I take that back, you cited the FAA. I am not sure if that actually changes anything. The containers used in the cargo hold remain bomb resistant, regardless of the regulations. I am also unable to find a citation for the claim that they can't be shipped in the cargo hold.
It amuses me that there is no TSA screening for chartered flights. You can charter a flight and drive right up to the hanger, skipping TSA entirely. I'm pretty sure that a jet, freshly filled with fuel, will cause all sorts of consternation if you crash it into something like an occupied sports arena. It doesn't even need to be a big jet, either. Burning fuel would fly all over the place, as would bits of wreckage, causing a rather spectacular scene. No air marshals, no cockpit doors, and not a lick of official security required before boarding...
When the TSA first came into existence, one of the things they mentioned was that airports (airlines?) could opt out and maintain their own security staff, so long as they met certain criteria. I do not know what that criteria is, but I am curious if they would be required to follow a rule such as this one.
Somebody here has to be an expert on these things.
Did you just cite a TSA rule to argue that the containers in the cargo hold aren't explosion resistant?
They are correct, by the way. With the exception of some pretty old planes that haven't been had the containers replaced, they are explosion resistant. The TSA rules aren't usually indicative of reality. That's why they call it security theater.
If curious, there have been a whole bunch of recent articles that mention that they are now explosion and fre resistant and have been for quite a while now. I have no idea why you'd think TSA regulations have any bearing on this, actually.
I am kinda partial to being cautious when ceding power to the government. You never know who is going to be elected. Businesses, while capable of being vile bastards, don't usually get to use threats of violence. Usually...
And, because this is Slashdot, no that doesn't mean I'm in favor of no government or against all regulations. Folks will willfully misinterpret the phrase, "being cautious."
I sense a business opportunity. I'm gonna start a CDN service and pay for nothing. I'm just gonna make the ISP house my equipment. They have to do it for free, too. Well, they will after some imagined law. It's closer to the people!
I should be able to offer this service pretty cheap. Hell, I might even do cloud storage and SaaS. They better upgrade their switches when I tell them to, or there's gonna be hell to pay. I will write angry tweets!
Without contacting the owner, or authorized representative, you run the risk of trampling on the property owner's rights.
I am halfway convinced that a reasonable exception should be made, to do just that. I'd go so far as to say that I feel Internet access, at least availability, should be a right and that reasonable access should be mandated by law for renters where such service is available.
It is not currently a right. There's a whole lot of caveats that make it difficult to make a right. I could, literally, rent a house to you - right this minute - where there is no terrestrial service, nor is a cell tower close enough to provide service. I'd probably disallow you, the renter, permission to mount a satellite dish on said property. (I would do so for you, or have a professional install it.)
So, what would this law look like? I can't agree, at this moment in time and with this information, that you should be allowed to have them come run cable, if the owner doesn't want cable. I can agree that telephone lines are a right.
Convince me, in other words. I'm already halfway there. Tell me what this right, and law, would look like?
You'll need to establish that the renter's rights exceed the value of the property owner's rights, and where and when they are. I trust you'll try to be rational about this.
Keep in mind that some areas have limited choices and some have no reasonable options available, at all.
Take, for example, the house I mentioned. It is up above Stratton, Maine. I'm not even sure if satellite is an option without a tower/mast and/or removing trees from the property - reasonably. At what point does the property owner become responsible for maintaining this? What are uptime and bandwidth expectations?
I'm genuinely curious and, as I said, I'm halfway convinced it should be a right. I'm just not sure how. You will need building owner consent to even run new phone lines. That's the current system and phones are covered by utility laws, meaning they are already pretty much considered a necessity.
I absolutely welcome feedback and suggestions. No, "They have to let me do what I want!" is not actually helpful and will convince nobody.;-) So, I trust you'll be same and rational. I've been away for a bit, so I am not sure if we've previously interacted. Suffice to say, some folks aren't rational.
Yup. It's often trotted out as an example of the wealthy being beaten by the poor. Well, in reality, they simply exchanged rich people and killed more poor people than they killed rich people. They just kept on killing, too. They'd kill you for not having the right clothing. Hell, they even killed those who started the revolt. They killed a journalist pretty much for pointing out that they were just murdering people. Hell, they even changed the calendar, and days of the week, so as to have an excuse to keep murdering.
And no, they were killing the poor. A few rich people did die. New rich people took over. They murdered some more poor people. Then Napoleon happened, largely because they were too busy murdering poors and failed to pay their military that was, you guessed it, populated with poor people.
For the most part, they raped, murdered, pillaged, and burned poor people. This is somehow claimed as a success in class warfare.
Back then, the best fighter involved in class warfare was the motherfucking plague. The French Revolution did shit for class warfare. The plague did pretty good, however. Plague doesn't get enough credit. Plague is a badass and ain't afeared of nothin'!
Also, this is so not meant as a history lesson. I may be skipping a few parts, for brevity and humor.;-)
Did you just claim that Comcast *must* house Netflix's equipment, on Comcast's property, for free? Am I understanding this correctly?
Not that they should, but that they must do so? That they should be forced to do so?
Out of curiosity, how many companies should they be forced to do this for? Should they house my CDN, as well? Do I get to install any other equipment, or just a single server? How much space should I be able to demand for, say, storage?
And Netflix has to give them no renumeration, at all? Any equipment standards, or just any old server they want to put in there?
'Cause I am sensing a great business opportunity. I'd come out of retirement, for that. Shit yeah...
Also, I'm pretty sure you're mentally retarded and have a piss-poor grasp of simple concepts like property rights. I'd usually give you the benefit of doubt, but I'm not going to do so.
I am old. Hell, I am a Boomer. Millennials aren't to blame for this. No... Not even remotely.
Now, I didn't say anything more than they aren't to blame for this. But, I am going to.
There are some lazy, useless, stupid, ignorant, willfully ignorant, troublesome, spineless, egotistical, offensive, aggressive, cowardly, and demanding Millennials.
They don't actually have much power, even though they are quite vocal.
Truth is, most of them are intelligent, kind, understanding, compassionate, growing in wisdom, creative, hard working, industrious, etc... For whatever reason, you just seem to not see them. They are not only there, they are the vast majority.
By the way, those negative traits can be applied to a subset of my generation. They were the vocal ones. We mostly called them hippies, if you're curious.
I have to wonder if half the trouble is that we're just exposed to so much more information and communication, and have so readily available a medium for exposure. I don't really know, I don't concern myself with the soft sciences very often. I don't know as people have changed so much as people have greater amplification. I'm not sure there's a change in core values so much as there's a change in displayed traits as the rewards for certain behaviors have become greater.
It used to be that being a jackass kid resulted in someone punishing you. Today, it results in you getting your own television shows. We've always had jackass kids, and adults, is the point. There's just now a cheap and easy mechanism to reward that behavior and amplify it.
I'm a mathematician. I point that out, just so I can point out how much I agree with your statement. I don't mind and I am inclined to believe the current science is a pretty good guess, for most subjects. I don't dislike science. I love it.
Somehow, it has turned into a belief system. It's as if some folks have adopted science as the new religion, including thinking that it can't be questioned. The whole point of the scientific method is that it can be questioned. I have no idea how this happened.
Basically, I woke up one day and found out that consensus is considered fact. I am not even sure where the idea of settled science came from. If the science was settled, we'd stop doing it. Hell, I am a scientist. I am wrong more times in a day then most people are all week. If you don't believe me, ask the girlfriend.
Are you kidding me? Have you not seen some of the comments on astro or quantum physics?
We will redefine it, call it wrong, and use piss poor understanding of the scientific process to support or mistakes. We can't even spell standard model, but we will tell you why it's wrong.
When someone uses the word probably, and they have no evidence and aren't talking about math, it is known as a weasel word. It indicates that they aren't interested in fact, honesty, and learning. You'd have more enjoyment, and greater odds of success, trying to teach your kitchen table to play fetch.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care if you had to kill time, there are no excuses. Heretic!
I presume that award is a daily, or weekly, award? I'm not sure it stands, as a contender, In a longer time frame.
Polls don't tell you what people think. They tell you which of the limited answers they feel comfortable choosing.
Ideally, checks and balances exist both ways. The executive is meant to check the judicial, as much as the reverse is true.
West Wing isn't actually a documentary.
Huh... I have no idea why your post is at a -1.
When I skimmed the summary, I had to go back and read it. I read it as AA, and not the cell type.
I take that back, you cited the FAA. I am not sure if that actually changes anything. The containers used in the cargo hold remain bomb resistant, regardless of the regulations. I am also unable to find a citation for the claim that they can't be shipped in the cargo hold.
It amuses me that there is no TSA screening for chartered flights. You can charter a flight and drive right up to the hanger, skipping TSA entirely. I'm pretty sure that a jet, freshly filled with fuel, will cause all sorts of consternation if you crash it into something like an occupied sports arena. It doesn't even need to be a big jet, either. Burning fuel would fly all over the place, as would bits of wreckage, causing a rather spectacular scene. No air marshals, no cockpit doors, and not a lick of official security required before boarding...
When the TSA first came into existence, one of the things they mentioned was that airports (airlines?) could opt out and maintain their own security staff, so long as they met certain criteria. I do not know what that criteria is, but I am curious if they would be required to follow a rule such as this one.
Somebody here has to be an expert on these things.
Did you just cite a TSA rule to argue that the containers in the cargo hold aren't explosion resistant?
They are correct, by the way. With the exception of some pretty old planes that haven't been had the containers replaced, they are explosion resistant. The TSA rules aren't usually indicative of reality. That's why they call it security theater.
If curious, there have been a whole bunch of recent articles that mention that they are now explosion and fre resistant and have been for quite a while now. I have no idea why you'd think TSA regulations have any bearing on this, actually.
Why would you assume that? They don't assume responsibility for anything else, do they?
It seems a bit of a strange assumption to make, given the existing evidence.
I am kinda partial to being cautious when ceding power to the government. You never know who is going to be elected. Businesses, while capable of being vile bastards, don't usually get to use threats of violence. Usually...
And, because this is Slashdot, no that doesn't mean I'm in favor of no government or against all regulations. Folks will willfully misinterpret the phrase, "being cautious."
LOL
I sense a business opportunity. I'm gonna start a CDN service and pay for nothing. I'm just gonna make the ISP house my equipment. They have to do it for free, too. Well, they will after some imagined law. It's closer to the people!
I should be able to offer this service pretty cheap. Hell, I might even do cloud storage and SaaS. They better upgrade their switches when I tell them to, or there's gonna be hell to pay. I will write angry tweets!
Hmm...
Without contacting the owner, or authorized representative, you run the risk of trampling on the property owner's rights.
I am halfway convinced that a reasonable exception should be made, to do just that. I'd go so far as to say that I feel Internet access, at least availability, should be a right and that reasonable access should be mandated by law for renters where such service is available.
It is not currently a right. There's a whole lot of caveats that make it difficult to make a right. I could, literally, rent a house to you - right this minute - where there is no terrestrial service, nor is a cell tower close enough to provide service. I'd probably disallow you, the renter, permission to mount a satellite dish on said property. (I would do so for you, or have a professional install it.)
So, what would this law look like? I can't agree, at this moment in time and with this information, that you should be allowed to have them come run cable, if the owner doesn't want cable. I can agree that telephone lines are a right.
Convince me, in other words. I'm already halfway there. Tell me what this right, and law, would look like?
You'll need to establish that the renter's rights exceed the value of the property owner's rights, and where and when they are. I trust you'll try to be rational about this.
Keep in mind that some areas have limited choices and some have no reasonable options available, at all.
Take, for example, the house I mentioned. It is up above Stratton, Maine. I'm not even sure if satellite is an option without a tower/mast and/or removing trees from the property - reasonably. At what point does the property owner become responsible for maintaining this? What are uptime and bandwidth expectations?
I'm genuinely curious and, as I said, I'm halfway convinced it should be a right. I'm just not sure how. You will need building owner consent to even run new phone lines. That's the current system and phones are covered by utility laws, meaning they are already pretty much considered a necessity.
I absolutely welcome feedback and suggestions. No, "They have to let me do what I want!" is not actually helpful and will convince nobody. ;-) So, I trust you'll be same and rational. I've been away for a bit, so I am not sure if we've previously interacted. Suffice to say, some folks aren't rational.
That does raise an interesting question... Well, I think it is interesting, but that's just me.
So, who do you trust more, Trump or Comcast?
Yup. It's often trotted out as an example of the wealthy being beaten by the poor. Well, in reality, they simply exchanged rich people and killed more poor people than they killed rich people. They just kept on killing, too. They'd kill you for not having the right clothing. Hell, they even killed those who started the revolt. They killed a journalist pretty much for pointing out that they were just murdering people. Hell, they even changed the calendar, and days of the week, so as to have an excuse to keep murdering.
And no, they were killing the poor. A few rich people did die. New rich people took over. They murdered some more poor people. Then Napoleon happened, largely because they were too busy murdering poors and failed to pay their military that was, you guessed it, populated with poor people.
For the most part, they raped, murdered, pillaged, and burned poor people. This is somehow claimed as a success in class warfare.
Back then, the best fighter involved in class warfare was the motherfucking plague. The French Revolution did shit for class warfare. The plague did pretty good, however. Plague doesn't get enough credit. Plague is a badass and ain't afeared of nothin'!
Also, this is so not meant as a history lesson. I may be skipping a few parts, for brevity and humor. ;-)
Wait...
Did you just claim that Comcast *must* house Netflix's equipment, on Comcast's property, for free? Am I understanding this correctly?
Not that they should, but that they must do so? That they should be forced to do so?
Out of curiosity, how many companies should they be forced to do this for? Should they house my CDN, as well? Do I get to install any other equipment, or just a single server? How much space should I be able to demand for, say, storage?
And Netflix has to give them no renumeration, at all? Any equipment standards, or just any old server they want to put in there?
'Cause I am sensing a great business opportunity. I'd come out of retirement, for that. Shit yeah...
Also, I'm pretty sure you're mentally retarded and have a piss-poor grasp of simple concepts like property rights. I'd usually give you the benefit of doubt, but I'm not going to do so.
I am old. Hell, I am a Boomer. Millennials aren't to blame for this. No... Not even remotely.
Now, I didn't say anything more than they aren't to blame for this. But, I am going to.
There are some lazy, useless, stupid, ignorant, willfully ignorant, troublesome, spineless, egotistical, offensive, aggressive, cowardly, and demanding Millennials.
They don't actually have much power, even though they are quite vocal.
Truth is, most of them are intelligent, kind, understanding, compassionate, growing in wisdom, creative, hard working, industrious, etc... For whatever reason, you just seem to not see them. They are not only there, they are the vast majority.
By the way, those negative traits can be applied to a subset of my generation. They were the vocal ones. We mostly called them hippies, if you're curious.
I have to wonder if half the trouble is that we're just exposed to so much more information and communication, and have so readily available a medium for exposure. I don't really know, I don't concern myself with the soft sciences very often. I don't know as people have changed so much as people have greater amplification. I'm not sure there's a change in core values so much as there's a change in displayed traits as the rewards for certain behaviors have become greater.
It used to be that being a jackass kid resulted in someone punishing you. Today, it results in you getting your own television shows. We've always had jackass kids, and adults, is the point. There's just now a cheap and easy mechanism to reward that behavior and amplify it.
Meh... What do I know?
I'm a mathematician. I point that out, just so I can point out how much I agree with your statement. I don't mind and I am inclined to believe the current science is a pretty good guess, for most subjects. I don't dislike science. I love it.
Somehow, it has turned into a belief system. It's as if some folks have adopted science as the new religion, including thinking that it can't be questioned. The whole point of the scientific method is that it can be questioned. I have no idea how this happened.
Basically, I woke up one day and found out that consensus is considered fact. I am not even sure where the idea of settled science came from. If the science was settled, we'd stop doing it. Hell, I am a scientist. I am wrong more times in a day then most people are all week. If you don't believe me, ask the girlfriend.
I'll probably be modded down for this, but you're right.
Are you kidding me? Have you not seen some of the comments on astro or quantum physics?
We will redefine it, call it wrong, and use piss poor understanding of the scientific process to support or mistakes. We can't even spell standard model, but we will tell you why it's wrong.
No. You would think that. On the other hand, I would not think that.
When someone uses the word probably, and they have no evidence and aren't talking about math, it is known as a weasel word. It indicates that they aren't interested in fact, honesty, and learning. You'd have more enjoyment, and greater odds of success, trying to teach your kitchen table to play fetch.
Sure can.