Show me a pilot that has to rely on their instruments and I'll show a pilot who can't fly.
Contrarywise, show me a pilot who *can* rely on their instruments, and I'll show you one who can land at SFO in the fog.
That's last year. It's been replaced by systemd.
Is systemd written in JQuery?
The obvious solution is to just make sure they never go out of business. Too big to fail.
I think you maybe mean "Too much personal data to fail"... which is an incredibly disturbing thought.
Do you defend every company which charges premium prices for a product where they limit your ability to do something every computer has been able to do for the last 50 years
Of course.
I will happily defend IKEA for selling me a chair that is limited from being able to do *anything* "every computer has been able to do for the last 50 years".
Except, you know, being sat on. If I can't sit on the chair, I'd be pretty unhappy. On the other hand, not every computer in the last 50 years has been large enough or flat enough to sit on. You gotta draw that line somewhere!
A near miss is defined as 500 feet:
http://flighttraining.aopa.org...
According to the American Helicopter Services & Aerial Firefighting Association, airtankers fly between 150 and 200 feet:
http://www.ahsafa.org/?page_id...
The article reports a drone altitude of 800-900 feet. Let's take the most pessimal separation from these numbers: 800 - 200 = 600. That gives them a buffer of 100 feet in which this was *NOT* even classifiable as a near miss; there was no danger of a drone to aircraft collision, unless you are claiming that the drone pilot intended to fly the drone into the DC-10 airtanker.
You will find elsewhere on the AHSAFA site that the aircraft do not "dive-bomb" the fires; a fully loaded airtanker had a heck of a lot of inertia, and it's not really an option; they are long, low runs. I refer you to the site however, because I doubt you'd trust my (anecdotal) personal experience with U.S. Forest Service airtankers.
You sound more Randian than Christian.
Why wouldn't I? Christianity is like chess. It's all there, in plain view, the whole time. Countries are more like poker, bluffing and cheating like. .
How about we turn this around: Other than pirating commercial software or installing spyware, what do you lose by an inability to side-load without a jailbreak?
Really? That is a question? Is that how far we've fallen down the dumb consumer hole?
How about being able to create and share programs on phones without the blessing of some magical corporate entity, or without someone having to fork over money for a developers license?
Perfectly doable, if you have source code to what's being shared, or if what's being shared is being distributed as linkable object files. Have you really not looked into current iPhone software development tools? It doesn't require paying the $99 fee to install whatever crap you want on your own device. The fee is for the ability to list on the App Store.
As opposed to downloading a remote access program from the store?
These programs have to be explicitly launched by the user themselves after each boot. In other words, they are about as dangerous as a tethered jailbreak, shich is to say: Not very.
This is about as FUD as it gets. The ability to side load is not a physical security exposure. If you have a lock screen then access is blocked in any case. If you don't have a lock screen, then the mythical walled garden won't protect you. Blocking side load only makes sense when it comes to protection from user error, and even then on Android you can side load single apps without enabling universal installation of apks so the only thing you're left with is user stupidity.
How about we turn this around: Other than pirating commercial software or installing spyware, what do you lose by an inability to side-load without a jailbreak?
"This is a strength tester app. When I say 'go!', tap the screen as hard as you can!"
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
