Yes, they control their spectrum but this uses bluetooth, not their spectrum.
No, that wasn't the anti-trust issue, that was exclusivity partner agreements.
And that was what I consider the real issue. I don't give a damn if MS installed IE on those computers I was forced to buy with an MS operating system on them. It was trivial enough to install another browser, but unless I wanted to take the time to build my own computers from parts and then have basically no warranty on the system as a whole, I had to pay MS for their OS. And that points out that having an MS OS on the system wasn't the issue, it was having to PAY for the privilege.
And you ought to know that I was buying those systems with grant money, which means the taxpayer was actually paying for an OS that was going to be deleted as soon as the system got here.
MS also installs 'explorer' on all their systems, but you could buy Norton commander. Is the fact that 'explorer' was part of the MS bundle a problem? No.
This. I have no problem at all if they want to split my bill into two parts, a fixed cost for just being hooked up and an incremental cost for generating the electricity I consume, as long as the two costs are calculated sanely. The proper fix is to adjust the tariffs to reflect the growing reality of universal connection without universal consumption.
That's what my electric utility already does. I do have a slight problem with this:
"But you shouldn't quash an entire emerging industry just to protect an old and established one."
Nobody is quashing an emerging industry. What they're saying is that they don't want to have to buy electricity from everybody.
Forcing them to buy electricity was a bone thrown to the solar energy, as are the various tax incentives for installing solar. I actually want to install solar myself, badly, but I would prefer this to proceed with the least government interference.
The ability to network is a skill I've spent a significant amount of time to become adept at.
Nice to see *informed* input!
I would argue that the problem is the flat rate pricing of $/KWH. A KWH produced at 1 AM has far less value than one produced at 7:00 PM. Why are we charging them the same? Much of the issue you mention would largely vanish if electricity prices were negotiated more frequently. EG: hourly or 15 minute increments. If there really is a surplus of power between 10:00-2:00, as you state, then the price during that time of day would be low to accommodate. This would create an incentive to input power when there's matching demand, and let the utility company profit off the difference.
Yes, it's a significant cost to upgrade the power grid and contracts to work this way, but when has it been bad to connect buyers to sellers in a way that reflects an accurate use of resources?
For example, I read a study a while back that pointing solar panels West of due South resulted in a much better match between electricity use and demand
You need to uninstall updates to get it back to a lower version, and then disable it. I've seen several of the core Google apps which can't simply be disabled. It's kind of annoying.
If you are disabling an app so it cannot be used at all, why do you care that you have to remove an update to the very app you don't want in the first place? Others have pointed out the technical reason for the way it is.
The real issue back then was Microsoft offered IE for free and Netscape charged a fee for their browser.
The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold if they wanted to install it on ANY computer they sold. That's why you didn't have an option of buying a pre-built computer without Windows. I ought to know, I had to buy alot of them.
The fact that they are willing to spend a lot of money on attorney fees to challenge the laws probably means there is some other reason they don't want to do that. That's the question people should be asking.
It's called "principle", something that's uncommon in the left-wing world.
IIRC there are plenty of places where TCAS is mandatory. Even for light aircraft which intend to use that airspace.
You may be thinking of transponders with Mode C. I don't know of any airspace where TCAS is required for all aircraft, but class B requires Mode C. At least in the US.
So you've established that all the male scientists made of straw are corrupt.
I don't see how you could have gotten that from anything I wrote. I didn't talk about male scientists, and I didn't prove anyone was corrupt, I spoke about the impression that the public can get when one group of scientists points the finger at another group.
Lets see some actual evidence of corruption in that 'good chunk' of 'real' scientists.
For me its time for a car upgrade, and I'm strongly considering a Tesla. No more oil changes, ever.
Parent has seen all the proof he needs in "Die Hard II".
And in "Scorpion", where we learned that nobody can land anything if the tower software is out of operation, that transcontinental aircraft carry a copy of the ATC routing software, that those aircraft have a cat5 cable hanging around in the equipment bay that can be dropped out a wheel well so a hacker can download the software, that an ATC software failure can disable the red/green light guns that are installed in towers explicitly to deal with communications failures, that the data archive disk for the ATC software has a label "FAA" on it, that right handed data server managers put their important servers on the right side of the room, that a 500,000 kW glitch in the power grid will cause data center doors to open,
The only reason to watch that show is for the mom. I recorded it and I'm keeping it, if for no other reason that to have something to point at as an example of really really really bad technical content in a prime time program. I can't wait to see what they slaughter tonight.
It's the getting the clearance which is the issue. Because of the problem the FAA might reject your flight plan.
The FAA cannot reject your flight plan. The clearance they give you may not match what you ask for, but they'll give you something. And, as you continued, you'll definitely get something if you are an FAA-operated aircraft transporting FAA personnel to repair an out-of-service FAA facility.
And most of those are the ones actively discrediting the 'good' ones because they've been paid off by the fossil fuel industry.
You know, that statement right there shows why the public has no problem believing that scientists can be just as corrupt as politicians. It's not the "bad ones" who have created the problem, it is the "good ones" who dismiss anything any scientist who is "paid off by the fossil fuel industry" says just because of who they work for.
Once you have one part of a group pointing fingers at the others saying "they're corrupt", it is not very hard at all to think that all of them could be. I mean, if who pays you determines what your results are, then why wouldn't someone being paid on a grant to study one aspect of climate change be likely to find just what he's being paid to find? Even if it is nothing more than unidentified confirmation bias, if who pays you can point you to your results, then that applies no matter who pays you.
Why would none of the academics publish biased results?
1. There's no profit. Of course there is. Grants go to people studying new and/or important things. If you say "there's nothing to see here" your grant doesn't get renewed. You have to go find something else to work on so you'll get paid. Unlike people with real jobs, academics don't get paid with their employer's money, they get paid from grant money.
2. Someone would snitch. Of course. And then that someone would wind up without HIS grant because a) nobody likes a snitch, and b) "there's nothing to see here" applies. Unlike someone with a real job, academic grants go through "peer review" and if your peers decide that your work is banal and obvious, you don't get your grant.
Of course, the bias may not be deliberate, it may just influence what "outliers" get thrown out.
If you don't think there are egos involved in academic science, you've never worked in academia. If you don't think there is back scratching going on all the time, ditto. There is a limited amount of money being pulled in a large number of directions. Anyone who says "there's nothing to see here" jeopardizes everyone working in that field, and those humans called "scientists" can still do what humans tend to do when something jeopardizes their income.
Personally, I just wish those "good ones" would stop accusing their colleagues of being bought off, because it besmirches the entire process of science. If you can't counter their science with your own, then maybe you need to look at your own science first. This "you've been bought off so you are wrong" argument throws mud on the recipient, but a lot of it splashes back on the thrower.
Seriously though, what evidence do you have that 'a good chunk' are corrupt?
The same evidence the "good one" have regarding the "bad ones".
yes it can. good literature has flawed characters and the story line is overcoming their flaws