If you read further, the fact that the M400 has two in each nacelle is because of redundancy. This is so if one should fail, the skycar can continue to operate.
However, his first working prototype only had two engines.
The m200 does indeed have 8 smaller engines in a ring around the saucer shape. This design has been abandoned, or at least put aside in favor of the m400 concept. The 8 engine design in the saucer shape was for stability, for concentrating on the whole vertical take off aspect in a small package, over the forward motion aspect.
But I digress. I just wanted you to read up on it further and to see how it was evolving into more of a plane shape.
The comparisons that were lost on you, were how the harrier uses one single powerful engine and 4 vectored nozzles to control it's vertical and horizontal flight, and how the F-35 uses two separate engines; a fan with doors for upward thrust, and an engine with a swivel nozzle for forward and upward thrust. Yes, both designs would be impractical for home garage parking and use, however, the harrier does with one engine, what the f-35 does with two. So the number of engines is irrelevant. The function of those engines is relevant.
Can I spell out terms in a contract that I place before you? Is it legal for me to spell out terms in a contract? If you purchase an Aerosol can, there are terms spelled out on the back that proscribe its usege, as well as indicating how it cannot be used. If you intend to use that Aerosol can in a way otherwise directed and you purchase it, you are violating the terms of that sale.
Unfortunately, you are making assumptions based on evidence that is not present. It is not just a matter of "I give you money, you give me product." If I sell you a car, and I sell you that car under the terms that you never drive it past my house, it does not matter why I make that provision. All that matters is that you never drive it past my house, else you violate the terms that were spelled out BEFORE the point of sale. I am perfectly within my rights to make that provision, regardless of how silly it may seem. You are agreeing to those terms when you purchase the car from me, as long as you have been made aware of those terms before you bought it from me. It does not matter if there is a specific law on the books regarding driving past someone's house. All that matters is this...
Here are the terms. If you wish to purchase this, you need to abide by these terms. If you do not wish to abide by these terms, you cannot purchase and use this.
You do not get to dictate new terms. You do not get to decide that huffing paint from a spray can is good and legal, just because you spent money on it. Nor do you get to decide to use it as an explosive to try to remove that old tree stump. Nor do you get to try to use it as a propellant for your new "rocket bicycle" design. You might be used to dictating new terms, because it is something that is rarely enforced. People are used to driving 5 to 10 miles over the posted speed limit. That doesn't mean they aren't doing something wrong, and can't be given a ticket for it.
Where is there a law, duly passed by a legislative body, such as copyright law, which mandates that a manual, EULA or any other piece of paper or electronic image thereof has a binding effect on anybody?
Well, "A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce." A contract does not need to have signatures. You are entering into a contract when you buy a t-shirt at a store. Wikipedia even makes mention of simply buying coffee at a coffee shop is an example of an oral contract. Just because there are not a dozen orally spelled out caveats and addendums at the register doesn't make it any less of a contract. However, those caveats are spelled out in the EULAs and manuals you that comes with the software you purchase. You are entering into a contract when you purchase it. Just because you don't like the contract, doesn't make it any less of a contract.
Face it. You have to accept the fact that buying that software comes with terms you don't like but are legally held to by the fact that you entered into a contractual agreement at the point of purchase. Your only choice is to not buy that software, and instead find software with contractual obligations that you can live with.
Can you state exactly which models that he has designed and built working prototypes of, use those 8 engines? I'm not saying that you are completely wrong, just that your information is incomplete.
How many engines are used in the F-35b? Compare that to the Harrier please? Compare that to a Cesna? Compare that to an F15? Ok, so the craft I have named don't use as many, but they all don't use the same number either.
People complained about the noise when cars were first introduced. There were even ordinances that related to startling horses on the road that would limit the use of cars.
People still complain about the noise at airports. People living near them.
Your arguments seem more related to how you want people to pay attention to your design of flying car, and not your competitor. I realize he has been at it for 40 years. He has also been making mistakes for 40 years. Sure, he doesn't fly his prototypes without a tether. Seems like a smart idea, to keep from potentially destroying something that isn't ready for more expanded testing.
I admit that the argument of coming at this from the angle of a plane first makes sense. I'm just glad that the designers of helicopters didn't follow your argument.
Because it is easier to tear down, than it is to create.
Also, because if in a few months, the FAA doesn't approve it and he doesn't start selling the 10ft off the ground models, the naysayers can all jump up and down and say "See? We were right, Nyaa!"
How many naysayers said that if you sailed past the horizon, you would drop off the edge of the world?
How many naysayers looked at Orville and Wilbur's contraption and STILL said that we would never fly?
How many naysayers said that human beings would never withstand going faster than 60 miles per hour?
People Poopoo'ed VTOL. Granted the Harrier takes a very specially trained pilot because it is difficult to fly, but without it being around first, we would not now have the F-35b. Pilots have described it, saying that ignoring the controls will allow it to hover indefinitely (until fuel runs out). First we take a step, then another step, then another.
This guy has a great idea, and it's not just something that only exists in simulations, computer animations, or on paper. It's a physical contraption that you can sit in and operate. What he is facing now is red tape, and not conceptual bugs. Well, red tape and very loud people saying that what he has done is impossible and a scam.
I find it funny that some people who have watched video of his prototypes, and also say he is perpetrating a scam and it will never work. They WATCHED it work and deny what they saw. Classic.
This challenge and response session going on in this/. posting frenzy is a veritable "How-To" manual for blackmailing people.
There are ideas on how to actually beat background checks and blackmail an honest person into doing what you want, then people pointing out the holes in THOSE ideas, and then more refining and paring down, etc...
I'm sure that there would be claims of "Oh, everyone already knows all this stuff"... except, if everyone already knows all this stuff, why go through the trouble of repeating what you know to be common knowledge? If everyone already knows it, why is it being refined down? How can one person be wrong, if everyone already knows what he is saying is true? If you are correcting him, and everyone alrady knows your correction, why wasn't he included in that "everyone" part of "everyone already knows what I'm saying"... doesn't that prove that everyone doesn't already know these things?
Does everyone here already know how to make a landmine with household materials? Should I describe in detail that procedure so we can hash out the particulars of exactly what kind of shrapnel would do the most damage, and what thickness of plastic would be mot likely to stand up over time? Anyone want to argue about Freedom of Information, and how I should Indeed be posting these instructions so we can discuss them at length?
I noticed the sig in there, that ACs are not worth reading, because they are hiding their identities. I also noticed an AC post by an employee of a company involved in these background checks. He said he was posting AC because of these checks. Because posting here cou ld have a detrimental affect on his employment. Especially if I post about how to make a landmine. Especially because of posts on exactly how to successfully blackmail an innocent person.
Ignorance is universal. Especially among those of us who think we know it all. It is ignorant to think that there is responsible, intelligent discussion going on in this thread, when it is an instruction manual being built post by post that would screw over the people that are the target of the initial article that started the discussion. You might try to argue that in this case that being warned is being armed. I say that is ignorance. Noone can protect themselves against everything, even and especially if, what they are attempting to protect themselves against cannot be defended against.
Face it. If it could be proven that someone took place in this thread or even spent time reading it, and then something happened to them where they were being blackmailed with false information, it could and WOULD look like they were guilty, due to the same forewarning that we might now be claiming was a good thing.
If the salesman doesn't know that the consumer can make their own recovery CDs with the computer they are buying, then he needs to me made more aware of the details of the product he is selling. If the salesman is lying when he tells the consumer that the recovery CDs need to be purchased from the store, then he should lose the sale (and the consumers business).
I do agree that every computer purchase should come with physical discs that facilitate recovery of the operating system and software that was purchased along with the computer. If not, then every computer should come with blank cds and clear cut, written instructions (such as a sticker on the friggin screen or paper across the keys) that the consumer needs to make these discs before they do anything else, and here's how to do it.
Let's step back to the point of sale though. That salesman that tells you it is essential to buy the extended warranty. That salesman that tells you it is essential to buy an external mouse. That salesman that tells you it is essential to purchase a secure padded laptop case. That salesman that tells you it is essential to purchase an external HD. Do you absolutely NEED any of those things? Nope. Is he gonna come across in a wishy-washy way, informing you that you might enjoy the added convenience of having these things, but remind you multiple times that you really don't need them? Hell no. He'll tell you that they are essential. They are as essential as having his store make your recovery CDs. Sure, the consumer can make their own recovery discs. Guess what? The consumer can repair their own laptop too. The consumer can even grab a soldering iron and a Phillips head screwdriver and repair their own laptop after they trip on the power cord and yank the port off the motherboard. The consumer doesn't need any of those extra services that the store provides. However, people pay for conveniences. They are paying for convenience in buying a laptop over a desktop in the first place.
Now, the example that kills me, is buying a computer WITHOUT a cd burner, that requires you to burn recovery discs. That is just plain wrong.
Somebody mod the parent up please? My questions were not only answered in an informative way, but I'm gonna stick to getting my music from the artists directly when I see them at shows from now on... because of this reply.
"When you go into Best By or Fry's, pick a box with Windows VISTA off the shelf along with a shopping cart full of other gadgets, there is NO differentiation made between any of those item and that software."
This is true. Now, add a CD and a DVD to that shopping cart. Let's say that you were shopping at Walmart, where you picked up a Halloween pack of individually wrapped Snickers bars too. What happens after you get home with your purchases? Ok, you can do whatever you want with that Optical Mouse. You can do whatever you want with the PS2 to USB adapter. You cannot, however, resell the candy bars in your office, as they are all marked "Not for Individual Sale". You cannot legally copy the CD and DVD then return them to the store. You cannot copy the CD and DVD and then put them up on the internet for people to download. However, just about every piece of software I've ever purchased, has a little sticker or paragraph on the packaging, that I cannot return it to my point of purchase once I have broken the seal/opened that last bit of packaging. The software comes with a reminder that I can indeed get my money back, if I do not cross the line of being able to copy it and keep the copy and still be able to return it for a refund.
There is no sign on the shelf telling me not to copy and redistribute the audio CD or the movie. There is no sign on the shelf telling me not to resell the individual candy bars. There is no sign on the shelf regarding the software. There ARE signs on each product indicating these things. If you choose not to read those signs, that is your problem. It is not the problem of the retail outlet.
If you are an advanced and experienced enough user who is purchasing MS Vista to run it under a virtual machine on your MAC, then you already In The Know... you already know enough to research BEFORE to find out if it is legal according to the nonsense that MS "sells" their stuff under. Of Course, MS is getting absolutely dictatorial in regards to their Operating System releases. And you Damn well know why. Probably a quarter of the people reading my reply to you are doing so on a pirated version of their Operating System. That figure might be more, or it is more probably less. However, MS has to do whatever it has to do to ensure that the BUSINESS model of making a product and getting paid for it continues to work for it, or it has to get an entirely new business model. Maybe going the way of Linux is what MS should do. However, too many other people already work and earn a living working for MS for that company to just decide "Ok, do whatever you want with it. Hell, it's Free now." You damn well know that too.
If you lease a movie at the corner video store, what happens if you don't return it? You get charged the full retail cost of that movie. Did you sign a contract? You bet your ass. You signed it when you signed up for the membership card and the right to rent movies. You have to sign a contract renting a rug doctor because you are getting the use of a machine that costs thousands of dollars, and that you could potentially turn around and rent out yourself for thousands of dollars... and to keep you from just keeping that machine, you have to sign a legally binding contract.
Maybe you are right. Maybe the business model has to be changed so that every time you want to purchase a piece of software you should be required to produce Identification, a valid credit card, and sign a contract like you are renting a car at the Airport, to ensure that you are agreeing upfront NOT to abuse the right you are exercising. Maybe all this will and should be necessary to make sure that you do not turn around and start copying the software and selling it yourself at a profit, or passing it around for free. Of course, any 10 year old can start copying a piece of software and passing it around for free. A 10 year old can't copy and distribute a Rug Doctor though. Sure, the POTENTIAL for making thousands of dollars exists for selling pirated copies of mu
You know.... reading this, made me wonder exactly why it was that we never heard a huge fuss from the RIAA back when places like KMart and Zayre and Caldor and other potential discount houses would sell cassettes for $1.99 or.99 cents. I know a lot of you won't remember those bargain bins for music, but I am pretty sure that the record companies did not authorize the drop in price. I'm pretty sure it was the store chain that authorized the drop in price, to move the inventory.
Come to think of it, this model would apply to current sale bins for DVDs. If a large chain store can discount a movie or album... sorry kids, CD... down to 1/10th or 1/20th of it's original price, doesn't that speak volumes about the actual profit that is gotten from the sale of that commodity? I'm talking about the profit that the movie distribution house or record company makes off the sale... not what the chain store makes. The chain store makes it's money, one way or another.
Is it just the scale that has gotten everyone's panties in a bunch?
You could purchase the Franchise rights to open your own McDonalds restaurant. You could purchase the Franchise rights to open your own Subway Restaurant. You own those restaurants. You get the money. You DO however, have to operate them according to the rules set down in the contract you sign when purchasing those rights.
So there is another example where you spend your money for something, and you are told how you must use what you have purchased.
You can spend your hard earned dollars for a CD. You cannot do whatever you wish with that CD however. You cannot legally distribute it in any way you see fit. You can purchase an XBox 360. You cannot then turn around and put it in a public place and charge people money to play it.
There are two more examples of where you can spend your money and you are being told how you may use what you spent your money on.
Your employer has bought your time from you. He does not then get to tell you to do things that you did not agree to do when you signed on with that company. If you are hired as a PHP coder, your boss does not have the right to tell you to wash his car, do his laundry, and clean out his septic system. He does not have the right to *expect* you to do those things. But would you disagree then, that since he has spent his hard earned money on your time, he should be able to do with it whatever he wants?
There is another example of where money is spent, under a limited use agreement.
It is not just he fact that you are spending money. It is WHAT you are spending money on. Sure, you by a car. You are spending money on that car, and the freedom to do with it what you choose. What about leasing a car? You are still spending money on it. If you lease a car, and spend money on that lease, does that mean you can turn around and sell that car? It does not. If you purchase a car with financing, then sell it before you pay it off, does that mean that since you don't have the car, you don't have to finish paying off what you owe? No it doesn't. So there, are two examples involving money and cars, that dictate what you can and can't do.
It boils down to this. Before you complete an exchange, make sure you know and agree to everything involved with that exchange. Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware.
If you don't like what Google might do with your work, don't submit it. If you want to profit from using Google, by getting your work out to a broader audience, then you have to "pay" them the right to use it if THEY choose to. That's according to the agreement they ask you to read and agree to BEFORE you ever submit a thing. Seems to me that the person who submitted the article to/. in the first place was only looking to stir up controversy where there wasn't any.
First question. Would you willingly work for an employer who said "I'm not going to pay you, but I need you to do this work"? I suppose you would if you were volunteering, or you were a radio or television intern. However, if you needed to earn your keep, pay your rent and bills and put food on the table, most people would say "No. I need to get paid for the work I do."
That is understandable.
So, if you are the kind of person who would say that you needed to get paid for the work you do, how can you in any way argue that you should get paid for not working? Getting-Paid-for-Work, is the other side of the Being-Worked-for-Pay coin. If you feel that you should only work 32 hours a week, then you should not have an issue with only being paid for 32 hours of work. Simple.
I know, I know... there are countless individual examples of people with their jobs that require them to sit and wait until work comes to them. However, there is usually ALWAYS other work that should be done while they are waiting... work that gets put off or ignored completely, or shoved down the chain to a lesser paid employee who ends up working 50+ hours a week to take up the slack.
Note, the use of the word "slack" there. Yes, because when people slack off at work, someone else invariably always has to take up that slack. That someone else is usually paid less. I've heard the expression "Shit rolls downhill" to cover that. Funny, how "People who don't pay attention to what they are supposed to be doing also roll downhill when they lose their footing." hasn't been shortened into a nice cute phrase. Know why? Because somewhere along the line, people who made more money decided to plant it in the heads of those beneath them that THEY get to slack off more.
So why should we wonder about where the feeling comes from that we should all aspire to make more and slack more?
An Employer should only have to pay an employee for work they have done. Simple. Nice, easy model. If you want to argue that an employer should have to pay YOU for an 8 hour workday, while you are only working for 3 or 4 of those hours, then I've got a paypal address you can start sending money to... since you should then be paying ME for work I am not doing for you.
Sorry, but you are quibbling over accuracy or truth or something. That's like claiming you didn't murder someone with a 45, but a 38.
Just to point out, if you were being tried for murder, (first, you should never correct the prosecution as to the weapon you actually used) and the victim was murdered with a.45, and you owned a.38, and there was no evidence that you were ever within 5 feet of a.38, much less owned one or touched one... it *SHOULD* be very difficult to convict you based on the argument that...
"Your honor, the victim was killed with a gun, and the defendant owned a gun. The difference in calibers is unimportant."
That said, the fact that they were caught sharing copyrighted materials would indeed make it much easier to convict them of wrongdoing. If they were being charged with copyright violations specifically for sharing files on Kazaa, after only a BitTorrent client was discovered on their computer, then your statement might be more accurate.
Also, it depends heavily on the state (in the US) that you are in, how close you are to a school, and the substance you are caught with, but in general the amount of a substance you have on you, as well as the circumstances in which you are caught with it will decide what you are charged with... not just simply the fact that you were bagged holding nasty controlled substances. You won't get charged with dealing grass if you are found with a couple of joints in your cigarette pack when pulled over for speeding in the state where you live.
Sorry, I'm just quibbling over accuracy and truth.
So you admit to being an anti-MS Fanboy, and you bash anti-Sony fanboys... this would make you an anti-anti-Sony fanboy... I hope that you aren't opposed to the bashing itself, else that would make you a hypocrite as well.
I think I'm gonna spend more time fiddling with my Bart PE, so I can install games on it, then not worry about rootkit nonsense by just shutting the computer off.
"If this were true and he simply admitted to the equivalent of stealing a DVD, then why did he plead guilty to 2 felonies? Is petty theft a felony? I am not going to stand up and defend him. He had his chance to exonerate himself, he chose not to. He was sentenced based on the crimes that he was convicted on, the same crimes he pled guilty to. If he did not think he was guilty of the 2 felonies then he should have pled innocent and fought his case..."
Very true. Theft over $400 would have been Grand Theft, and then can be considered either a misdemeanor OR a felony, depending on the circumstances of the case. I'm not sure why he pled guilty, or if he simply pled Nolo Contendere, which has the same result as a guilty plea.
I was wrong in replying before RTFA, since he was directly responsible for uploading a movie before it's release in theatres, as that would have an effect on the amount of money the movie would make in theatres. Now, it might only reduce the amount by a few thousand dollars (although people who downloaded it might have been inspired to actually see it on the big screen, but that's another issue) but that amount is enough to make the difference between Petty and Grand Theft. It still seems that the book was thrown at him quite hard, as he was charged with crimes relating to copyright infringement. The impression I'm getting is that he was treated as if he was profiting from the distribution, as if he had made and sold pirated DVDs of a movie. It was kind of a landmark case at the time in 2005, which lends a bit more credibility to the possibility that the prosecution was over zealous in doing it's job. The prosecution wanted to send out a message. This unemployed admin of a bittorrent site would serve as a good example, especially with such a popular and expensive movie as a Star Wars release, that this kind of thing wasn't going to be tolerated.
I imagine he was threatened with far more than he pled to, and that although he might have been able to fight it down to reduced charges and a lighter sentence with time and money, he chose to allow himself to be made an example of.
The whole OS limitation thing... that just seems ignorant. But, I suppose it is better than being banned from using any computer for a set duration of time.
All he really did was the equivalent to sneaking into a movie theatre to see a movie for free, for every time he watched the pirated movie. He denied noone else the right to see the movie. If the movie in question was available on DVD, then he denied the movie's producers the equivalent of their share of the DVD's retail price.
SO what he admitted to, was essentially equal to stealing a DVD from Walmart, except that noone lost any actual property (stealing a DVD from Walmart would deprive someone of the right to actually purchase it). Unless he was caught with a pirated copy of a movie that had not been released yet, which goes back to my original point, that what he did was akin to sneaking into a movie theatre... albeit sneaking in multiple times equal to the number of times he watched his pirated copy.
We are still talking about Petty Theft, which is theft of property under the value of $400. Petty Theft is punishable by fine or up to 6 months in jail. Seems he got worse, on both counts... fine AND more than 6 months. I don't see how it was proven that what he did was equal to stealing over $400.
"If a game was flaunting naked breasts, it would get an AO rating (fundamentally an NC-17 rating for a movie)."
Incorrect.
Example. Playboy, the Mansion. It not only flaunts naked breasts, it revels and rejoices in them. They are everywhere. Some of the characters cannot wait to get topless in any situation. You are encouraged to photograph them repeatedly. Then, there is the "sex". Ok, so the characters are still partially dressed while having this "sex" (Once you've seen it, you realize it is not actually sex, although the shower animation is pretty close), however, it is still more graphic than GTA:SA. You, as the player controlling Hugh Hefner, are encouraged to have as much sex as possible, with as many different partners. You are encouraged to have multiple girlfriends all living with you under the same roof. Fantasy? Sure. Unrealistic standard? You betcha. Moreso than a Barbie Doll.
Anyone known what Playboy The Mansion is Rated? Anyone? Anyone?
M For Mature.
It makes GTA:SA look like GTA the original, as far as nudity and sex is concerned.
There isn't as much information available on the Sonar version, and it seems the patents are rather new. Is it as effective, or more effective compared to GPR?
I'm sorry. Did you not understand the passage you quoted? Oh, my. I'm sorry again. You did NOT understand the passage you quoted, and my question may have confused you further.
If you do believe that states are funded by the taxes that we already pay, what about the states that have no state taxes? Like, for example, New Hampshire? Did you know that if you drive on Rt. 95 from Maine to Massachusetts, you have to drive across a tiny sliver of New Hampshire? And that you have to pass through a toll booth when you do? Did you know that states also get slices of federal money as well? Did you know that there are roads all over every state that are NOT considered Interstate Highways, and that these roads must also be kept up at a cost, and this money must come from somewhere?
We can look at the example of the Newport Bridge, that takes visitors from Conanicut Island (Jamestown RI) to Aquidneck Island (Newport RI). It is the only toll road in RI. $2 a head. This money goes to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the bridge. The state collects this money.
Now, to actually partially support your statement, the Maine Turnpike which is a northern end of I-95 is one of the last (if not actually the last) privately owned Turnpikes in the country, owned and operated by the Maine Turnpike Authority. Not surprisingly, it is an exit based flat fee turnpike like the New Jersey Turnpike. The money that the MTA collects goes right back into the road.
Now, the passage you quoted states quite clearly how many states charge tolls to turn the money around into keeping the road in operation. IE charging people for using the popular and well-traveled road they are... using. The state has to maintain the road whether or not every Tom, Dick, and Harry pays the toll. The state doesn't sit with it's trucks waiting, to drop half an inch of asphalt when a buck gets paid at the toll booth. I know it LOOKS like they do, but they don't. The toolbooth thing has more in common with a Net30 type of deal. So since the passage you quoted specifically deals with toll roads and paying tolls... why was your response...
"I do believe that the states are funded by the taxes that we already pay."
You are partially correct. However there are all kinds of taxes. Retail purchase taxes. Property Taxes. Fuel Taxes. Income Taxes. Inheritance Taxes. YOU don't pay the same taxes that I pay, because the services you use are different than the services I use. You also live in a different state than I. You also live a different lifestyle than I. The fact that most states are funded by the taxes that "we" already pay, has little to do with a state charging a toll for an overused portion of road that needs specific attention and it's own dedicated construction crew. You would do all of us a great service, and yourself the greatest service of all, by educating yourself in what taxes in the US of A are all about. I'd recommend spending a few minutes at
because it is a brief overview and still quite comprehensive. This way, when you open your mouth again to spout off about Taxes, you will have a much better idea of exactly what you are talking about, and you won't look like a complete idiot.
GPS is not ground penetrating radar. For a GPS based device to work, someone would have to know what was under the ground first. Kind of like how Google maps will get you to the building you want, but won't provide you with a floor plan and the furniture layouts.
Now, if several groups people would take the time to do the research in all the existing records, then back it up with some ground penetrating radar, and finally create a visual database (say a utilities version of google maps) that would be easily accessible by everyone, the common Joe could avoid digging in his front yard and causing a disaster, as well as the next Verizon employee.
Of course, something like that could also be misused... but hey, no need to think like that, right?
"NCLB does not divert resources away from teaching. It influences what is taught." --Wrong.
"In either case, however, the solution is to make sure the tests are measuring the right things. There are a lot of people who feel the tests aren't doing that - so let's fix the tests."
Let me give you some real world perspective. In 2005 I worked for an after-school tutoring company, in Las Vegas. We would tutor high school kids in basic math and English, so that they could pass the state proficiency tests. This was not to boost a school's ratings. This was because just about half of the high school students in Las Vegas were flunking the math portion of those standardized tests. Were the tests too difficult? No. These students could not do math involving fractions. These students could not do math involving decimals. Some of these students could not do math involving division. These were 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders. There was no predominant racial bias to the spread of students. I know that these students could not do these things, because I had to tutor them 2 to 3 times a week for between one to two hours a session. I would tutor up to 5 students per session, and it was a full time (40 hour work week) job.
Do you know what No Child Left Behind means? It means that regardless of whether or not the student can do the work they get promoted to the next grade with their classmates. It also means that at graduation time, if they cannot pass the standardized tests, they are out of school without a diploma. If you find that you cannot believe this, then educate yourself. I was one of the people that had to take a 12th grader who obviously would have been held back much earlier because he did not know algebra, geometry, trigonometry, or even basic fractions, and teach him all of these things so he could actually graduate with a diploma.
The tests don't need to be fixed. The students need to stay in those classes until they learn the information that the tests are testing for.
Your theory isn't out of place historically, however it just doesn't fit with the times.
I put this little bit of history before you...
Man once believed that the sun was a chariot of fire driven across the sky by a God. Science has revealed this to be false.
Humans have a history of uncovering a mystery, finding a lack of other credible explanation, and claiming that what caused the mystery was God. If the wind blew too hard, it was God. If a young child was struck down by a strange whooping-like cough, it was God. If an Adult was stuck down in a seizure, it was God. These three things, we now know to be Weather Patterns, Whooping Cough, and Epilepsy.
So looking at a mystery and jumping to the conclusion that "It is God that made that." is not only foolish, but it is falling victim to forgetting one of the most time honored and true cliche's ever uttered... "Those who fail to remember history, are doomed to repeat it."
Ok, so my quotes are most likely not actually quotes... but they are close enough.
Police officers should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, since it is their duty to represent the law for the general public. They should lead by example, and therefore be MORE law abiding.
A dry cleaning company has to be held to a higher standard than a roommate doing you a favor, when it comes to doing laundry. This is because their business is based on guaranteeing and delivering that higher standard. If they do not provide it, they lose business and eventually are forced to close.
Any business that uses a promise to "do no evil" is therefore expected to shine the big "DO NO EVIL" floodlight all over anything they do to make sure that it isn't going to be seen as evil, or isn't in fact evil. They themselves have set that higher standard by which they are to be judged, by saying "We will do no evil. Really, take a good look. No eeEee-ville here."
Now, of course, evil is subjective, and all depends on which side of the line you live on. One man's good is another man's garbage. It's not like the Force though, for after a certain point the followers of the dark side know the evil which they do. Most people would agree that a large corporation obviously in the wrong that intends to use its finances to wear down the little guy in the right, is an "eeEee-ville" thing.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read further, the fact that the M400 has two in each nacelle is because of redundancy. This is so if one should fail, the skycar can continue to operate.
However, his first working prototype only had two engines.
The m200 does indeed have 8 smaller engines in a ring around the saucer shape. This design has been abandoned, or at least put aside in favor of the m400 concept. The 8 engine design in the saucer shape was for stability, for concentrating on the whole vertical take off aspect in a small package, over the forward motion aspect.
But I digress. I just wanted you to read up on it further and to see how it was evolving into more of a plane shape.
The comparisons that were lost on you, were how the harrier uses one single powerful engine and 4 vectored nozzles to control it's vertical and horizontal flight, and how the F-35 uses two separate engines; a fan with doors for upward thrust, and an engine with a swivel nozzle for forward and upward thrust. Yes, both designs would be impractical for home garage parking and use, however, the harrier does with one engine, what the f-35 does with two. So the number of engines is irrelevant. The function of those engines is relevant.
Can I spell out terms in a contract that I place before you? Is it legal for me to spell out terms in a contract? If you purchase an Aerosol can, there are terms spelled out on the back that proscribe its usege, as well as indicating how it cannot be used. If you intend to use that Aerosol can in a way otherwise directed and you purchase it, you are violating the terms of that sale.
Unfortunately, you are making assumptions based on evidence that is not present. It is not just a matter of "I give you money, you give me product." If I sell you a car, and I sell you that car under the terms that you never drive it past my house, it does not matter why I make that provision. All that matters is that you never drive it past my house, else you violate the terms that were spelled out BEFORE the point of sale. I am perfectly within my rights to make that provision, regardless of how silly it may seem. You are agreeing to those terms when you purchase the car from me, as long as you have been made aware of those terms before you bought it from me. It does not matter if there is a specific law on the books regarding driving past someone's house. All that matters is this...
Here are the terms. If you wish to purchase this, you need to abide by these terms. If you do not wish to abide by these terms, you cannot purchase and use this.
You do not get to dictate new terms. You do not get to decide that huffing paint from a spray can is good and legal, just because you spent money on it. Nor do you get to decide to use it as an explosive to try to remove that old tree stump. Nor do you get to try to use it as a propellant for your new "rocket bicycle" design. You might be used to dictating new terms, because it is something that is rarely enforced. People are used to driving 5 to 10 miles over the posted speed limit. That doesn't mean they aren't doing something wrong, and can't be given a ticket for it.
Where is there a law, duly passed by a legislative body, such as copyright law, which mandates that a manual, EULA or any other piece of paper or electronic image thereof has a binding effect on anybody?Well, "A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce." A contract does not need to have signatures. You are entering into a contract when you buy a t-shirt at a store. Wikipedia even makes mention of simply buying coffee at a coffee shop is an example of an oral contract. Just because there are not a dozen orally spelled out caveats and addendums at the register doesn't make it any less of a contract. However, those caveats are spelled out in the EULAs and manuals you that comes with the software you purchase. You are entering into a contract when you purchase it. Just because you don't like the contract, doesn't make it any less of a contract.
Face it. You have to accept the fact that buying that software comes with terms you don't like but are legally held to by the fact that you entered into a contractual agreement at the point of purchase. Your only choice is to not buy that software, and instead find software with contractual obligations that you can live with.
Can you state exactly which models that he has designed and built working prototypes of, use those 8 engines? I'm not saying that you are completely wrong, just that your information is incomplete.
How many engines are used in the F-35b? Compare that to the Harrier please? Compare that to a Cesna? Compare that to an F15? Ok, so the craft I have named don't use as many, but they all don't use the same number either.
People complained about the noise when cars were first introduced. There were even ordinances that related to startling horses on the road that would limit the use of cars.
People still complain about the noise at airports. People living near them.
Your arguments seem more related to how you want people to pay attention to your design of flying car, and not your competitor. I realize he has been at it for 40 years. He has also been making mistakes for 40 years. Sure, he doesn't fly his prototypes without a tether. Seems like a smart idea, to keep from potentially destroying something that isn't ready for more expanded testing.
I admit that the argument of coming at this from the angle of a plane first makes sense. I'm just glad that the designers of helicopters didn't follow your argument.
Because it is easier to tear down, than it is to create.
Also, because if in a few months, the FAA doesn't approve it and he doesn't start selling the 10ft off the ground models, the naysayers can all jump up and down and say "See? We were right, Nyaa!"
How many naysayers said that if you sailed past the horizon, you would drop off the edge of the world?
How many naysayers looked at Orville and Wilbur's contraption and STILL said that we would never fly?
How many naysayers said that human beings would never withstand going faster than 60 miles per hour?
People Poopoo'ed VTOL. Granted the Harrier takes a very specially trained pilot because it is difficult to fly, but without it being around first, we would not now have the F-35b. Pilots have described it, saying that ignoring the controls will allow it to hover indefinitely (until fuel runs out). First we take a step, then another step, then another.
This guy has a great idea, and it's not just something that only exists in simulations, computer animations, or on paper. It's a physical contraption that you can sit in and operate. What he is facing now is red tape, and not conceptual bugs. Well, red tape and very loud people saying that what he has done is impossible and a scam.
I find it funny that some people who have watched video of his prototypes, and also say he is perpetrating a scam and it will never work. They WATCHED it work and deny what they saw. Classic.
This challenge and response session going on in this /. posting frenzy is a veritable "How-To" manual for blackmailing people.
There are ideas on how to actually beat background checks and blackmail an honest person into doing what you want, then people pointing out the holes in THOSE ideas, and then more refining and paring down, etc...
I'm sure that there would be claims of "Oh, everyone already knows all this stuff"... except, if everyone already knows all this stuff, why go through the trouble of repeating what you know to be common knowledge? If everyone already knows it, why is it being refined down? How can one person be wrong, if everyone already knows what he is saying is true? If you are correcting him, and everyone alrady knows your correction, why wasn't he included in that "everyone" part of "everyone already knows what I'm saying"... doesn't that prove that everyone doesn't already know these things?
Does everyone here already know how to make a landmine with household materials? Should I describe in detail that procedure so we can hash out the particulars of exactly what kind of shrapnel would do the most damage, and what thickness of plastic would be mot likely to stand up over time? Anyone want to argue about Freedom of Information, and how I should Indeed be posting these instructions so we can discuss them at length?
I noticed the sig in there, that ACs are not worth reading, because they are hiding their identities. I also noticed an AC post by an employee of a company involved in these background checks. He said he was posting AC because of these checks. Because posting here cou ld have a detrimental affect on his employment. Especially if I post about how to make a landmine. Especially because of posts on exactly how to successfully blackmail an innocent person.
Ignorance is universal. Especially among those of us who think we know it all. It is ignorant to think that there is responsible, intelligent discussion going on in this thread, when it is an instruction manual being built post by post that would screw over the people that are the target of the initial article that started the discussion. You might try to argue that in this case that being warned is being armed. I say that is ignorance. Noone can protect themselves against everything, even and especially if, what they are attempting to protect themselves against cannot be defended against.
Face it. If it could be proven that someone took place in this thread or even spent time reading it, and then something happened to them where they were being blackmailed with false information, it could and WOULD look like they were guilty, due to the same forewarning that we might now be claiming was a good thing.
If the salesman doesn't know that the consumer can make their own recovery CDs with the computer they are buying, then he needs to me made more aware of the details of the product he is selling. If the salesman is lying when he tells the consumer that the recovery CDs need to be purchased from the store, then he should lose the sale (and the consumers business).
I do agree that every computer purchase should come with physical discs that facilitate recovery of the operating system and software that was purchased along with the computer. If not, then every computer should come with blank cds and clear cut, written instructions (such as a sticker on the friggin screen or paper across the keys) that the consumer needs to make these discs before they do anything else, and here's how to do it.
Let's step back to the point of sale though. That salesman that tells you it is essential to buy the extended warranty. That salesman that tells you it is essential to buy an external mouse. That salesman that tells you it is essential to purchase a secure padded laptop case. That salesman that tells you it is essential to purchase an external HD. Do you absolutely NEED any of those things? Nope. Is he gonna come across in a wishy-washy way, informing you that you might enjoy the added convenience of having these things, but remind you multiple times that you really don't need them? Hell no. He'll tell you that they are essential. They are as essential as having his store make your recovery CDs. Sure, the consumer can make their own recovery discs. Guess what? The consumer can repair their own laptop too. The consumer can even grab a soldering iron and a Phillips head screwdriver and repair their own laptop after they trip on the power cord and yank the port off the motherboard. The consumer doesn't need any of those extra services that the store provides. However, people pay for conveniences. They are paying for convenience in buying a laptop over a desktop in the first place.
Now, the example that kills me, is buying a computer WITHOUT a cd burner, that requires you to burn recovery discs. That is just plain wrong.
Somebody mod the parent up please? My questions were not only answered in an informative way, but I'm gonna stick to getting my music from the artists directly when I see them at shows from now on... because of this reply.
Thanks dood.
"When you go into Best By or Fry's, pick a box with Windows VISTA off the shelf along with a shopping cart full of other gadgets, there is NO differentiation made between any of those item and that software."
This is true. Now, add a CD and a DVD to that shopping cart. Let's say that you were shopping at Walmart, where you picked up a Halloween pack of individually wrapped Snickers bars too. What happens after you get home with your purchases? Ok, you can do whatever you want with that Optical Mouse. You can do whatever you want with the PS2 to USB adapter. You cannot, however, resell the candy bars in your office, as they are all marked "Not for Individual Sale". You cannot legally copy the CD and DVD then return them to the store. You cannot copy the CD and DVD and then put them up on the internet for people to download. However, just about every piece of software I've ever purchased, has a little sticker or paragraph on the packaging, that I cannot return it to my point of purchase once I have broken the seal/opened that last bit of packaging. The software comes with a reminder that I can indeed get my money back, if I do not cross the line of being able to copy it and keep the copy and still be able to return it for a refund.
There is no sign on the shelf telling me not to copy and redistribute the audio CD or the movie. There is no sign on the shelf telling me not to resell the individual candy bars. There is no sign on the shelf regarding the software. There ARE signs on each product indicating these things. If you choose not to read those signs, that is your problem. It is not the problem of the retail outlet.
If you are an advanced and experienced enough user who is purchasing MS Vista to run it under a virtual machine on your MAC, then you already In The Know... you already know enough to research BEFORE to find out if it is legal according to the nonsense that MS "sells" their stuff under. Of Course, MS is getting absolutely dictatorial in regards to their Operating System releases. And you Damn well know why. Probably a quarter of the people reading my reply to you are doing so on a pirated version of their Operating System. That figure might be more, or it is more probably less. However, MS has to do whatever it has to do to ensure that the BUSINESS model of making a product and getting paid for it continues to work for it, or it has to get an entirely new business model. Maybe going the way of Linux is what MS should do. However, too many other people already work and earn a living working for MS for that company to just decide "Ok, do whatever you want with it. Hell, it's Free now." You damn well know that too.
If you lease a movie at the corner video store, what happens if you don't return it? You get charged the full retail cost of that movie. Did you sign a contract? You bet your ass. You signed it when you signed up for the membership card and the right to rent movies. You have to sign a contract renting a rug doctor because you are getting the use of a machine that costs thousands of dollars, and that you could potentially turn around and rent out yourself for thousands of dollars... and to keep you from just keeping that machine, you have to sign a legally binding contract.
Maybe you are right. Maybe the business model has to be changed so that every time you want to purchase a piece of software you should be required to produce Identification, a valid credit card, and sign a contract like you are renting a car at the Airport, to ensure that you are agreeing upfront NOT to abuse the right you are exercising. Maybe all this will and should be necessary to make sure that you do not turn around and start copying the software and selling it yourself at a profit, or passing it around for free. Of course, any 10 year old can start copying a piece of software and passing it around for free. A 10 year old can't copy and distribute a Rug Doctor though. Sure, the POTENTIAL for making thousands of dollars exists for selling pirated copies of mu
You know.... reading this, made me wonder exactly why it was that we never heard a huge fuss from the RIAA back when places like KMart and Zayre and Caldor and other potential discount houses would sell cassettes for $1.99 or .99 cents. I know a lot of you won't remember those bargain bins for music, but I am pretty sure that the record companies did not authorize the drop in price. I'm pretty sure it was the store chain that authorized the drop in price, to move the inventory.
Come to think of it, this model would apply to current sale bins for DVDs. If a large chain store can discount a movie or album... sorry kids, CD... down to 1/10th or 1/20th of it's original price, doesn't that speak volumes about the actual profit that is gotten from the sale of that commodity? I'm talking about the profit that the movie distribution house or record company makes off the sale... not what the chain store makes. The chain store makes it's money, one way or another.
Is it just the scale that has gotten everyone's panties in a bunch?
You could purchase the Franchise rights to open your own McDonalds restaurant. You could purchase the Franchise rights to open your own Subway Restaurant. You own those restaurants. You get the money. You DO however, have to operate them according to the rules set down in the contract you sign when purchasing those rights.
/. in the first place was only looking to stir up controversy where there wasn't any.
So there is another example where you spend your money for something, and you are told how you must use what you have purchased.
You can spend your hard earned dollars for a CD. You cannot do whatever you wish with that CD however. You cannot legally distribute it in any way you see fit. You can purchase an XBox 360. You cannot then turn around and put it in a public place and charge people money to play it.
There are two more examples of where you can spend your money and you are being told how you may use what you spent your money on.
Your employer has bought your time from you. He does not then get to tell you to do things that you did not agree to do when you signed on with that company. If you are hired as a PHP coder, your boss does not have the right to tell you to wash his car, do his laundry, and clean out his septic system. He does not have the right to *expect* you to do those things. But would you disagree then, that since he has spent his hard earned money on your time, he should be able to do with it whatever he wants?
There is another example of where money is spent, under a limited use agreement.
It is not just he fact that you are spending money. It is WHAT you are spending money on. Sure, you by a car. You are spending money on that car, and the freedom to do with it what you choose. What about leasing a car? You are still spending money on it. If you lease a car, and spend money on that lease, does that mean you can turn around and sell that car? It does not. If you purchase a car with financing, then sell it before you pay it off, does that mean that since you don't have the car, you don't have to finish paying off what you owe? No it doesn't. So there, are two examples involving money and cars, that dictate what you can and can't do.
It boils down to this. Before you complete an exchange, make sure you know and agree to everything involved with that exchange. Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware.
If you don't like what Google might do with your work, don't submit it. If you want to profit from using Google, by getting your work out to a broader audience, then you have to "pay" them the right to use it if THEY choose to. That's according to the agreement they ask you to read and agree to BEFORE you ever submit a thing. Seems to me that the person who submitted the article to
First question. Would you willingly work for an employer who said "I'm not going to pay you, but I need you to do this work"? I suppose you would if you were volunteering, or you were a radio or television intern. However, if you needed to earn your keep, pay your rent and bills and put food on the table, most people would say "No. I need to get paid for the work I do."
That is understandable.
So, if you are the kind of person who would say that you needed to get paid for the work you do, how can you in any way argue that you should get paid for not working? Getting-Paid-for-Work, is the other side of the Being-Worked-for-Pay coin. If you feel that you should only work 32 hours a week, then you should not have an issue with only being paid for 32 hours of work. Simple.
I know, I know... there are countless individual examples of people with their jobs that require them to sit and wait until work comes to them. However, there is usually ALWAYS other work that should be done while they are waiting... work that gets put off or ignored completely, or shoved down the chain to a lesser paid employee who ends up working 50+ hours a week to take up the slack.
Note, the use of the word "slack" there. Yes, because when people slack off at work, someone else invariably always has to take up that slack. That someone else is usually paid less. I've heard the expression "Shit rolls downhill" to cover that. Funny, how "People who don't pay attention to what they are supposed to be doing also roll downhill when they lose their footing." hasn't been shortened into a nice cute phrase. Know why? Because somewhere along the line, people who made more money decided to plant it in the heads of those beneath them that THEY get to slack off more.
So why should we wonder about where the feeling comes from that we should all aspire to make more and slack more?
An Employer should only have to pay an employee for work they have done. Simple. Nice, easy model. If you want to argue that an employer should have to pay YOU for an 8 hour workday, while you are only working for 3 or 4 of those hours, then I've got a paypal address you can start sending money to... since you should then be paying ME for work I am not doing for you.
Right?
Just to point out, if you were being tried for murder, (first, you should never correct the prosecution as to the weapon you actually used) and the victim was murdered with a .45, and you owned a .38, and there was no evidence that you were ever within 5 feet of a .38, much less owned one or touched one... it *SHOULD* be very difficult to convict you based on the argument that...
"Your honor, the victim was killed with a gun, and the defendant owned a gun. The difference in calibers is unimportant."
That said, the fact that they were caught sharing copyrighted materials would indeed make it much easier to convict them of wrongdoing. If they were being charged with copyright violations specifically for sharing files on Kazaa, after only a BitTorrent client was discovered on their computer, then your statement might be more accurate.
Also, it depends heavily on the state (in the US) that you are in, how close you are to a school, and the substance you are caught with, but in general the amount of a substance you have on you, as well as the circumstances in which you are caught with it will decide what you are charged with... not just simply the fact that you were bagged holding nasty controlled substances. You won't get charged with dealing grass if you are found with a couple of joints in your cigarette pack when pulled over for speeding in the state where you live.
Sorry, I'm just quibbling over accuracy and truth.
So you admit to being an anti-MS Fanboy, and you bash anti-Sony fanboys... this would make you an anti-anti-Sony fanboy ... I hope that you aren't opposed to the bashing itself, else that would make you a hypocrite as well.
I think I'm gonna spend more time fiddling with my Bart PE, so I can install games on it, then not worry about rootkit nonsense by just shutting the computer off.
"If this were true and he simply admitted to the equivalent of stealing a DVD, then why did he plead guilty to 2 felonies? Is petty theft a felony? I am not going to stand up and defend him. He had his chance to exonerate himself, he chose not to. He was sentenced based on the crimes that he was convicted on, the same crimes he pled guilty to. If he did not think he was guilty of the 2 felonies then he should have pled innocent and fought his case..."
Very true. Theft over $400 would have been Grand Theft, and then can be considered either a misdemeanor OR a felony, depending on the circumstances of the case. I'm not sure why he pled guilty, or if he simply pled Nolo Contendere, which has the same result as a guilty plea.
I was wrong in replying before RTFA, since he was directly responsible for uploading a movie before it's release in theatres, as that would have an effect on the amount of money the movie would make in theatres. Now, it might only reduce the amount by a few thousand dollars (although people who downloaded it might have been inspired to actually see it on the big screen, but that's another issue) but that amount is enough to make the difference between Petty and Grand Theft. It still seems that the book was thrown at him quite hard, as he was charged with crimes relating to copyright infringement. The impression I'm getting is that he was treated as if he was profiting from the distribution, as if he had made and sold pirated DVDs of a movie. It was kind of a landmark case at the time in 2005, which lends a bit more credibility to the possibility that the prosecution was over zealous in doing it's job. The prosecution wanted to send out a message. This unemployed admin of a bittorrent site would serve as a good example, especially with such a popular and expensive movie as a Star Wars release, that this kind of thing wasn't going to be tolerated.
I imagine he was threatened with far more than he pled to, and that although he might have been able to fight it down to reduced charges and a lighter sentence with time and money, he chose to allow himself to be made an example of.
The whole OS limitation thing... that just seems ignorant. But, I suppose it is better than being banned from using any computer for a set duration of time.
All he really did was the equivalent to sneaking into a movie theatre to see a movie for free, for every time he watched the pirated movie. He denied noone else the right to see the movie. If the movie in question was available on DVD, then he denied the movie's producers the equivalent of their share of the DVD's retail price.
SO what he admitted to, was essentially equal to stealing a DVD from Walmart, except that noone lost any actual property (stealing a DVD from Walmart would deprive someone of the right to actually purchase it). Unless he was caught with a pirated copy of a movie that had not been released yet, which goes back to my original point, that what he did was akin to sneaking into a movie theatre... albeit sneaking in multiple times equal to the number of times he watched his pirated copy.
We are still talking about Petty Theft, which is theft of property under the value of $400. Petty Theft is punishable by fine or up to 6 months in jail. Seems he got worse, on both counts... fine AND more than 6 months. I don't see how it was proven that what he did was equal to stealing over $400.
Hot Coffee is tame compared to normal game play in Playboy The Mansion. Also, just as a side note, both games are available as Console or Computer.
"If a game was flaunting naked breasts, it would get an AO rating (fundamentally an NC-17 rating for a movie)."
Incorrect.
Example. Playboy, the Mansion. It not only flaunts naked breasts, it revels and rejoices in them. They are everywhere. Some of the characters cannot wait to get topless in any situation. You are encouraged to photograph them repeatedly. Then, there is the "sex". Ok, so the characters are still partially dressed while having this "sex" (Once you've seen it, you realize it is not actually sex, although the shower animation is pretty close), however, it is still more graphic than GTA:SA. You, as the player controlling Hugh Hefner, are encouraged to have as much sex as possible, with as many different partners. You are encouraged to have multiple girlfriends all living with you under the same roof. Fantasy? Sure. Unrealistic standard? You betcha. Moreso than a Barbie Doll.
Anyone known what Playboy The Mansion is Rated? Anyone? Anyone?
M For Mature.
It makes GTA:SA look like GTA the original, as far as nudity and sex is concerned.
My Bad.
a dar was the way to go.
I very incorrectly assumed GPS as Global Positioning System, and thought GPR http://www.geomodel.com/ http://www.gp-radar.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_r
There isn't as much information available on the Sonar version, and it seems the patents are rather new. Is it as effective, or more effective compared to GPR?
I'm sorry. Did you not understand the passage you quoted? Oh, my. I'm sorry again. You did NOT understand the passage you quoted, and my question may have confused you further.
e d_States
If you do believe that states are funded by the taxes that we already pay, what about the states that have no state taxes? Like, for example, New Hampshire? Did you know that if you drive on Rt. 95 from Maine to Massachusetts, you have to drive across a tiny sliver of New Hampshire? And that you have to pass through a toll booth when you do? Did you know that states also get slices of federal money as well? Did you know that there are roads all over every state that are NOT considered Interstate Highways, and that these roads must also be kept up at a cost, and this money must come from somewhere?
We can look at the example of the Newport Bridge, that takes visitors from Conanicut Island (Jamestown RI) to Aquidneck Island (Newport RI). It is the only toll road in RI. $2 a head. This money goes to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the bridge. The state collects this money.
Now, to actually partially support your statement, the Maine Turnpike which is a northern end of I-95 is one of the last (if not actually the last) privately owned Turnpikes in the country, owned and operated by the Maine Turnpike Authority. Not surprisingly, it is an exit based flat fee turnpike like the New Jersey Turnpike. The money that the MTA collects goes right back into the road.
Now, the passage you quoted states quite clearly how many states charge tolls to turn the money around into keeping the road in operation. IE charging people for using the popular and well-traveled road they are... using. The state has to maintain the road whether or not every Tom, Dick, and Harry pays the toll. The state doesn't sit with it's trucks waiting, to drop half an inch of asphalt when a buck gets paid at the toll booth. I know it LOOKS like they do, but they don't. The toolbooth thing has more in common with a Net30 type of deal. So since the passage you quoted specifically deals with toll roads and paying tolls... why was your response...
"I do believe that the states are funded by the taxes that we already pay."
You are partially correct. However there are all kinds of taxes. Retail purchase taxes. Property Taxes. Fuel Taxes. Income Taxes. Inheritance Taxes. YOU don't pay the same taxes that I pay, because the services you use are different than the services I use. You also live in a different state than I. You also live a different lifestyle than I. The fact that most states are funded by the taxes that "we" already pay, has little to do with a state charging a toll for an overused portion of road that needs specific attention and it's own dedicated construction crew. You would do all of us a great service, and yourself the greatest service of all, by educating yourself in what taxes in the US of A are all about. I'd recommend spending a few minutes at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Unit
because it is a brief overview and still quite comprehensive. This way, when you open your mouth again to spout off about Taxes, you will have a much better idea of exactly what you are talking about, and you won't look like a complete idiot.
GPS is not ground penetrating radar. For a GPS based device to work, someone would have to know what was under the ground first. Kind of like how Google maps will get you to the building you want, but won't provide you with a floor plan and the furniture layouts.
Now, if several groups people would take the time to do the research in all the existing records, then back it up with some ground penetrating radar, and finally create a visual database (say a utilities version of google maps) that would be easily accessible by everyone, the common Joe could avoid digging in his front yard and causing a disaster, as well as the next Verizon employee.
Of course, something like that could also be misused... but hey, no need to think like that, right?
cat whiskers? why all we had were hollowed out logs and a young child to run to the next village to tell em what we were playing.
oh, and handfuls of hot gravel...
in our hole in the road...
why, ears hadn't even been invented yet. You lucky bastards.
"NCLB does not divert resources away from teaching. It influences what is taught."
--Wrong.
"In either case, however, the solution is to make sure the tests are measuring the right things. There are a lot of people who feel the tests aren't doing that - so let's fix the tests."
Let me give you some real world perspective. In 2005 I worked for an after-school tutoring company, in Las Vegas. We would tutor high school kids in basic math and English, so that they could pass the state proficiency tests. This was not to boost a school's ratings. This was because just about half of the high school students in Las Vegas were flunking the math portion of those standardized tests. Were the tests too difficult? No. These students could not do math involving fractions. These students could not do math involving decimals. Some of these students could not do math involving division. These were 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders. There was no predominant racial bias to the spread of students. I know that these students could not do these things, because I had to tutor them 2 to 3 times a week for between one to two hours a session. I would tutor up to 5 students per session, and it was a full time (40 hour work week) job.
Do you know what No Child Left Behind means? It means that regardless of whether or not the student can do the work they get promoted to the next grade with their classmates. It also means that at graduation time, if they cannot pass the standardized tests, they are out of school without a diploma. If you find that you cannot believe this, then educate yourself. I was one of the people that had to take a 12th grader who obviously would have been held back much earlier because he did not know algebra, geometry, trigonometry, or even basic fractions, and teach him all of these things so he could actually graduate with a diploma.
The tests don't need to be fixed. The students need to stay in those classes until they learn the information that the tests are testing for.
I really wish that more people would realize what you have explained here.
Then again, if wishes were mp3s, we'd all need terabytes of storage.
Your theory isn't out of place historically, however it just doesn't fit with the times.
I put this little bit of history before you...
Man once believed that the sun was a chariot of fire driven across the sky by a God. Science has revealed this to be false.
Humans have a history of uncovering a mystery, finding a lack of other credible explanation, and claiming that what caused the mystery was God. If the wind blew too hard, it was God. If a young child was struck down by a strange whooping-like cough, it was God. If an Adult was stuck down in a seizure, it was God. These three things, we now know to be Weather Patterns, Whooping Cough, and Epilepsy.
So looking at a mystery and jumping to the conclusion that "It is God that made that." is not only foolish, but it is falling victim to forgetting one of the most time honored and true cliche's ever uttered... "Those who fail to remember history, are doomed to repeat it."
Ok, so my quotes are most likely not actually quotes... but they are close enough.
The logic as I see it, is something like this...
Police officers should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, since it is their duty to represent the law for the general public. They should lead by example, and therefore be MORE law abiding.
A dry cleaning company has to be held to a higher standard than a roommate doing you a favor, when it comes to doing laundry. This is because their business is based on guaranteeing and delivering that higher standard. If they do not provide it, they lose business and eventually are forced to close.
Any business that uses a promise to "do no evil" is therefore expected to shine the big "DO NO EVIL" floodlight all over anything they do to make sure that it isn't going to be seen as evil, or isn't in fact evil. They themselves have set that higher standard by which they are to be judged, by saying "We will do no evil. Really, take a good look. No eeEee-ville here."
Now, of course, evil is subjective, and all depends on which side of the line you live on. One man's good is another man's garbage. It's not like the Force though, for after a certain point the followers of the dark side know the evil which they do. Most people would agree that a large corporation obviously in the wrong that intends to use its finances to wear down the little guy in the right, is an "eeEee-ville" thing.