Comment Re:"simple trick"? (Score 1) 172
There was really only one proper link for that post.
I'm glad you used it.
There was really only one proper link for that post.
I'm glad you used it.
I currently have a web radio transceiver front panel application that works on Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, Amazon Kindle Fire, under Chrome, Firefox, or Opera. No porting, no software installation. See blog.algoram.com for details of what I'm writing.
The one unsupported popular platform? iOS, because Safari doesn't have the function used to acquire the microphone in the web audio API (and perhaps doesn't have other parts of that API), and Apple insists on handicapping other browsers by forcing them to use Apple's rendering engine.
I don't have any answer other than "don't buy iOS until they fix it".
Not only that, but no artificial limit to g. No pilot to keep conscious.
You now need to write a drone AI that you trust with lethal weaponry or a remote control system that's unjammable.
You miss the point, the state is the one guaranteeing the limited monopoly.
When did the State ever guarantee that they would maintain the medallion program and/or refrain from issuing new medallions? Scarcity of medallions is hardly a natural right, and laws instituting artificial scarcity are subject to change. If anyone over-payed for a medallion under the false assumption that the current state of artificial scarcity was guaranteed to last they have no one but themselves to blame. The only compensation owed here is to those who were unjustly prohibited from operating taxis due to the State's medallion requirements.
So you're arguing against regulatory stability?
I'm not claiming they shouldn't leave the medallion system, but I don't think they should simply wipe out the medallions as an asset.
Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.
No one ever pledged that OPEC would keep withholding stock.
It seems that you are the victim of a common misconception: That the State is the one selling the medallions that cost so much. Wrong, ignorant fuck.
You miss the point, the state is the one guaranteeing the limited monopoly. One of the things that makes free markets work is that when you give your word you generally keep it (or do your best). That's what gives people the stability to do think like invest in assets like medallions.
Why do you seem to think governments should abandon their obligation to the Taxi drivers without any attempt at recourse?
It's their own fucking faults. They lobby to make sure this is the system that's in place to prevent competition from companies like Uber. They got the laws they paid for, it's the people who bought the first wave of licenses/medallions whatever that made bank, now everyone else has to deal with it.
An upstart breaking that system is exactly what real business needs.
Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.
I'm not opposed to changing this agreement, in fact I encourage it, but if you're going to do so you need to compensate who bought the medallions.
Super Dracos are for escape in flight too, including in and past MaxQ. But they are on Crew Dragon, not Cargo Dragon. Cargo Dragon did not carry a crew and wasn't programmed to save itself.
Most of us do have a need to transmit messages privately. Do you not make any online purchases?
Yes, but those have to use public-key encryption. I am sure of my one-time-pad encryption because it's just exclusive-OR with the data, and I am sure that my diode noise is really random and there is no way for anyone else to predict or duplicate it. I can not extend the same degree of surety to public-key encryption. The software is complex, the math is hard to understand, and it all depends on the assumption that some algorithms are difficult to reverse - which might not be true.
Most algorithms to do this use the time between keypresses, measured to very high precision so that the lower bits are chaotic. So it doesn't really matter what keys you hit, and it doesn't matter how rythmic your typing is.
The problem with FM static is that you could start receiving a station, and if you don't happen to realize you are now getting low-entropy data, that's a problem.
There are many well-characterized forms of electronic noise: thermal noise, shot noise, avalanche noise, flicker noise, all of these are easy to produce with parts that cost a few dollars.
True randomness comes from quantum mechanical phenomena. Linux
I wouldn't trust anything but diode noise for randomness. If I had a need to transmit messages privately, I'd only trust a one-time pad.
But we know the actual intent of the lawmakers. They said so themselves before it became an issue: Their intent was to only subsidize state exchanges, not the federal exchange.
Seems to me that you are in a deep bit of stretch to both defend the lawmakers AND the courts in order to preserve a bullshit law. Dont move the goalpost again.
Really? Show me a single instance of one of the legislators stating the intent was only to subsidize state exchanges.
Recently, SCOTUS handed down an opinion on the ACA that basically said "the actual words in the legislation don't matter
Which is correct. When the words in the legislation are ambiguous then what matters is the intent of the legislators. And there's no reason to believe the legislators believed states on the federal exchange shouldn't get the subsidies (note to the obvious response, even if Gruber wrote that section and had that intent he was not a legislator).
In their opinion on gay marriage, Roberts issues a dissenting opinion with the following quote:
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.
The internal inconsistencies of the SCOTUS are appalling.
And they have the power to say what it is when the current form violates the constitution, as does the ban on gay marriage.
You're also talking about two very different aspects of what the supreme court does.
In the ACA ruling the court was interpreting the implementation of a law that was passed.
In the Gay Marriage ruling they were deciding if a law was constitutional.
Explain the continued ban on polygamous marriage.
A ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional because a ban serves no good purpose, hence the fake studies on the welfare of children and the doom & gloom scenarios about the collapse of the family trying to invent a purpose so they could justify a ban.
But polygamous marriages are very widely one man with multiple women. They create a destabilizing gender imbalance in those communities leading to young unmarried men being excluded and they create domestic situations where women have very little power and are subject to abuse.
While there are some rare instances where polygamous marriages would be fine there are plenty of good reasons for the government to ban the practice and that makes it constitutional.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz
