Right, because adding more speech to disagree with you is surely what "suppress" means. LOL
Wow, a person who can't tell "suppress" from "disagree with." Talk about mushy thinking. You should get some sort of award, maybe even a lifelong pension.
Ayn Rand thought that the evil of the academic hippies could be entirely and successfully countered by reserving 5 minutes at the end of lectures for contrary views.
I take it a step further and question if there even are any flat-earthers.
Most of them seem like smug assholes who figured out that the average person thinks they understand science, but are just ignorant superstitious morons mimicking the sciency-sounding crap their high school teachers fed them. So the "flat-earthers" can have 1000 consecutive conversations with people who stand there claiming to think it is illogical nonsense, but can't actually explain why. Flat-earthers know their arguments can be debunked, but they also know the average person would fail at that attempt even if given thousands of hours to prepare.
They've all flown in airplanes, they have eyes, most of them aren't dribbling idiots on other technical subjects. So it is just not a credible belief. Like Pastafarianism; they clearly have some sort of deeply held belief that motivates their behavior, but also it might not be the motivation they listed on the box.
Sure, but the fire manager already knows you caused the fire.
They're making that distinction already, as a technical matter, before they even start to ask if you should be held fully to account!
It has more to do with emotional factors like, how much is the community freaked out by the fire? In Grandma crying on TV, or just some jerk complaining his insurance company is too slow? That makes a big difference. Were the firefighters really stressed and worried by it, or was it a routine fire? If the fire manager feels like you were more stupid than average stupid, and need to be made an example of, or do they instead want to hold up the mistake you made as a more technical lesson?
In your example, it is a stupid type of mistake that average people make, even when they don't know they're being careless. If you lived next to the forest and your house burnt down from that it would be classed as an accidental house fire causing a forest fire; caused by humans, but you're unlikely to get a bill unless you look like you can pay for it! They don't to ruin your life over that, but they'll slap your wrist if appropriate.
OTOH if you go camping and neglect to take basic steps that were even on a sign you drove past getting there, and you cause a fire that makes a lot of people mad because you impacted their favorite recreation sites, well now you're probably gonna get blamed to the full extent allowed.
Also things like, if your cooking fire escapes did you make your own fire pit, and it wasn't good enough, or did you use one that was already there and it wasn't good enough? They're likely to treat one of those as more of an accident than the other. They know everybody is an idiot, they're only asking that people try to prevent fire, that they attempt to take preventative steps.
Perhaps you saw a new device in the store, so it would make sense you thought it would keep out liquids. But that style of metalicized plastic dome tend to crack. The key thing to understand isn't that plastic can keep water out, it is that it can also keep it in. The foil tends to pinhole, and just using the computer in a cold room can cause condensation on the inside of the keys. It isn't the keys you press that stick, but when you press a key, then the most cracked nearby key will join the fun and stick!
If you think you understand how awful that keyboard is just because you touched it and found out why they called it a "dead flesh" keyboard, you still have no idea.
This is Apple, it isn't going to be ugly and poorly designed, it is going to be beautiful and poorly designed. So at least PC Jr level.
You can't fully seal a screen and still be able to use it after the seasons change, or after you take it to a different climate than it was in last.
If you didn't need the screen to be able to breath to prevent moisture getting trapped, then you could just seal it so that can't happen. But you have to have air flow, which means a porous gasket. Even with a great gasket an insect can still chew through, or just push through in many cases; it might be strong when pulled or pushed, but still weak to direct lateral mechanical force. It is fairly easy and straightforwards to keep most of the insects out most of the time, but it would be nearly impossible to keep them all out all of the time.
Probably only Apple users are surprised by any of that; usually they expect there to be a little robot inside that looks like Steve Jobs that will fight off any invading bugs using cloud mana. But no, you can't update that away.
I don't know what Lenovo had in the 90s, I only bought IBM laptops back then.;)
But I was scared when I heard the new Thinkpads have chiclet keys... but they're not flat, and they feel mostly the same. The sides are different, on the part you don't touch. Better than most desktop keyboards. Long throw, with crisp motion. They don't have as much tactile response on the bottom of the throw, but the keypress already happened by then; they have clean tactile response on the initial press. Also, they're way easier to clean, and replacement is exactly the same; the hard parts of replacement have nothing to do with the keys.
The feel is higher quality than a dome switch, and very similar to a mid grade mechanical switch. Which makes sense; they're a scissor switch that is like a combination of a mechanical switch and a dome switch.
Yeah, I saw "Liquid ingress around the keys into the keyboard can damage electronics" and thought, gee, I'm glad I bought a thinkpad because liquid that lands on the keyboard doesn't ingress to a part of the electronics that would be damaged! LOL
I guess it is only because I'm willing to carry around a business laptop that looks like a business laptop that they had enough room in the case for the drain ports.
One of the most generic examples that Courts bandy about in false advertising cases, and some types of fraud cases, is: "What if you sell a bunch of guns to the government, and they don't shoot?" That's the default example of selling something that doesn't do what it says it does.
So the answer is, we know it works because they didn't get in trouble after selling it to the government!
If you sell it to a private party, there is a lot more gray area about arguing what the device was for, and what the appropriate expectations were. But when you sell it to the Government, you're operating under the most cliched examples; the facts of your case will end up exactly matching the hypotheticals already considered in other cases.;) Nobody is going to believe that you thought the Government wanted to buy it as a fancy paperweight; it is very easy to presume that you knew the Government was buying it to actually use it.
Unfortunately, words stated without modifiers are not presumed by the Courts to be impossible absolutes, but rather to be typical values of the word.
So telling you it is secure, that means secure, as in the state something is in after an effort to secure it.
Compare also, "my money is in a safe" to "my money is safe" and "your money is safe with us!" Safe means a lot of different things, there is no expectation that it always mean, "unblemished until the heat death of the Universe." If steps were taken to make it safe, now it is safe, to some real-world degree. Same for security. Your device has been secured. Sleep better, or not, your choice.
Maybe I'm just not as Appy as you, but my mobile device has maps that I downloaded and control.
It is probably because I'm educated enough to read a map that I know the difference between reading a map on an app I control, and reading a map on an app somebody else controls.
If you don't know what freedom is or which decisions it comes from, instead of throwing away your phone maybe just stop pretending you care about freedom?
Mostly good, but your mistake is with the word "for" in the construct, "for circumvention."
Courts don't play word games, they're way stricter in how they use words than that. "For" in that case doesn't stick to any word you put next to it; it sticks to what they actually did. So it doesn't matter if you can describe their conduct as circumvention. You don't just then get to substitute the word circumvention instead of what they did.
If they were manufacturing it to sell to law enforcement, or to use on behalf of law enforcement, then it was manufactured for law enforcement purposes. Courts are strict about how they use words, and word games are also sometimes strict in how they use words, but that doesn't imply that a Court is going to listen to word games.
Also, if the statute says that law enforcement can do it, and you're claiming that somewhere else it says you actually can't help them do it because they used the word "circumvention" without modifiers, that's just not winnable. If you convince the Court that there is a conflict in the phrasing they don't say "you win," they look for a way to read it that is actually consistent and works. And here that is obvious; the exception applies to situations that legitimately involve law enforcement. So if you win the word game, you didn't win anything, the ruling would still be the same. You'd have to find some other reasonable, workable thing that Congress might have meant when they passed it, that if true would change the analysis. But this doesn't even make motions in that direction; it is obvious what Congress intended: Cops can do this, others can only do it if they're helping cops.
The case where the Court would even listen to your argument about the timing of the contracts is if the government arrested you and charged you with making a circumvention tool, and you were saying, "I was only going to sell it to cops, I promise!" And having a contract with cops is only one way you might defend yourself. If you haven't sold it to anybody yet, then just having a spreadsheet showing sales to cops would be enough for you to win, absent other evidence of your intent.
You did link to part of the DMCA, but only to make your post appear as if you had a clue. You didn't actually read it. If you did, you'd have seen that it doesn't just say "no manufacture," it goes on:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
So actually, if you're usually selling it to cops but once in awhile you accidentally sell it to a criminal you might still be fine under this section. But clearly if you're manufacturing it with the intent of selling it to the government, you're golden; you don't even need to lean on the law enforcement exception, because the primary purpose of the tech is to access a physical device connected to a criminal investigation, not a copyrighted work. It doesn't matter if the safe might contain a painting, that doesn't make picking the lock into a copyright issue.
If your lawyer tried to raise these arguments, you'd not only lose, your lawyer would risk getting disbarred.
Having a fire extinguisher in the car in this situation is unlikely to be good enough. It might just lead you to where this guy ended up, reporting a fire. Grass fires spread rapidly, and fire extinguishers have very limited volume. You need to have it with you in the field where you can access it rapidly.
You don't need to put the fire out, you need to stop it from spreading to other fuels. That means you need to be spraying the grass around the drone. It doesn't matter very much if the drone sits there burning. A fire extinguisher will coat the surrounding fuels in a fire retardant, and so it can be effective. Water will rapidly evaporate and so will not be as effective. You would need a continuous water supply, as from a hose, and you'd only have a bucket.
Actually in my Firefighter Training course they taught us that water does not put out fire effectively. Dirt does, though. Water cools a fire, which is weaker sauce. Dirt reduces access to oxygen. Water in wildland firefighting is mostly used to slow the spread of fire, rather than to try to put it out.
The most effective thing in this situation is actually to use a shovel to cover it with dirt to restrict air flow. Then it can go ahead and be as exothermic as it wants and you can wait it out. The reason that they say to use a fire extinguisher is because (nearly) any idiot can operate it.
A McLeod is not that useful here. You'd be better off with a garden spade or even a hazel hoe. But a Pulaski is the firefighting tool you'd want. A McLeod is useful in the forest; cutting fresh fireline you might have a Pulaski in the front breaking the ground open, some McLeods behind them clearing the thick duff, which can still burn, and then more Pulaskis following behind to cut roots. You don't do all that to cut fire line in grass, you just need to dig under the roots of the grass and you're already at pure dirt. There is no duff to clear. And the dirt is hard, you don't want a wide rake with tines for that. With a McLeod you'd be best off to turn it sideways and try to use the side of the edge as a hoe. A Pulaski you can just gouge out the clumps of grass really fast, even when the dirt is hard and dry.
I was out for a walk and I saw a utility pole burning; actually it was just the paper advertisements on the bottom burning. So I put it out in about a minute by throwing (also flammable!) bark mulch at it from a nearby landscaping planter. Using water it would have taken multiple gallons, but using bark mulch it only took a few carefully-placed handfuls. The amount of time that the bark dust spends on the surface of the fire just for the momentum to be absorbed and for gravity to take over is enough time to stop the chemical reaction from being self-sustaining. When I was firefighting we would use shovels to throw dirt up into trees to put out spots that flared back up after the fire.
The only reason they drop water out of airplanes instead of dirt is that it is easier to load.
That's pretty wild and hand-wavy. You need better arguments, or else at least to actually use enough words to make the argument you want to make. Because when you just state your conclusion in a way that purports to disagree, but you don't actually say anything, well. Then you didn't say anything, and your conclusions are without basis. So they don't even get considered.
I consider your analysis, if you had any. But you only have conclusions. And who cares about that part? You knew I had different conclusions when you felt the desire to argue, so don't even have to say anything to get that far all on your own. It should be totally obvious in that situation that I wouldn't care about your conclusions, but might listen to your reasons.
Probably you thought you were thinking about it, but you were just reciting what you were told to believe, and you didn't have reasons because you never asked for any.
It doesn't need to be "borne out by evidence" because it is part of the initial report of the incident. Rather, you'd need evidence that something different happened before questioning it. It isn't actually clear that there was even a device malfunction, it might simply have heated up enough that when it landed on dry grass it ignited it.
It also doesn't matter what prosecutors and courts think. The legal liability is there because he owned the drone. If the Forest Service chooses to bill him for the damage, then he has to pay it. The only thing the court would even be looking at is if the amount they charged him was accurate.
What matters instead is just what the individual tasked with deciding that thinks; was it excessively reckless, or just a normal accident? Courts and prosecutors don't matter to that. Because, as I pointed out above, the money goes to a different part of the government, so there is no motive to just bill everybody they can. Billing people for accidents is unpopular. So they just make a "straight" decision based on if they think society expects you to be punished extra.
The part that involves prosecutors though is the citation he did get; causing stuff to burn. If they let the prosecutors decide these things, every single time they issued the citation they would also be suing. Which would unfortunately lead the Forest rangers to write less tickets for it! The current system seems to work much better than other parts of government that deal with liability or civil takings.
If you can't tell the difference between selling you shit made overseas, and local investment, just shut the fuck up until you've learned only how to read, but also learned to actually do it once in awhile. Because that is seriously fucking stupid shit, man.
Generally, the decision about holding you financially liable depends on if your actions were illegal, reckless, irresponsible, or if it was just a pure accident.
You're responsible for any damage your vehicle does, but the government agencies who make the decisions about your responsibility don't even get the money; the money just goes back to some other part of the government to reimburse them, it doesn't go back to the fire budget.
If you crashed because you were being an asshole, expect to pay for all those airplanes. If you crashed because Bambi ran across the street, it is unlikely you will get a bill. Unless you were also driving poorly.
Here they are saying, if you are doing an activity like flying a drone you have to bring a fire extinguisher with you so you can put out any fire yourself. Otherwise don't bring battery powered toys into the National Forest. I doubt they'll get billed, since the thing did explode, they didn't just crash it.
Just build it in that if they lower theirs, we lower ours. Easy. No need to imagine that we could instead appease them into fairness by simply offering them an advantage. You don't lead yourself to fairness by offering to receive less.
You don't need "leverage," the party with lower tariffs can unilaterally increase their tariffs to match the other party, and now the relative harm of the one-sided tariff is mitigated. Plus, you can build into that increase that it will go down automatically after the other party is found to have lowered theirs in practice. So you can build a reasonable and fair negotiating position into the rules even absent any extant negotiation.
Also, consider, do we mean just "cars" or do we mean "cars and car parts." Because my car was built in Japan and the US, but almost all my replacement parts are being made in China. It is reasonable to assume then that many cars assembled in the US have lots of their parts made in China, too.
Also, don't leave out the other part of the discussion; cars are heavy and expensive to transport so they're often made close to the buyer. Chinese companies can own car factories in the US, and they do. So parity here isn't just the tariff, they're also talking about ownership rules. It may be that if the Chinese won't allow US companies to own factories in China, then they could pay an extra tariff to own factories in the US. Perhaps, equal to whatever extra it ends up costing US companies in China to contract a factory compared to if they could own one.
If he can herd the idiots towards real protectionism instead of ham-handed economic flailing, surely many people will be glad. People from a wide variety of political sides!
Elon Musk, Cat Whisperer.
I'd love to be able to either wholly own a company in China, or else require Chinese companies to also use a local intermediary. Then we could compete. I don't mind letting China set up the rules if we're going to mirror them. We have a big trade deficit, anything that improves parity helps.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because adding more speech to disagree with you is surely what "suppress" means. LOL
Wow, a person who can't tell "suppress" from "disagree with." Talk about mushy thinking. You should get some sort of award, maybe even a lifelong pension.
Ayn Rand thought that the evil of the academic hippies could be entirely and successfully countered by reserving 5 minutes at the end of lectures for contrary views.
I take it a step further and question if there even are any flat-earthers.
Most of them seem like smug assholes who figured out that the average person thinks they understand science, but are just ignorant superstitious morons mimicking the sciency-sounding crap their high school teachers fed them. So the "flat-earthers" can have 1000 consecutive conversations with people who stand there claiming to think it is illogical nonsense, but can't actually explain why. Flat-earthers know their arguments can be debunked, but they also know the average person would fail at that attempt even if given thousands of hours to prepare.
They've all flown in airplanes, they have eyes, most of them aren't dribbling idiots on other technical subjects. So it is just not a credible belief. Like Pastafarianism; they clearly have some sort of deeply held belief that motivates their behavior, but also it might not be the motivation they listed on the box.
That part I don't know. but I do know that I'm in Oregon and we pay about $0.12/kWh for residential electricity.
So this is going from, "same price as at home, but convenient" to "double price for convenience."
Maybe we can design the skylights with that in mind! A special slot on the end with a mirror.
Sure, but the fire manager already knows you caused the fire.
They're making that distinction already, as a technical matter, before they even start to ask if you should be held fully to account!
It has more to do with emotional factors like, how much is the community freaked out by the fire? In Grandma crying on TV, or just some jerk complaining his insurance company is too slow? That makes a big difference. Were the firefighters really stressed and worried by it, or was it a routine fire? If the fire manager feels like you were more stupid than average stupid, and need to be made an example of, or do they instead want to hold up the mistake you made as a more technical lesson?
In your example, it is a stupid type of mistake that average people make, even when they don't know they're being careless. If you lived next to the forest and your house burnt down from that it would be classed as an accidental house fire causing a forest fire; caused by humans, but you're unlikely to get a bill unless you look like you can pay for it! They don't to ruin your life over that, but they'll slap your wrist if appropriate.
OTOH if you go camping and neglect to take basic steps that were even on a sign you drove past getting there, and you cause a fire that makes a lot of people mad because you impacted their favorite recreation sites, well now you're probably gonna get blamed to the full extent allowed.
Also things like, if your cooking fire escapes did you make your own fire pit, and it wasn't good enough, or did you use one that was already there and it wasn't good enough? They're likely to treat one of those as more of an accident than the other. They know everybody is an idiot, they're only asking that people try to prevent fire, that they attempt to take preventative steps.
My first home computer was a Timex/Sinclair 1000.
Perhaps you saw a new device in the store, so it would make sense you thought it would keep out liquids. But that style of metalicized plastic dome tend to crack. The key thing to understand isn't that plastic can keep water out, it is that it can also keep it in. The foil tends to pinhole, and just using the computer in a cold room can cause condensation on the inside of the keys. It isn't the keys you press that stick, but when you press a key, then the most cracked nearby key will join the fun and stick!
If you think you understand how awful that keyboard is just because you touched it and found out why they called it a "dead flesh" keyboard, you still have no idea.
This is Apple, it isn't going to be ugly and poorly designed, it is going to be beautiful and poorly designed. So at least PC Jr level.
You can't fully seal a screen and still be able to use it after the seasons change, or after you take it to a different climate than it was in last.
If you didn't need the screen to be able to breath to prevent moisture getting trapped, then you could just seal it so that can't happen. But you have to have air flow, which means a porous gasket. Even with a great gasket an insect can still chew through, or just push through in many cases; it might be strong when pulled or pushed, but still weak to direct lateral mechanical force. It is fairly easy and straightforwards to keep most of the insects out most of the time, but it would be nearly impossible to keep them all out all of the time.
Probably only Apple users are surprised by any of that; usually they expect there to be a little robot inside that looks like Steve Jobs that will fight off any invading bugs using cloud mana. But no, you can't update that away.
I don't know what Lenovo had in the 90s, I only bought IBM laptops back then. ;)
But I was scared when I heard the new Thinkpads have chiclet keys... but they're not flat, and they feel mostly the same. The sides are different, on the part you don't touch. Better than most desktop keyboards. Long throw, with crisp motion. They don't have as much tactile response on the bottom of the throw, but the keypress already happened by then; they have clean tactile response on the initial press. Also, they're way easier to clean, and replacement is exactly the same; the hard parts of replacement have nothing to do with the keys.
The feel is higher quality than a dome switch, and very similar to a mid grade mechanical switch. Which makes sense; they're a scissor switch that is like a combination of a mechanical switch and a dome switch.
Yeah, I saw "Liquid ingress around the keys into the keyboard can damage electronics" and thought, gee, I'm glad I bought a thinkpad because liquid that lands on the keyboard doesn't ingress to a part of the electronics that would be damaged! LOL
I guess it is only because I'm willing to carry around a business laptop that looks like a business laptop that they had enough room in the case for the drain ports.
One of the most generic examples that Courts bandy about in false advertising cases, and some types of fraud cases, is: "What if you sell a bunch of guns to the government, and they don't shoot?" That's the default example of selling something that doesn't do what it says it does.
So the answer is, we know it works because they didn't get in trouble after selling it to the government!
If you sell it to a private party, there is a lot more gray area about arguing what the device was for, and what the appropriate expectations were. But when you sell it to the Government, you're operating under the most cliched examples; the facts of your case will end up exactly matching the hypotheticals already considered in other cases. ;) Nobody is going to believe that you thought the Government wanted to buy it as a fancy paperweight; it is very easy to presume that you knew the Government was buying it to actually use it.
For telling us it is secure.
Unfortunately, words stated without modifiers are not presumed by the Courts to be impossible absolutes, but rather to be typical values of the word.
So telling you it is secure, that means secure, as in the state something is in after an effort to secure it.
Compare also, "my money is in a safe" to "my money is safe" and "your money is safe with us!" Safe means a lot of different things, there is no expectation that it always mean, "unblemished until the heat death of the Universe." If steps were taken to make it safe, now it is safe, to some real-world degree. Same for security. Your device has been secured. Sleep better, or not, your choice.
Maybe I'm just not as Appy as you, but my mobile device has maps that I downloaded and control.
It is probably because I'm educated enough to read a map that I know the difference between reading a map on an app I control, and reading a map on an app somebody else controls.
If you don't know what freedom is or which decisions it comes from, instead of throwing away your phone maybe just stop pretending you care about freedom?
Mostly good, but your mistake is with the word "for" in the construct, "for circumvention."
Courts don't play word games, they're way stricter in how they use words than that. "For" in that case doesn't stick to any word you put next to it; it sticks to what they actually did. So it doesn't matter if you can describe their conduct as circumvention. You don't just then get to substitute the word circumvention instead of what they did.
If they were manufacturing it to sell to law enforcement, or to use on behalf of law enforcement, then it was manufactured for law enforcement purposes. Courts are strict about how they use words, and word games are also sometimes strict in how they use words, but that doesn't imply that a Court is going to listen to word games.
Also, if the statute says that law enforcement can do it, and you're claiming that somewhere else it says you actually can't help them do it because they used the word "circumvention" without modifiers, that's just not winnable. If you convince the Court that there is a conflict in the phrasing they don't say "you win," they look for a way to read it that is actually consistent and works. And here that is obvious; the exception applies to situations that legitimately involve law enforcement. So if you win the word game, you didn't win anything, the ruling would still be the same. You'd have to find some other reasonable, workable thing that Congress might have meant when they passed it, that if true would change the analysis. But this doesn't even make motions in that direction; it is obvious what Congress intended: Cops can do this, others can only do it if they're helping cops.
The case where the Court would even listen to your argument about the timing of the contracts is if the government arrested you and charged you with making a circumvention tool, and you were saying, "I was only going to sell it to cops, I promise!" And having a contract with cops is only one way you might defend yourself. If you haven't sold it to anybody yet, then just having a spreadsheet showing sales to cops would be enough for you to win, absent other evidence of your intent.
You did link to part of the DMCA, but only to make your post appear as if you had a clue. You didn't actually read it. If you did, you'd have seen that it doesn't just say "no manufacture," it goes on:
So actually, if you're usually selling it to cops but once in awhile you accidentally sell it to a criminal you might still be fine under this section. But clearly if you're manufacturing it with the intent of selling it to the government, you're golden; you don't even need to lean on the law enforcement exception, because the primary purpose of the tech is to access a physical device connected to a criminal investigation, not a copyrighted work. It doesn't matter if the safe might contain a painting, that doesn't make picking the lock into a copyright issue.
If your lawyer tried to raise these arguments, you'd not only lose, your lawyer would risk getting disbarred.
Having a fire extinguisher in the car in this situation is unlikely to be good enough. It might just lead you to where this guy ended up, reporting a fire. Grass fires spread rapidly, and fire extinguishers have very limited volume. You need to have it with you in the field where you can access it rapidly.
You don't need to put the fire out, you need to stop it from spreading to other fuels. That means you need to be spraying the grass around the drone. It doesn't matter very much if the drone sits there burning. A fire extinguisher will coat the surrounding fuels in a fire retardant, and so it can be effective. Water will rapidly evaporate and so will not be as effective. You would need a continuous water supply, as from a hose, and you'd only have a bucket.
Actually in my Firefighter Training course they taught us that water does not put out fire effectively. Dirt does, though. Water cools a fire, which is weaker sauce. Dirt reduces access to oxygen. Water in wildland firefighting is mostly used to slow the spread of fire, rather than to try to put it out.
The most effective thing in this situation is actually to use a shovel to cover it with dirt to restrict air flow. Then it can go ahead and be as exothermic as it wants and you can wait it out. The reason that they say to use a fire extinguisher is because (nearly) any idiot can operate it.
A McLeod is not that useful here. You'd be better off with a garden spade or even a hazel hoe. But a Pulaski is the firefighting tool you'd want. A McLeod is useful in the forest; cutting fresh fireline you might have a Pulaski in the front breaking the ground open, some McLeods behind them clearing the thick duff, which can still burn, and then more Pulaskis following behind to cut roots. You don't do all that to cut fire line in grass, you just need to dig under the roots of the grass and you're already at pure dirt. There is no duff to clear. And the dirt is hard, you don't want a wide rake with tines for that. With a McLeod you'd be best off to turn it sideways and try to use the side of the edge as a hoe. A Pulaski you can just gouge out the clumps of grass really fast, even when the dirt is hard and dry.
I was out for a walk and I saw a utility pole burning; actually it was just the paper advertisements on the bottom burning. So I put it out in about a minute by throwing (also flammable!) bark mulch at it from a nearby landscaping planter. Using water it would have taken multiple gallons, but using bark mulch it only took a few carefully-placed handfuls. The amount of time that the bark dust spends on the surface of the fire just for the momentum to be absorbed and for gravity to take over is enough time to stop the chemical reaction from being self-sustaining. When I was firefighting we would use shovels to throw dirt up into trees to put out spots that flared back up after the fire.
The only reason they drop water out of airplanes instead of dirt is that it is easier to load.
That's pretty wild and hand-wavy. You need better arguments, or else at least to actually use enough words to make the argument you want to make. Because when you just state your conclusion in a way that purports to disagree, but you don't actually say anything, well. Then you didn't say anything, and your conclusions are without basis. So they don't even get considered.
I consider your analysis, if you had any. But you only have conclusions. And who cares about that part? You knew I had different conclusions when you felt the desire to argue, so don't even have to say anything to get that far all on your own. It should be totally obvious in that situation that I wouldn't care about your conclusions, but might listen to your reasons.
Probably you thought you were thinking about it, but you were just reciting what you were told to believe, and you didn't have reasons because you never asked for any.
It doesn't need to be "borne out by evidence" because it is part of the initial report of the incident. Rather, you'd need evidence that something different happened before questioning it. It isn't actually clear that there was even a device malfunction, it might simply have heated up enough that when it landed on dry grass it ignited it.
It also doesn't matter what prosecutors and courts think. The legal liability is there because he owned the drone. If the Forest Service chooses to bill him for the damage, then he has to pay it. The only thing the court would even be looking at is if the amount they charged him was accurate.
What matters instead is just what the individual tasked with deciding that thinks; was it excessively reckless, or just a normal accident? Courts and prosecutors don't matter to that. Because, as I pointed out above, the money goes to a different part of the government, so there is no motive to just bill everybody they can. Billing people for accidents is unpopular. So they just make a "straight" decision based on if they think society expects you to be punished extra.
The part that involves prosecutors though is the citation he did get; causing stuff to burn. If they let the prosecutors decide these things, every single time they issued the citation they would also be suing. Which would unfortunately lead the Forest rangers to write less tickets for it! The current system seems to work much better than other parts of government that deal with liability or civil takings.
If you can't tell the difference between selling you shit made overseas, and local investment, just shut the fuck up until you've learned only how to read, but also learned to actually do it once in awhile. Because that is seriously fucking stupid shit, man.
The photo in the story shows unburnt second growth conifers standing over burnt grassland, with cabins. So not a sensitive area.
Generally, the decision about holding you financially liable depends on if your actions were illegal, reckless, irresponsible, or if it was just a pure accident.
You're responsible for any damage your vehicle does, but the government agencies who make the decisions about your responsibility don't even get the money; the money just goes back to some other part of the government to reimburse them, it doesn't go back to the fire budget.
If you crashed because you were being an asshole, expect to pay for all those airplanes. If you crashed because Bambi ran across the street, it is unlikely you will get a bill. Unless you were also driving poorly.
Here they are saying, if you are doing an activity like flying a drone you have to bring a fire extinguisher with you so you can put out any fire yourself. Otherwise don't bring battery powered toys into the National Forest. I doubt they'll get billed, since the thing did explode, they didn't just crash it.
What station did you hear that on? It's AM right?
Wait, which is it, are their designs different and inferior, or copied and actually the same?
You don't seem to have any idea what your complaint is, other than China.
Ignorance of the details of the Kobe Steel QA issue does not, in itself, tell you anything at all about Chinese manufacturing.
Just build it in that if they lower theirs, we lower ours. Easy. No need to imagine that we could instead appease them into fairness by simply offering them an advantage. You don't lead yourself to fairness by offering to receive less.
You don't need "leverage," the party with lower tariffs can unilaterally increase their tariffs to match the other party, and now the relative harm of the one-sided tariff is mitigated. Plus, you can build into that increase that it will go down automatically after the other party is found to have lowered theirs in practice. So you can build a reasonable and fair negotiating position into the rules even absent any extant negotiation.
Also, consider, do we mean just "cars" or do we mean "cars and car parts." Because my car was built in Japan and the US, but almost all my replacement parts are being made in China. It is reasonable to assume then that many cars assembled in the US have lots of their parts made in China, too.
Also, don't leave out the other part of the discussion; cars are heavy and expensive to transport so they're often made close to the buyer. Chinese companies can own car factories in the US, and they do. So parity here isn't just the tariff, they're also talking about ownership rules. It may be that if the Chinese won't allow US companies to own factories in China, then they could pay an extra tariff to own factories in the US. Perhaps, equal to whatever extra it ends up costing US companies in China to contract a factory compared to if they could own one.
If he can herd the idiots towards real protectionism instead of ham-handed economic flailing, surely many people will be glad. People from a wide variety of political sides!
Elon Musk, Cat Whisperer.
I'd love to be able to either wholly own a company in China, or else require Chinese companies to also use a local intermediary. Then we could compete. I don't mind letting China set up the rules if we're going to mirror them. We have a big trade deficit, anything that improves parity helps.