Indeed. It's "ham" (or better, "radio amateur"), just like it's not the INTERNET or SLASHDOT.
Part 97 only applies to US hams, or foreign hams with reciprocity transmitting from US territory.
Of course our plan is imperfect. It's just less imperfect than yours is.
Choice is great, and normally I'm a big fan of choice, but when Canadians live about 2-3 years longer than Americans, on average, and spend a little more than 50% of what Americans spend on health care, I view our compromises as being acceptable. I like the economic freedom that detaching health insurance from employment provides. The two times in my life I have had pressing issues, I received immediate care. And frankly, it would be best if the US remained a private health care nation because, if I prefer care faster than my province's system provides it, I can hop across the border for it. I don't expect to have that need, but I still have that choice.
No one is uninsured here, and that means no one consumes health care and free rides on those that can afford to pay (or choose to pay), and even those of modest means will get quality care. Preexisting conditions are a non-issue. To me, those advantages outweigh the loss of choice. (And to be truthful, I do have choice - Canada has 13 systems here, one for every province and territory, so if I don't like the health care where I live, I can hop to another province. That's adequate for me.)
Public health care systems work fine in a lot of places (most of western Europe; Australia; New Zealand; Canada; and probably others). If the US can't come up with an efficient-enough bureaucracy to make it work there, then it's really time to change how you guys do things.
It works fine where I live.
As for ice cream, if it's causing people health issues, tax it. As a bonus, the money's in the tax system to put directly into health care, if your system is rationally designed.
This is why you need a single payer system. My premiums don't go up because I ate too many ice cream cones, because I don't pay premiums per se. I pay taxes and my taxes pay for medical treatment for anyone who lives in my jurisdiction.
The solution to your problems, perversely to sycodon's preferences, is *more* government, oddly enough, not less.
First, nowhere does it say they were using SMTP, at least not that I saw. They are likely using SMTP with TLS.
Secondly, they had intended on sending that document within their own domain, which likely means it wouldn't have left the control of GS anyways. I'm not saying this is the best way to do things, but it's not necessarily insecure.
There's no question that content providers like streaming because it means we're really just renting the content. There's also no question that it's super convenient (I have Netflix like a lot of people do) but I don't view it as a replacement to physical media, but rather as an augmentation.
I'm a fool because I have a cottage where there isn't inexpensive broadband or a 4-terabyte server?
Well said. I buy my music on CDs for the same reason. (Granted, I rip it and file the originals away almost instantly; I still actually use my DVD and Blu-Ray media but that might change soon too if I can ramp up the server space).
I still buy physical DVDs - primarily because they are passively archival and don't depend on me a) having connectivity or b) having my server nearby. I view programming at some locations (like my cottage) where it's easier to bring a few DVDs than it is to copy a bunch of data onto a hard disk and then connect a computer to the television.
I also wonder if the energy consumption considers the issues of ramped-up Internet infrastructure and server capacity required to store, back up and stream the content. This isn't free and isn't emission-neutral. High-def (e.g. Blu-Ray) content is even moreso whereas the cost of a Blu-Ray disc versus DVD is actually almost trivial. Once you own the Blu-Ray player, you're done except for the marginal two or three dollar cost for the higher definition media.
In parent post,
Get a manual transmission. Depress clutch; power is disconnected. Done.
The best solution to this problem is the third pedal - the clutch - but unfortunately it too seems to be falling by the wayside. Still, automatics can be quickly popped into neutral under duress, and drivers with automatics should really practice this. Generally you can just slide the gear selector; no button-pressing is necessary.
Still, I agree with you about physical keys. They're simpler, and simple is good.
Q: How do you turn the car off in an emergency - e.g. stuck accelerator pedal?
A: You can't just press start/stop, as the vehicle speed sensor inhibits the button, so you can't turn off the ignition whilie the vehicle is moving. This isn't even in the manual. However, pressing and holding start/stop for 10 seconds will cause the ignition to turn off completely. This is a surprisingly long time in an emergency. In fact, in several "unintended acceleration" episodes, the drivers said they tried to turn off the push-button ignition, but couldn't turn it off.
Turning the ignition off should be your last option. Your first is to shift the vehicle into neutral, pull over and stop, then shut the vehicle off.