointed out by someone else, earlier.) So, for a single Windows/Office install, someone would get vouchers good toward a minor portion of the next purchase of Microsoft Products.
What is interesting is the effect of the vouchers on the profitability of Microsoft. Two cases are possible when someone is going to use a voucher -
Case 1: Someone uses the voucher to purchase software that they originally would not have purchased: Since fix costs have already been covered and variable costs are so small, the additional purchase results in profit for Microsoft.
Case 2: Someone uses the voucher to purchase software that they were going to purchase, anyway: Since the amount of the voucher is less than the gross margin on the software, Microsoft profits from the purchase, just not as much as they would have if the voucher was not used.
In both cases, Microsoft profits as far as I can see. If more than enough people are in the Case 1 group to offset the reduced revenue due to those in the Case 2 group, it would result in an increase in Microsoft's net profit. Wow, what a way to punish them.
Of course, I could be mistaken about Microsoft's variable costs. It could be that the costs of media, packaging, and distribution are high enough that the discount from the voucher results in a net loss to the bottom line. I seriously doubt it, though.
What about those triagular-looking spaceships that shoot the white dots?
So, if the settlement involves SCO paying IBM, do David Boies and company get a 33 percent piece of that action, as in paying a third of the settlement to IBM?
(I know that the answer is "no", but I figured I should go for the cheap chuckle.)
Content still exists?
In a gramatically incorrect way, yes.
The television signal/data providers are content with their current revenue models, even if you are not content with the content or the service.
From the article:
...
...but we'll never get past the spyware / adware problem if people continue to think that installing unsigned code from random web sites is A Good Idea.
Installing Firefox requires downloading an unsigned binary from a random web server
Installing unsigned extensions is the default action in the Extensions dialog
There is no way to check the signature on downloaded program files
There is no obvious way to turn off plug-ins once they are installed
There is an easy way to bypass the "This might be a virus" dialog
Okay, if I read this correctly, the gist of his argument seems to be that the Internet Exploitme warnings say the Firefox installation is unsafe, he had a few redirections and such to get the download, and therefor, a sucessful Firefox installation encourages unsafe behavior. As the parent stated, most internet content is unsigned, and thus would also be considered unsafe. The more relevant question is which is safer to use once installed? I didn't really see that addressed. Did I miss something again?
What is the current rate for headphone rental on airlines?
American sells you a headset for $5, and encourages you to reuse it on your next flight. It was $2 last month, and $1 in March. Their seats have the same adapter as most personal stereos, and they allow you to bring your own.
Ahhh, got it. Misread what I quoted.
The television programs will be delivered across the Connexion network, which uses satellites to provide high-speed data connections between aircraft in-flight and ground stations linked to the Internet.
So those long TransPacific flights will only have sporadic TV coverage? Those are the ones that could use it the most. Or will 747 aircraft start following the equivalent of ETOPS routes to ensure internet coverage?
* ETOPS Routes - Routes flown by twin engine aircraft on extended overwater flights to ensure that they can reach land within a certain amount of time in the event of an engine failure.
I forgot to summarize my main point - Legal rights are granted to human beings. For instance, the U.S. Constitution starts We, the People of the United States... , not We, the Self-aware, Intelligent beings of the United States.
I had a couple of dogs that seemed to me to be self-aware. They did not have the same legal rights I did as far as I know. So why would a computer be granted legal rights based on self-awareness?
Chimpanzees have some intelligence, as do dolphins, but we still confine them to zoos and do not afford them the right to a public attorney to work toward securing their freedom.
If we base legal rights solely on intelligence, than when someone has a stroke, enters a severe coma and is no longer able to demonstrate cohesive thought, does that mean they should not have rights anymore?
Just food for thought. Soemone with a better philosophy background than I (he or she took TWO or more philosophy classes) will probably be able to answer these questions better than I.
The discussion is pretty big, and i really wont trust his own site in explaining it, so can anyone here tell me who he is, and what he has done (with proof)?
He's the guy from the fourth book of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker Trilogy - you know, Sollog, and Thanks for All the Fish.
I know that was bad, but I couldn't help myself.
I know people who would/will/have done this. Later, they will ask me to fix whatever is making their computer run slower, and keeping their internet connection busy.
The toolbar claims to block annoying popups, but the most annoying pop-up on my work computer (where I am forced to use Internet Exploder) is the one that says I have Active X disabled.