*if we are now unmaking it... damn typos
We, as a nation, were not given a constitution.
We made a constitution, and by doing so, in that same act, deserved it.
If we are not unmaking it, then by that same act we no longer deserve it.
"We" as a nation, that is. We each, as individuals, deserve to be part of a nation that would make (and in doing so deserve) and defend such a constitution.
Those of us who would support the making and defending of it, at least.
Because so many states are disallowed.
Partner with Koingesseggessegesgeg... Because eventually they'll have to fill out a form to block them and no-one will be able to spell it.
"It can be fitted to a commercial airliner for less than $100,000. But the industry has decided that it's not worth the expense. Tell that the the families of passengers on Flight MH370."
Commercial airplane crashes are extremely rare. Even in these rare instances, it is even more rare not to find the aircraft that crashed.
This, aircraft fatalities are so rare that any single crash is international news, 300+ people die on Western Australian roads each year, there was a fatal truck crash near Yangebup last week... I doubt half the people in Perth, Western Australia would be aware of it.
You obviously don't know about the concept of closure, or care enough about someone else to care about it.
Because some company using a tragedy to peddle their wares that have dubious value and are not even remotely guaranteed to work is closer.
Pot, meed kettle.
FLYHT are scum. Their products have been rejected by the aviation industry because they don't add value but add additional cost (satellite data connections aren't cheap), are just as prone to failure as current methods (relies on instrumentation or manual activation) and have additional points of failure (a dial on demand satellite connection, when a flight disappears from radar and the pilots cannot be raised on the radio and the transponder is gone... WTF makes me think a dial on demand satellite connection will work). And now they're using a tragedy to try to peddle their crud.
I read the article, it's nothing but attacks on the aviation industry and badly used thought terminating cliche's like "tell that to the families". Its the kind of thing an angry pre-pubescent child would write when their parents ground them.
I can see how a constant stream of telemetry might be cost-prohibitive, but what about a squirt of data consisting of -
- Flight Number
- Lat / Long
- Compass heeding
Because we get all that from RADAR.
The problem the aviation industry has is that you, the customer want to pay less for flights, not more.
If an aircraft disappears from RADAR and you cant raise the pilots on the radio, such a system would in all likelihood be out of commission as well.
What does it matter, on a plane like the 777 that costs $260 to $377 *million* dollars to acquire? That's less than 4 hundreths of a percent of the acquisition cost. 100K$ is peanuts on the scale of costs it takes to acquire and operate a large airliner.
Costs to acquire are often not the highest costs. Same with this, it may cost $100K to purchase, but how much to keep running?
I read the article, the technology is flawed in two ways.
1, it depends on the instrumentation or pilots detecting something going wrong. One of the leading theories in the AF447 accident was that an instrument was reporting incorrectly.
2. it depends on satellite communication (which isn't cheap) and MH370 disappeared from RADAR and radio communications. What makes you think a dial on demand satellite connection would work.
Besides this, much like the summary the article is full of half baked assumptions, attacks on the aviation industry, emotive language and thought terminating cliche's in the place of fact or at least tests and results. The aviation industry rejected their devices before because they dont add any real value due to the flaws I mentioned above. They are essentially trying to use a tragedy to sell something of dubious value whilst people are too emotional to think critically. I think FLYHT are scum.
Remember 2G? Many cars that predate it are still on the road.
In a couple of years this will be as desirable as mid-90s in-car phones. Meanwhile you will pay higher sticker price.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
In a few years, you'll get a new loan for a new Audi. By then we'll be up to elevnety thousand G.
VAG's planned obsolescence department.
Demographics for the Baby Boom means more Social Security and Medicare spending than the 1990s. Sluggish economy -- thanks to decades of conservative policies eviscerating the middle class -- means more unemployment payments and more need for government assistance overall. Two wars means more veterans benefits.
But it's all Obama's fault.
I don't know who views a phone as a status symbol any more.
It sounds like you don't know many people.
Oddly enough, it seems you're doing the projection here. You seem to think everyone has the exact same values as you. This is not correct. People do consider their phones to be status symbols, much the same as Zara Jeans and D&G handbags. This is why they line up every year to get the latest model. Phones to many a fashion accessories and occupy the same slot as other fashion accessories for these people, so yes, they are status symbols. How many purses did Michael Kors sell last year, I'd be very supprised if it wasn't a multiple of 150 million, they're still status symbols, not strong ones like Rolls Royce but for people who buy them they are an indication of status... The same with Iphones.
I don't consider phones to be status symbols, but I know enough people to understand that this is my view (I own an old Galaxy Nexus) but here you've pretty much demonstrated you don't get out much, you definitely don't understand how mundane people work.
smart phones aren't used for status symbols.
Yes they are, I'm just going to do the copy/paste from the other comment I made about this.
The culture of one-upmanship and keeping up with the joneses is alive and well in western societies. A lot of people are constantly trying to get better toys than their peers and neighbours. Frank buys a ride on mower, not Bob and Steve have to have one. Steve gets a new Accord Euro, so Bob has to get a BMW 320 and not to be out done, Frank has to get a Mercedes CLA. Same with kids getting huge fart-cannon cat-backs (exhausts) to make their crapwagon sound louder.
Phones are considered status symbols by a lot of vain people, they aren't very good status symbols but they are still status symbols for a great many people. This is why they rush to show everyone their new phone, mundane people don't care about how much RAM it's got or the new features like us geeks and every other mundane person knows it. They only care about showing everyone their new toy.
There's a joke explaining the difference between a normal person and a douchebag.
Normal Person: Excuse me for a second, I have to get my jacket out of my car, I left my phone in there.
Douchebag: Excuse me for a second, I have to get my Northface out of my Lexus, I left my Iphone 5 S in there.
Telling people not to use them in public is removing the whole point of taking a mobile computing device with you.
Erm, thanks for not reading my, or the OP's post.
We didn't say don't take them with you, we said don't wander around with them out. Thieves look for easy targets and people too engrossed in their Idevice are extremely easy targets.
It's a basic self preservation measure, like not accepting candy from strangers.
Hey, but you're proving my point for me. A lot of first worlders don't have a clue about how to act in a country where theft is prevalent.
Sure at some point you might end up paying 100% tax on the surplus and can genuinely claim to be "working for the government". However the reward bestowed by society for reaching the maximum is not paid in money, it is paid in leisure time and it's your prerogative to spend it "working for the government" if that's what you want to do with it.
The US economy is a chocolate cake baked by 300 million people using a government recipe that includes ingredients such as property law. Right now a handful of those 300 million have their face buried in the cake while the rest stand around sniffing the chocolate in the air.
Link to Original Source
Her cause, so far as I can tell, is to stop Federal spooks from spying on her. It does not appear to be stopping Federal spooks from spying on anybody beyond the rarefied circles of Congress.
Amen. I have no idea who this guy is, so I can't imagine any other question to ask him.