Yeah, kids would also need to learn to program a software defined radio, and spend their allowance on the electronics to build the defeat device. If he's really that motivated to get off the grid, and able to take multiple difficult planned steps over time to achieve it, maybe she's a good influence after all, and just let her stay over late on the weekend?
If the insurance company wants the data, they would just mail them out honestly, offer a discount for people who use it, then raise rates across the board by the same amount as the discount. The vast majority of customers will be using it, and the average is all they care about.
This product is about selling a false sense of control to parents, which is exactly what it is supposed to be. No conspiracy needed.
Summary is that re-offend rates were 32% for non participants & 23% for participants.
This is an uncontrolled study, so it is not very meaningful. The participants were self-selecting, and likely those already more motivated to straighten themselves out. You cannot confidently say that the program did any good at all.
The same can be said of the NY program; the participants are self-selecting. Maybe that is just what those least-likely to re-offend want to do with their time inside, if given the chance. I don't believe that, I think there is real value in the program, but I don't think you're going to be able to do a study where the volunteers all get sent to prison in order to make sure that you have the right demographic mix for the study. This is a type of human situation that just isn't going to have high quality research results. The best you can do is to do something you think will help, keep good records, and decide afterwards if it helped or not. Hopefully the records are good enough to use numbers in the analysis, though if there are any contested points about the research then the related numbers will just be garbage; there won't be the opportunity to fix it, because of the problems with the study group.
I work for a tech company. I don't think anyone has ever been asked if they had a criminal record during job interview in the 100+ people hired over the years.
Asked? Heavens no. The background check takes care of that. They only ever ask you to fill out the "have you had any felonies" form if they know you did and want to catch you lying.
It is common to give everybody the form, so that if something comes up later that didn't make the initial background check you can measure them for honesty whenever new information shows up, without any additional notice or disclosure required.
In my experience, if somebody has something on their record then the goal is to evaluate their accuracy of disclosure, sense of responsibility, and relevance to the job.
If somebody was convicted of a crime and they're still making excuses, then I don't care if the crime related to the work or not; they're probably not going to have a good work ethic. I don't care what their other job skills are if they don't have that.
If they can do the whole song and dance deferentially, then it can move forward to "does the crime relate to the job?" If not, then they can move forwards and join the normal first round interviews. I'd say less than 5% can describe what they were convicted of without minimizing, misleading, justifying, etc. I can usually listen to them for 5 minutes, and before even looking at the background check I already know it is going to say something much worse than what the applicant implied. And if it was a theft crime, they're deeply into negative trust territory at that point. I mean, check the bathroom for TP after they leave. Make sure the emergency exit door alarm isn't turned off, too.
Sure, I'm not saying it is a magic bullet, or good for all companies and situations. I wouldn't use that type of a system from day 1 in a startup; I'd have strong leadership until there was an existing workforce that was already demonstrating the work ethic required for the system to work well, and most of the work was understood by the workers.
There are absolutely downsides, even if done correctly. The thing is, though, the negatives that are real are dwarfed by fake negatives that people jump up and down handwaving over when they first hear about these types of systems. There are always a bunch of people insisting that it can't work; apparently ignorant of if it has been tried, or what the pros and cons turn out to be in practice.
That said, if a team member is unpopular with their teammates, on a small team, I would absolutely want to fire somebody. With a boss, they can choose to fire the individual, or the whole rest of the team. If the team is voting, the majority is always safe. But in practice, few businesses are privately held, and corporate bosses will themselves get fired if they fire a whole team based on inability of an individual to get along. When these situations come up, people often discover that nobody cares about the sob story from the person who can't get along; if part of the job is working with others, and the others you work most closely with would vote you off the team... are you doing a good job? At the whole job?
I predict that if somebody did a study on it they would find that in teams using a flat management system, people complaining that it is a "popularity contest" would tend to have lower productivity than average, and people who believe that team members are expected to get along with their peers would have higher average production.
Right, that is the general argument; the important things they actually do can be done without having generic, open-ended power over underlings. And in fact once that is realized, you can even have a different role handling external interfacing than handles inter-team conflicts, with different people in the rotations to wear the hats. And the very small number of decisions to be made can generally be converted to team decisions; instead of a decision, the person filling the role decides on a proposal to the team. If the team uses a networked decision-making technology they can often do that asynchronously, too.
IMO that continues to conflate bossing with managing the resource. Why would the role "explaining to the suits what is possible and what isn't" benefit from having the general powers of an executive officer? If there is some sort of related decision to be made, they might actually benefit from not having anybody able to just make the decision. Then if it is something real, a group decision can be made, and if it is just somebody trying to grasp the levers of power then they can quickly get past the idea without having to go and undo it.
That said, what you describe is a workable alternate approach in many cases.
Hating popular award-winning fiction doesn't make you a hipster, it just means you have unpopular taste. That is OK, but ranting to others that they have poor taste for liking something popular is pretty lame.
Judging from your English I highly doubt you read a short 1500 page trilogy, either. So how would you know?
However, considering that many users here do in fact read books, and have in fact read those books, it is a wonderful reference to use. That is true regardless of if the books are good or bad. They explore the subject at hand.
Protip: you don't have to have a boss to have somebody working the management function you describe.
That's the part people are missing; the vast majority of management functions do not require a person with nearly unlimited power and discretion over the other workers involved. A team can simply have a "external liaison" hat that somebody has to wear, and whoever is currently assigned that function does the "explaining to the suits what is possible and what isn't." In your example, I see no utility at all in involving a boss. If there is a project lead who is not only a technical lead, but actually a boss, they would actually be well-served having an assistant who can do grunt work like explaining possibilities of engineering to suits. That said, most of the projects I've been on do not have a boss inside the team at all; the worst the team leader could do is the same that any other team member could do; write an email to a suit. Instead, the team leader is the one designated to have authority over what goes into the source repository, the technical requirements for those things, and to tie-break the who-does-what when everybody wants the same toy.
Conflating bossing with the management of a resource is the base of the problem. If there is truly a conflict of interest between what the team wants and what an individual worker does, that can be dealt with in a separate process than is used for managing team resources. In fact, once that sort of issue comes up and there is that much conflict, the worker just needs to get fired (or transferred, re-educated, etc, depending on your societal norms) and that can be done by a vote; there is no requirement to have a Boss even to decide who gets hired and fired.
Of course, all of that works only when workers have a high enough morale to support a healthy work ethic. If there is high turnover then it will be Lord of the Flies. But if it is well-paid professionals, who value the work they do personally, and the work the company does, then it can run very smoothly. (I use "professional" to describe people who take their career seriously, not just white collar workers with letters)
But, you can't have a hundred people just doing whatever they want. Somebody has to be in charge. Somebody has to be the final authority when tough decisions need to be made. Otherwise, you've just got chaos.
In a restaurant that I'm familiar with, the actual "manager" works from home, (read: doesn't work) and whoever the most senior person physically in the building at any time is the "Person In Charge." That is the person designated as the official "call 911/contractor/inspector" if something goes wrong. This is not a real problem, it is just something you're presuming is a problem. You don't have to "be in charge" to be the designated front-person for dealing with (some class of problem.)
Employee-owned businesses, which are usually corporations where all the stockholders are employees, don't have any problem at all. Where you need a management function, you can consent to placing responsibilities on a particular worker, without making them a "boss" or giving them direct power over other employees. When you take away the generic ability to throw a temper tantrum and fire people, it actually doesn't reduce the ability to make authorized decisions to achieve real and consensual management goals.
Of course, nerds already know about this in detail because Kim Stanley Robinson explored the subject for about the last thousand pages of the Mars trilogy.
The City also owns the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street, but the property resident is required to keep it mowed or raked, as required. And everybody has legal access to it. Very little regarding these types of issues breaks down into the arguments that chest-thumping my-king-is-my-castle advocates use. When they try to understand the mowing requirement, they invariably get bent out of shape; they're compelled to feel under attack, because their misguided stand-in for property rights would leave the requirement on the adjacent owner, not the resident.
I just get upset I can't legally engage in sword duels on "private property." So much for the castle theory. I'm only allowed if I catch them crawling through the window, not if they consent.
In the story though, the morons aren't accused of violating private property, but rather restricted airspace. The funny thing about the private property angle; protecting uniquely valuable property is one of the reasons for restricted air spaces in cities. And people with rooftop helipads have a right to make use of the airspace, which is negatively impacted by unlicensed pilots flying shit through air traffic lanes.
As with everything else, just regulation will assist in managing legitimate access, and unjust regulation will block access. No regulation, combined with locally scarce airspace, would just leave it unsafe for manned flights.
The fine isn't just for unauthorized drone use; it is for unauthorized drone use in restricted airspace, dozens of times. That alone makes it reckless, because the restricted areas are for real public safety reasons. Doing it repeatedly shows a recklessly casual disregard for safety regulations, while violating them, and in the physical presence of people, property, and aircraft that are supposed to be protected by the flight rules.
And not only is there is an air traffic easement, there is also a variable building height limit. You can certainly still stand on the roof and enjoy your 500' though.
Another thing that slipped through the cracks: From the Cornell link:
The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
You own the bottom 500' or so, but that is because it is not navigable airspace. In the same way that a river with obstructions is not "navigable" but might still have small watercraft tootling about. In my State the State owns all navigable waterways, and there is a law allowing 10' of bank access. So most waterfront property has a public easement and can't legally molest bank fisherman who would otherwise be trespassing. If things are officially classified as navigable is a major thing in understanding these regulations. If it is navigable, I can also get a permit to dredge for gold. Of course regarding air space there is still an easement, because access below the navigable level is permitted for takeoff and landing, and some other uses.
And the Godwin-equivalent for these discussions: Property tax! That's my 500', but I lease it from the State indefinitely.
Cane nectar would be a different product, and would be very expensive. The words have meaning, and if you don't know the meaning of the different word forms for foods, then you won't have any way to understand the ingredients or what they are communicating to the customers the product is targeting.
I can easily see cane nectar costing more than hummingbird tongues. You'd just about have to hire hummingbirds to collect it.
Generally speaking, people who eat oreos are only reading the label because they're bored. They're not actually choosing different products based on the ingredients, unless it is to avoid a food allergy. And if they don't know that calories are based on serving sizes, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I'm in the US, and you can't do it here either. Sugar is listed not only in the ingredients, but also in the "Nutrition Facts" which tells you how many sugar calories there are. If there is no added sugar, there has to be no added sugar calories. Same as "sugar free." Evaporated cane juice isn't a checklist gimmick to pretend to be sugar-free, it is actually a much more expensive product than sugar, it is a more natural and less processed form of cane sugar. It still has all the non-sugar parts of the cane juice that give it a rich flavor. It is kindof funny in consideration of the above comment about non-processed foods. That is exactly why evaporated cane juice is on the label; because a lot of consumers these days want a less processed sweetener. If people didn't know what it meant, the product would have "sugar" which is cheaper, or "brown sugar" if they wanted a broader flavor.
There are apparently companies who label the sugar content wrong, and got in trouble and had to stop. Which in my view proves that it is illegal here, and explains why I've never actually seen an example of it. People who are cynical, but don't read labels, seem to latch onto the fact that it happened, without realizing that they know about it only because it was stopped.
In the case of reconstituted juice, I have indeed seen "110% juice." They're required to measure the amount of liquid they remove and put back the same amount, but I agree it is a likely area for abuse. Most labels here are pretty good. If it has added sugar, it isn't juice it is "juice cocktail."
They sell canned water at whatever store the local survivalists are shopping at. In my area it is usually a "military surplus store" that is mostly civilian survivalist gear. In the Olden Days they used to make lots of canned water to fill the government bomb shelters built into school basements. If you see a public building that still has a civil defense sign, it might have some 50+ year old canned water in the basement.
Cans are way more expensive than plastic though. And yes they can be recycled; at a high electricity cost. Lower than the energy needed for mining, so recycling of metals often happens.
Here we put a 5 cent deposit on the plastic bottles. The plastic is recycled into new bottles.
Oh, it still works just fine for people who read the labels. If you don't understand what evaporated cane juice is, then don't buy products that contain it. Simple simple. If you don't know what syrup is, or if it is something that you eat, then be on the safe side and don't eat it. Easy as home-baked apple pie. Which is either brain-dead simple, or unattainably hard, depending on if you can comprehend the recipe and the ordering of the steps.
All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.
Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... it would be glorious!
My goodness, it would be like somebody invented a time machine back to the Good Ol' Days, when the information glut was nearly half information. Now most of the information hides behind ten pages of clicky infotainment.
OK smahty pants, now what would happen if I knew that, and stand by my statements? Would be capable of reasoned disagreement, including, uh, reasons? Odd that you post something that is content-free, presumptuous, and accusatory, and yet is pure speculation with no consideration for other possibilities, and yet you accuse me of "hatred."
I stand by my... quote of lectlaw.com lol and also my analysis of the case.
If you're so smaht, when you converted the numbers and looked everything up... did you find the horseshit? Because you'll find 2 things; McDonalds was holding the coffee at an undrinkable temperature that was much hotter than everybody else in the industry, and also that anti-responsibility commenters here are lying or "misremembering" both about the common temperatures used in food service and also about the temperatures that McDonalds was using. It is hilarious that you would accuse me of not understanding number conversions, when you didn't do the conversion, didn't plug the numbers into the conversation to understand what they mean in the context.
When I was talking about getting parts to fit, I'm talking about mechanical parts. These are mechanical engines, with an electronic controller. The controller doesn't need to have new code to replace existing functionality; for that you fiddle the constants. New mechanical parts that would need new controller code don't fit without doing real engineering. In practice it is rarely done.
And the reason that nobody is replacing their "PCM" for emissions is that vehicles don't generally have a separate PCM and ECU, they have an ECU and the PCM is only discussed separately because that functionality has a separate harness going into the ECU. The only usefulness of discussing "PCM" in the context of home-brew would be Pulse Code Modulation to test sensors. The Powertrain Control Module isn't even an actual part in most cases.
And yes, the reason people change them is to turn down the emissions controls. We're talking, over 99% of the actual use. People talk about "custom tuning," that is what they mean. They're not better engineers than the guys at the car company; and the electronics didn't get out of tune. Fiddling bits in the controller, or replacing it, isn't going to make magic ponies fly out of the exhaust. The only reason the narrow performance that the user cares about is going up is because emissions controls are going down.
The additional OBD-II reader is exactly the right approach for learning what is being flashed, and lots of people are already using an additional diagnostics system that connects to the OBD port internally. I do think you missed my main point there though. It wouldn't take "more than that," because what I described would end up with a better passive diagnostics system than the dealer has. Reading the codes for the active tests would be very useful; that is the only missing functionality right now. But if you spend any amount of time in the factory service manual for an ECU, you'll realize that almost everything the fancy tools (CONSULT-II/III, etc) can test actively, the GST (Generic Scan Tool) can also test passively in combination with a multimeter. You could have that whole diagnostics process built into the car with an open tool, and a shared database of code and repair history could be designed to uncover correlations programmatically. Using just the known GST techniques, open tools would have a best-case scenario of being able to far exceed the predictive power of the proprietary tools, because the proprietary tools don't try to correlate very much; they're mostly an expert system based on existing shop methods and practices.
The GST is the one most shops have, that they "only" paid a few thousand for. The CONSULT is the one that dealers have.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, kids would also need to learn to program a software defined radio, and spend their allowance on the electronics to build the defeat device. If he's really that motivated to get off the grid, and able to take multiple difficult planned steps over time to achieve it, maybe she's a good influence after all, and just let her stay over late on the weekend?
How about they develop a dongle that tells you when your kid sneezes or scratches his ass?
Acne can be a symptom of more serious skin conditions, and should be checked by a dermatologist. I'm going to build a prototype right away.
Sneeze detectors are already a thing, but I've never seen it in a dongle.
If the kids moved it to the parents cars, the parents would be livid with their kids over their horrible driving.
If both cars are in motion while the app is being checked, my advice to parents is to hang up and drive .
If the insurance company wants the data, they would just mail them out honestly, offer a discount for people who use it, then raise rates across the board by the same amount as the discount. The vast majority of customers will be using it, and the average is all they care about.
This product is about selling a false sense of control to parents, which is exactly what it is supposed to be. No conspiracy needed.
Moon Patrol (Cracked by The Nibbler) was the popular game title in my middle school Apple ][e lab.
Summary is that re-offend rates were 32% for non participants & 23% for participants.
This is an uncontrolled study, so it is not very meaningful. The participants were self-selecting, and likely those already more motivated to straighten themselves out. You cannot confidently say that the program did any good at all.
The same can be said of the NY program; the participants are self-selecting. Maybe that is just what those least-likely to re-offend want to do with their time inside, if given the chance. I don't believe that, I think there is real value in the program, but I don't think you're going to be able to do a study where the volunteers all get sent to prison in order to make sure that you have the right demographic mix for the study. This is a type of human situation that just isn't going to have high quality research results. The best you can do is to do something you think will help, keep good records, and decide afterwards if it helped or not. Hopefully the records are good enough to use numbers in the analysis, though if there are any contested points about the research then the related numbers will just be garbage; there won't be the opportunity to fix it, because of the problems with the study group.
I work for a tech company. I don't think anyone has ever been asked if they had a criminal record during job interview in the 100+ people hired over the years.
Asked? Heavens no. The background check takes care of that. They only ever ask you to fill out the "have you had any felonies" form if they know you did and want to catch you lying.
It is common to give everybody the form, so that if something comes up later that didn't make the initial background check you can measure them for honesty whenever new information shows up, without any additional notice or disclosure required.
In my experience, if somebody has something on their record then the goal is to evaluate their accuracy of disclosure, sense of responsibility, and relevance to the job.
If somebody was convicted of a crime and they're still making excuses, then I don't care if the crime related to the work or not; they're probably not going to have a good work ethic. I don't care what their other job skills are if they don't have that.
If they can do the whole song and dance deferentially, then it can move forward to "does the crime relate to the job?" If not, then they can move forwards and join the normal first round interviews. I'd say less than 5% can describe what they were convicted of without minimizing, misleading, justifying, etc. I can usually listen to them for 5 minutes, and before even looking at the background check I already know it is going to say something much worse than what the applicant implied. And if it was a theft crime, they're deeply into negative trust territory at that point. I mean, check the bathroom for TP after they leave. Make sure the emergency exit door alarm isn't turned off, too.
(looking at you Mr doing 20 under in the passing lane)
Hang up and drive!
Sure, I'm not saying it is a magic bullet, or good for all companies and situations. I wouldn't use that type of a system from day 1 in a startup; I'd have strong leadership until there was an existing workforce that was already demonstrating the work ethic required for the system to work well, and most of the work was understood by the workers.
There are absolutely downsides, even if done correctly. The thing is, though, the negatives that are real are dwarfed by fake negatives that people jump up and down handwaving over when they first hear about these types of systems. There are always a bunch of people insisting that it can't work; apparently ignorant of if it has been tried, or what the pros and cons turn out to be in practice.
That said, if a team member is unpopular with their teammates, on a small team, I would absolutely want to fire somebody. With a boss, they can choose to fire the individual, or the whole rest of the team. If the team is voting, the majority is always safe. But in practice, few businesses are privately held, and corporate bosses will themselves get fired if they fire a whole team based on inability of an individual to get along. When these situations come up, people often discover that nobody cares about the sob story from the person who can't get along; if part of the job is working with others, and the others you work most closely with would vote you off the team... are you doing a good job? At the whole job?
I predict that if somebody did a study on it they would find that in teams using a flat management system, people complaining that it is a "popularity contest" would tend to have lower productivity than average, and people who believe that team members are expected to get along with their peers would have higher average production.
Right, that is the general argument; the important things they actually do can be done without having generic, open-ended power over underlings. And in fact once that is realized, you can even have a different role handling external interfacing than handles inter-team conflicts, with different people in the rotations to wear the hats. And the very small number of decisions to be made can generally be converted to team decisions; instead of a decision, the person filling the role decides on a proposal to the team. If the team uses a networked decision-making technology they can often do that asynchronously, too.
IMO that continues to conflate bossing with managing the resource. Why would the role "explaining to the suits what is possible and what isn't" benefit from having the general powers of an executive officer? If there is some sort of related decision to be made, they might actually benefit from not having anybody able to just make the decision. Then if it is something real, a group decision can be made, and if it is just somebody trying to grasp the levers of power then they can quickly get past the idea without having to go and undo it.
That said, what you describe is a workable alternate approach in many cases.
Hating popular award-winning fiction doesn't make you a hipster, it just means you have unpopular taste. That is OK, but ranting to others that they have poor taste for liking something popular is pretty lame.
Judging from your English I highly doubt you read a short 1500 page trilogy, either. So how would you know?
However, considering that many users here do in fact read books, and have in fact read those books, it is a wonderful reference to use. That is true regardless of if the books are good or bad. They explore the subject at hand.
Protip: you don't have to have a boss to have somebody working the management function you describe.
That's the part people are missing; the vast majority of management functions do not require a person with nearly unlimited power and discretion over the other workers involved. A team can simply have a "external liaison" hat that somebody has to wear, and whoever is currently assigned that function does the "explaining to the suits what is possible and what isn't." In your example, I see no utility at all in involving a boss. If there is a project lead who is not only a technical lead, but actually a boss, they would actually be well-served having an assistant who can do grunt work like explaining possibilities of engineering to suits. That said, most of the projects I've been on do not have a boss inside the team at all; the worst the team leader could do is the same that any other team member could do; write an email to a suit. Instead, the team leader is the one designated to have authority over what goes into the source repository, the technical requirements for those things, and to tie-break the who-does-what when everybody wants the same toy.
Conflating bossing with the management of a resource is the base of the problem. If there is truly a conflict of interest between what the team wants and what an individual worker does, that can be dealt with in a separate process than is used for managing team resources. In fact, once that sort of issue comes up and there is that much conflict, the worker just needs to get fired (or transferred, re-educated, etc, depending on your societal norms) and that can be done by a vote; there is no requirement to have a Boss even to decide who gets hired and fired.
Of course, all of that works only when workers have a high enough morale to support a healthy work ethic. If there is high turnover then it will be Lord of the Flies. But if it is well-paid professionals, who value the work they do personally, and the work the company does, then it can run very smoothly. (I use "professional" to describe people who take their career seriously, not just white collar workers with letters)
But, you can't have a hundred people just doing whatever they want. Somebody has to be in charge. Somebody has to be the final authority when tough decisions need to be made. Otherwise, you've just got chaos.
In a restaurant that I'm familiar with, the actual "manager" works from home, (read: doesn't work) and whoever the most senior person physically in the building at any time is the "Person In Charge." That is the person designated as the official "call 911/contractor/inspector" if something goes wrong. This is not a real problem, it is just something you're presuming is a problem. You don't have to "be in charge" to be the designated front-person for dealing with (some class of problem.)
Employee-owned businesses, which are usually corporations where all the stockholders are employees, don't have any problem at all. Where you need a management function, you can consent to placing responsibilities on a particular worker, without making them a "boss" or giving them direct power over other employees. When you take away the generic ability to throw a temper tantrum and fire people, it actually doesn't reduce the ability to make authorized decisions to achieve real and consensual management goals.
Of course, nerds already know about this in detail because Kim Stanley Robinson explored the subject for about the last thousand pages of the Mars trilogy.
The City also owns the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street, but the property resident is required to keep it mowed or raked, as required. And everybody has legal access to it. Very little regarding these types of issues breaks down into the arguments that chest-thumping my-king-is-my-castle advocates use. When they try to understand the mowing requirement, they invariably get bent out of shape; they're compelled to feel under attack, because their misguided stand-in for property rights would leave the requirement on the adjacent owner, not the resident.
I just get upset I can't legally engage in sword duels on "private property." So much for the castle theory. I'm only allowed if I catch them crawling through the window, not if they consent.
In the story though, the morons aren't accused of violating private property, but rather restricted airspace. The funny thing about the private property angle; protecting uniquely valuable property is one of the reasons for restricted air spaces in cities. And people with rooftop helipads have a right to make use of the airspace, which is negatively impacted by unlicensed pilots flying shit through air traffic lanes.
As with everything else, just regulation will assist in managing legitimate access, and unjust regulation will block access. No regulation, combined with locally scarce airspace, would just leave it unsafe for manned flights.
The fine isn't just for unauthorized drone use; it is for unauthorized drone use in restricted airspace, dozens of times. That alone makes it reckless, because the restricted areas are for real public safety reasons. Doing it repeatedly shows a recklessly casual disregard for safety regulations, while violating them, and in the physical presence of people, property, and aircraft that are supposed to be protected by the flight rules.
And not only is there is an air traffic easement, there is also a variable building height limit. You can certainly still stand on the roof and enjoy your 500' though.
Another thing that slipped through the cracks:
From the Cornell link:
You own the bottom 500' or so, but that is because it is not navigable airspace. In the same way that a river with obstructions is not "navigable" but might still have small watercraft tootling about. In my State the State owns all navigable waterways, and there is a law allowing 10' of bank access. So most waterfront property has a public easement and can't legally molest bank fisherman who would otherwise be trespassing. If things are officially classified as navigable is a major thing in understanding these regulations. If it is navigable, I can also get a permit to dredge for gold. Of course regarding air space there is still an easement, because access below the navigable level is permitted for takeoff and landing, and some other uses.
And the Godwin-equivalent for these discussions: Property tax! That's my 500', but I lease it from the State indefinitely.
Cane nectar would be a different product, and would be very expensive. The words have meaning, and if you don't know the meaning of the different word forms for foods, then you won't have any way to understand the ingredients or what they are communicating to the customers the product is targeting.
I can easily see cane nectar costing more than hummingbird tongues. You'd just about have to hire hummingbirds to collect it.
Generally speaking, people who eat oreos are only reading the label because they're bored. They're not actually choosing different products based on the ingredients, unless it is to avoid a food allergy. And if they don't know that calories are based on serving sizes, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I'm in the US, and you can't do it here either. Sugar is listed not only in the ingredients, but also in the "Nutrition Facts" which tells you how many sugar calories there are. If there is no added sugar, there has to be no added sugar calories. Same as "sugar free." Evaporated cane juice isn't a checklist gimmick to pretend to be sugar-free, it is actually a much more expensive product than sugar, it is a more natural and less processed form of cane sugar. It still has all the non-sugar parts of the cane juice that give it a rich flavor. It is kindof funny in consideration of the above comment about non-processed foods. That is exactly why evaporated cane juice is on the label; because a lot of consumers these days want a less processed sweetener. If people didn't know what it meant, the product would have "sugar" which is cheaper, or "brown sugar" if they wanted a broader flavor.
There are apparently companies who label the sugar content wrong, and got in trouble and had to stop. Which in my view proves that it is illegal here, and explains why I've never actually seen an example of it. People who are cynical, but don't read labels, seem to latch onto the fact that it happened, without realizing that they know about it only because it was stopped.
In the case of reconstituted juice, I have indeed seen "110% juice." They're required to measure the amount of liquid they remove and put back the same amount, but I agree it is a likely area for abuse. Most labels here are pretty good. If it has added sugar, it isn't juice it is "juice cocktail."
What's the word then to use for what happened to the Volkswagen stock?
Evaporate.
I hope so, since so few "colas" have any cola nut in them. They're just malt or prune sodas with lots of "flavorings."
Real colas are often low caffeine, like an old-fashioned root beer.
They sell canned water at whatever store the local survivalists are shopping at. In my area it is usually a "military surplus store" that is mostly civilian survivalist gear. In the Olden Days they used to make lots of canned water to fill the government bomb shelters built into school basements. If you see a public building that still has a civil defense sign, it might have some 50+ year old canned water in the basement.
Cans are way more expensive than plastic though. And yes they can be recycled; at a high electricity cost. Lower than the energy needed for mining, so recycling of metals often happens.
Here we put a 5 cent deposit on the plastic bottles. The plastic is recycled into new bottles.
Oh, it still works just fine for people who read the labels. If you don't understand what evaporated cane juice is, then don't buy products that contain it. Simple simple. If you don't know what syrup is, or if it is something that you eat, then be on the safe side and don't eat it. Easy as home-baked apple pie. Which is either brain-dead simple, or unattainably hard, depending on if you can comprehend the recipe and the ordering of the steps.
Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... it would be glorious!
My goodness, it would be like somebody invented a time machine back to the Good Ol' Days, when the information glut was nearly half information. Now most of the information hides behind ten pages of clicky infotainment.
OK smahty pants, now what would happen if I knew that, and stand by my statements? Would be capable of reasoned disagreement, including, uh, reasons? Odd that you post something that is content-free, presumptuous, and accusatory, and yet is pure speculation with no consideration for other possibilities, and yet you accuse me of "hatred."
I stand by my... quote of lectlaw.com lol and also my analysis of the case.
If you're so smaht, when you converted the numbers and looked everything up... did you find the horseshit? Because you'll find 2 things; McDonalds was holding the coffee at an undrinkable temperature that was much hotter than everybody else in the industry, and also that anti-responsibility commenters here are lying or "misremembering" both about the common temperatures used in food service and also about the temperatures that McDonalds was using. It is hilarious that you would accuse me of not understanding number conversions, when you didn't do the conversion, didn't plug the numbers into the conversation to understand what they mean in the context.
You're doubling-down on known horseshit.
When I was talking about getting parts to fit, I'm talking about mechanical parts. These are mechanical engines, with an electronic controller. The controller doesn't need to have new code to replace existing functionality; for that you fiddle the constants. New mechanical parts that would need new controller code don't fit without doing real engineering. In practice it is rarely done.
And the reason that nobody is replacing their "PCM" for emissions is that vehicles don't generally have a separate PCM and ECU, they have an ECU and the PCM is only discussed separately because that functionality has a separate harness going into the ECU. The only usefulness of discussing "PCM" in the context of home-brew would be Pulse Code Modulation to test sensors. The Powertrain Control Module isn't even an actual part in most cases.
And yes, the reason people change them is to turn down the emissions controls. We're talking, over 99% of the actual use. People talk about "custom tuning," that is what they mean. They're not better engineers than the guys at the car company; and the electronics didn't get out of tune. Fiddling bits in the controller, or replacing it, isn't going to make magic ponies fly out of the exhaust. The only reason the narrow performance that the user cares about is going up is because emissions controls are going down.
The additional OBD-II reader is exactly the right approach for learning what is being flashed, and lots of people are already using an additional diagnostics system that connects to the OBD port internally. I do think you missed my main point there though. It wouldn't take "more than that," because what I described would end up with a better passive diagnostics system than the dealer has. Reading the codes for the active tests would be very useful; that is the only missing functionality right now. But if you spend any amount of time in the factory service manual for an ECU, you'll realize that almost everything the fancy tools (CONSULT-II/III, etc) can test actively, the GST (Generic Scan Tool) can also test passively in combination with a multimeter. You could have that whole diagnostics process built into the car with an open tool, and a shared database of code and repair history could be designed to uncover correlations programmatically. Using just the known GST techniques, open tools would have a best-case scenario of being able to far exceed the predictive power of the proprietary tools, because the proprietary tools don't try to correlate very much; they're mostly an expert system based on existing shop methods and practices.
The GST is the one most shops have, that they "only" paid a few thousand for. The CONSULT is the one that dealers have.