It should not be that easy to destroy a washer... even a prototype.

Subjecting an unfinished product to abuses not intended to be done during the show can expose design defects, but that can be deemed as vandalism.

The vandalism could be as simple as a scratch on the finish, making the model less attractive, even if still functional

While there probably is detailed testing like you describe going on, I think it's reasonable for an exec to check out the competition at a show.

However, if the show has not yet started, then probably nothing gives the competitor the right to do so.

Frankly, I think the show venue should not allow such testing of machines that are being setup on display, without permission.

No entering another vendor's booth without their permission and supervision.

So the charge should be trespassing.

There's nothing that says the products on display necessarily have to be done yet and 'fit' for normal use. The competitor has no permission to 'operate' the equipment, no manuals, etc, so touching it at all could be deemed as potential abuse.

Being curious and testing shouldn't be considered as malicious vandalism, as long as its supervised and being tested only to the extent intended by the vendor.

I'm not trying to sound like a recruiter or anything but ANYONE can go to a trucking school and take a few month class for $5000 or less and make $50000 their first year.

When the average number is $80,000 for their first year, $100,000 for their second year, and $140,000 for workers with 5 years experience, THEN we will be ready for more people to start thinking of commercial trucking as a seriously in-demand profession.

So, should any developer know this? That is debatable. I've had very competent developers who had next to no clue about how DNS works. They could do their job just fine with that.

If you are involved in the design of web applications for pay.... the fundamentals of how DNS and public key crypto work are basic internet literacy concepts.

I knew this stuff in elementary school, many years before I wrote a single line of CGI or PHP web application code.

Internet facing applications have a security burden, and it is a fundamental essential skill that anyone writing an application with a security burden understand the basics and pitfalls, such as avoiding buffer overflows, implementing improper crypto, or hardcoding IP addresses instead of using DNS.

There's something in the interpretation of the reg to prevent that, specifically. The AOPA paraphrasing is as such

Do you have a citation on that? I can't find a case where someone built something that was deemed to be a "spite pole" and had it taken down by force or was ordered to take it down or sued/penalized over it.

As far as I know.... you can build anything you want to any height, so long as the engineering is sound and safe -- it's not a living structure and no permits required, and/or you get the right paperwork.

No need to describe the structure as a "spite pole"; it can be constructed for aesthetic purposes, a work of art, or for functional purposes such as antennae or camera mounting point.

If you can afford to build the pole/tower, then I am sure you will be able to generate some legitimate reason for constructing them that won't be excluded.

The FAA has sole purview over airspace rights. If the aircraft is high enough according to FAA rules (which of as of yet specify manned vehicles only, at a minimum of 500 feet) then it is outside of your, as a landowner, ability to control.

You can effectively maintain control of your air rights by constructing tall obstacles. The FAA only has authority over airspace, and if you build into the air, then the blocked off area is not air space. Build a tall antenna or projection, and all aircraft are required to either remain 1000 feet higher than the obstacle or stay outside a 2000 foot radius.

There are some limitations created by physics that make it impractical to construct obstacles beyond a certain height, but you ought to be able to keep drones off your property in the same manner.

Low flying aircraft is and ought to be allowed only with the discretion and permission of the property owner.

A drone flying 100 ft above my house is trespassing.

I read that as: there was probably a recent event that now causes him to doubt or worry that the condition might not be fully under control.

So it could be a useful thing to have a panic button available to the child, but surely there should be a panic button available to the wife as well.

Also, my greatest concern would be that the panic button fail, so it should be quite reliable and not solely dependent on an internet connection.

I'm not sure why the author thinks it should not contact first responders.

I say rubbish.... the buttons should set off an alarm, and a monitoring company should attempt to make immediate contact with the wife; if no response, then start making a phone call to all the emergency contacts.

13000.... It's not that many documents... it should all fit on a single USB drive.

The government should be required to modernize, not given the ability to charge outrageous fees just to get access to public records.

If people could live forever, nothing would ever change. We would be stuck with the likes of Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin throughout all of eternity.

That's not true.... Hitler/Stalin did not die of old age; if people really did live forever, then Hitler/Stalin would not have been able to kill anyone, by the way.

Everyone dies eventually. Even if we can eliminate aging and death by old age. There are plenty of other ways to die. Statistically speaking, one of those other ways is going to happen eventually, even if you become eternally young..

It's not going to turn earth into a living hell.

It would eliminate many problems. Imagine how much more productive the economy would become, if retirement was no longer a thing?

We could get rid of the Social Security tax, for starters.

Unfortunately, when operators misuse equipment through poor judgment, the courts side with the operator, so the manufacturer is forced to remove functionality from all users because one user is unable to exercise the commons sense required to operate the machinery.

Instead of removing features.... why don't we require that operators receive proper training?

So they have to sign off and pass a test on among other things a safety course. And the manufacturer can maintain the documentation that the operator knows specific safety requirements.

Phase II is issue all successful trainees an "operator card" and equip all farm vehicles with an "operator card slot" and a biometric sensor.

To start the machine, you have to have the right SmartCard signed by the manufacturer containing your credentials and fingerprints, and the biometric sensor has to scan you and verify it matches the ID on the card.

Then if you stand up or leave the seat, you will have to reauthenticate.

"double the cores" does not make a computer 10x faster.

That's not true. The right answer is... it depends on the computational workload.

If you have a real-time process that will drive a core to nearly 99%, almost all the time.... adding an uncongested core can make the computer complete other tasks 1000x as quickly.

All you could really say for sure, is that it most likely means the power consumption increases close to 2x by doubling the cores, unless there is a fundamental redesign of the package with a major gain in efficiency while adding cores.

If you go from 2GHz to 2.05GHz, however, you won't see much of a difference without benchmarks.

You are working to perpetuate the Megahertz myth.

Going from 2GHz from one generation to 1.8GHz in the next, can still be a 10% speed improvement.

Some of the recent iterations around 2008 were more than a 10% improvement in architecture clock for clock.

A Nehalem-based i7 is light years ahead of an old Merom/Core 2 Duo/MP/Netburst Architecture chip.

The amended version of House Bill 130 puts into law the state's existing practice of granting medical waivers to children whose physicians request them, and in doing so, removes the Mississippi Department of Health's ability to deny such requests.

Normally, I would agree that this would be fine.

However, the irrational anti-vaccine hysteria has become too widespread.

What is going to happen, is there are going to be improper waivers given in the name of a "health issue" constructed for the purposes of avoiding vaccination.

Inevitably, there are going to be some medical professionals who are persuaded. They should be students of science, but there are plenty in the industry who are not scientists and could be persuaded by some specious arguments.

Therefore, I would say that their waiver should be subject to review. If there is any doubt; it should not be adequate just to find one professional to sign off on something. There should have to be a documented basis that would be accepted by the industry or by the average professional.

The price list should be set by the vendor and once set they shouldn't be able to change it depending on who wants to pay for it.

I would rather go with, they can change the price at any time they want but must make it available to all: e.g. within any private negotiation, once they reach a price, before they are allowed to enter into an agreement, they must conspicuously publish a neutral non-discriminatory offer at the price in a public price, the offer must be optionally redeemable by any entity without signing any contract (Simply paying royalties is sufficient to accept), and the offer cannot be withdrawn and must be valid at least until a new offer is published, or 36 months, whichever is later.

Once this is published it is an open offer to any member of the public (not just the party to negotiate), can avail themselves.

No additional restrictive terms allowed, except a minimum number of units, but a price for a single unit must be offered and cannot exceed 200% of the best offered price for units sold or produced with any required minimum number of units.

If it is public infrastructure the existing broadband companies won't have any control over it. Companies cannot open up a public resource.

The telephone network copper lines are considered public infrastructure, because the public helped pay for it both in the form of subsidies, and in the form of subscription fees generated through selling a service as a government-sponsored monopoly.

Fiber.... not so much. Although, the government did pay big telcos in the form of huge grants to build out fiber, they never did. They pocketed the money, essentially. Then went and built out new fiber-based networks, and those are not being regulated.

So the telcos stole an unfairly generous deal, and all the fiber laid by the incumbents really is and ought to be considered public infrastructure.