the solution of hiring more people will, of course, not be considered.
Nor should it be. The number of people that really care about a check-in terminal having a "human touch" is probably about 2%. The number willing to pay extra to have their ticket issued by a human is likely closer to 0%. Any airline hiring extra humans to deal with this will just lose business to their lower cost competitors.
JAIL TIME for those that hire the undocumented.
Jailing non-violent people is idiotic. America already imprisons more people than any other country. The solution to illegal immigration is to deal with the fundamental causes. Mexico is no longer a net source of immigration (as many Mexicans return home as arrive). The biggest net sources are Central American countries experiencing extreme drug gang violence, such as Honduras and El Salvador. Ending the drug violence will allow these countries to stabilize and create local jobs for their people. And the best way to do that is broad legalization, which is already successfully happening in Colorado and Washington. Other states will hold referendums on legalization this November. We should be jailing a lot less people, not more.
It would also be a big help to send a copy of your comments to your congressional representative. This is especially true if your representative serves on the Aviation Committee that oversees the FAA. These are the members:
Republicans
Frank A. LoBiondo, New Jersey, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Howard Coble, North Carolina
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Sam Graves, Missouri
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Larry Bucshon, Indiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania
Richard L. Hanna, New York
Daniel Webster, Florida
Jeff Denham, California
Reid J. Ribble, Wisconsin
Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Steve Daines, Montana
Roger Williams, Texas
Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Rodney Davis, Illinois, Vice Chair
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, (ex officio)
Democrats
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts
Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
Steve Cohen, Tennessee
André Carson, Indiana
Richard M. Nolan, Minnesota
Dina Titus, Nevada
Sean Patrick Maloney, New York
Cheri Bustos, Illinois
Corrine Brown, Florida
Elizabeth H. Esty, Connecticut
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, (ex officio)
It will be much easier to stop these regulations, than it will be to repeal them later. The skies should belong to the people, not the government. The time to act is now.
The FAA had made the current policies to prevent idiots who think they know everything who have more money than brains from getting a UAV and hurting people by dropping it on someones head, though their roof or flying it into another aircraft.
Nonsense. The current regulations don't do that. If they did, they would be based on drone weight, method of control, altitude, etc. rather than "commercial" vs "non-commercial". The polices appear to be designed solely to ensure that nobody creates any jobs for Americans, earns income to support their families, or offers useful services that other are willing to pay for.
... bring the manufacturing costs down enough to bring the price down enough that they are competitive
Per unit subsidies are the WRONG way to do this. Much better is for the government to subsidize R&D into better manufacturing techniques. Look at windmills. They were subsidized for years. Now they are mostly cost competitive, so the subsidies worked, right? WRONG! The modern cost effective windmills are completely different (and much bigger) than the windmills that were subsidized, and are mostly made by different companies. So the subsidies were mostly wasted backing the wrong horse, and making it harder for the eventual winners to emerge.
I'm not saying we should have permanent government incentives to consumers to buy electric vehicles
Yes you are, whether that is your intention or not. Subsidies lead to uncompetitive companies, sheltered from the market, with inferior products. Once the subsidies start, they soon become entitlements, with blocks of voters and buckets of campaign donations to sustain them.
I wished
Just go to https://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm and add a negative score modifier to push your foes below your viewing threshold. But, according to my "friend/foe" page, you don't have me listed as an enemy, so you need to do that first.
This is how you do it!
No, this is NOT how you do it. It makes sense for the government to promote and subsidize scientific research and technological development. But it does NOT make sense for governments to subsidize manufacturing. If something cannot be sold at a fair market price, then the answer is not taxpayer funded subsidies, but more R&D to develop something that actually makes sense. These subsidies usually get twisted in corporate welfare entitlements, and then can often be used to stifle progress rather then promoting it. Examples: Ethanol subsidies, and solar subsidies that have morphed into protective tariffs that raise the cost of alternative energy in order to protect inefficient producers with political connections.
As bases for society go, trade is really not much more interesting than theological obligation as a way of running society.
Except that societies based on trade tend to be much nicer places to live.
Now we actually have the technological power for it, it would be nice to re-visit voluntary centralised management according to need
Societies based on "need" (Cuba, North Korea, etc.) tend to have very little technology. The problem is that the technology that can be used for "planning" can also be used for communication. Then people will realize how much better the rest of the world lives, and be able to communicate among themselves to organize protests and rebellions.
Isn't this in fact how the international money trade works?
No. If you want to buy Swiss Francs with Zimbabwe Dollars, you will need a lot of them. But the currency traders all more-or-less agree on the exchange rate. You aren't going to get a different exchange rate depending on what you want to ultimately buy with the Francs. These "Document Coins" are different. The coin issued by the nightclub can only be used to go to that nightclub. You can't use it to buy groceries (unless the grocer goes to the same nightclub, and is willing to spend time negotiating the value of the nightclub coin (unlikely)).
This sounds like paper-tracked barter
It sounds more like digital coupons. A shop (such as the mentioned nightclub) issues a "coin" that is valued by a customer that wants to go there, but not by others. That is the same as a coupon that can be clipped from a newspaper, or printed from a webpage. Plenty of coupons can already be used from a cellphone, so the "digital" part really isn't new.
Ditto. That bitch is still around. Maybe the FTC is losing hard-drives too.
Same here. I always press "1", which transfers to a live operator, and then I play along for a few minutes. Then I ask her what color underwear she is wearing. Most hang up at that point. but a few continue the conversation. If we all waste a little of their time, then these business will no longer be viable.
What would be really nice is a CAPTCHA for phones. So if someone calls me, they get a message that says "press seven if you are a human", and my phone only rings if they pass the test. It would also need to have a whitelist, since I get legitimate robo-calls from my kids' school.
Innocent people getting executed is perfectly acceptable to me as long as the error rates are low.
Then you are a pathetic cowardly inhumane sociopath
Nope, he is just normal. About 10% of the people in prison are probably innocent. When old DNA evidence was first examined, about 10% of time time it showed that the person convicted of the crime was not the perpetrator. There is no reason to believe the false conviction rate was different in cases where there was no DNA evidence, or where it wasn't examined. Yet we tolerate that level of false convictions, and the plea-bargins, witness bribing, and lying cops that bring them about. Unless you are personally working to change our justice system, you are no better than the person you accuse of being a sociopath.
At which point, anyone in the world could very very easily DOS your car.
Nope. The car should only accept PIN attempts from pre-registered devices. So in order to DOS your car, the DOSer would have to first steal your cell phone.
Basically they guessed the password to gain control of the accessories you can operate with an android app? Some hacking job there, lol.
If that is what they did (and we don't know that) then that is a security flaw. Tesla should not have allowed the PIN to be brute forced. The PIN should be stored by the car, not by the app, and it should have a 30 second lock-out after 3 wrong attempts, and then double the lock-out time for each additional wrong attempt. This is Security 101.
Interestingly enough, SSNs were never supposed to be used for identification/authentication keys. My father still has an old card that still has "Not to be used for identification" printed on it.
The "Not to be used for identification" refers to the card, not the number. It is just saying that a Social Security card is not an identification card.
There is nothing wrong with using SSNs for identification. The government does it. The government also requires businesses and financial institutions to use SSNs to identify their employees and customers. The problem is the idiotic notion that SSNs can be both widely known (used for identification) and secret (used for authentication). Mere knowledge of my SSN should not, in any way, "prove" that I am me.
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss
