Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So (Score 4, Interesting) 302

Cars on the ground can, with little exception, stop any time they feel like giving up the chase and turning themselves in to the officers. Aircraft have no such ability, and if you were being actively closely pursued by another aircraft it could even prove fatal to try and land. That doesn't even take into account the risks involved to the people on the ground below, who the police in this case endangered by engaging in pursuit -- the correct action would be to have the ATC track the belligerent until it landed, and arrest the pilots there. Following it at high speed, closely, it precisely what FAA regulations were intended to prevent.

I could not agree more. One addition:

In the air, pilots have the authority to deviate from every rule in the book, if they deem it necessary for the safety of the flight. This is even stressed out by the FAA themselves in every WINGS seminar on this topic I've attended. Roughly the same authority goes to Air Traffic Control when a pilot declares an emergency.

Yes, my non-pilot friends, you read that correct. If a pilot declares an emergency, he is the ultimate authority in the sky over what he does, with ATC being his best wingman with broad authority to divert anyone else. That includes everyone with a badge as well.

Obviously, with authority comes responsibility. Once the flight has ended, the pilot must usually attend a hearing where he (or she) must explain their actions and may even lose their license on it. Every pilot is expected to show good airmenship, and the helicopter pilot pursuing a drone may have been making some judgements that are open for discussion.

Comment: Re:So (Score 5, Informative) 302

Since I'm here, I'll point out that cops do the same thing on the ground.

But they are not. And while they are police officers, they generally have no authority in the air. What flies in the air is all subject to the FAA and a regular officer (even those flying a police helicopter to assist ground units) are limited to FAA rules and regulations.

Unlike ground vehicles, a police helicopter will not be exempt from FAA flight rules and regulations. If the pilot is flying VFR, he is to maintain VFR separation from other flying objects, whether they are in the air lawful or not. The reasoning behind this is obviously that if he fails to do so and somehow crashes into it, his badge will not protect anyone on the ground from getting hurt from the crashing helicopter or whatever object he flies into.

Furthermore, his badge will give him police authority, but the FAA can simply revoke his pilot's license and ground him.

Comment: Re:Perhaps stupid question (Score 2) 302

Please educate.

They were under ATC. ATC can track objects in the air, even if they're not using a transponder. Using primary radar, ATC will be able to provide traffic advisories. Police helicopters usually fly under "flight following", meaning they would like to be informed of other traffic.

Comment: Re:But it wasn't for "national security" (Score 5, Interesting) 348

by sabri (#47420397) Attached to: UK Computing Student Jailed After Failing To Hand Over Crypto Keys

in any way incriminating yourself?

This. Exactly this. When any law enforcement agency suspect that I am guilty of a crime, I have the right to remain silent. With these "tiny little" exceptions, governments are getting onto a slippery slope. Right now it's just passwords. The next step will be the location of harddrives with evidence. Then it will be "tell us where the body is so we can convict you, if you don't tell us you'll go to jail anyway".

In my opinion, the right to remain silent is absolute. No matter how you look at it, this man is being jailed for remaining silent in a criminal investigation. And that, my friend, are Soviet practices.

Not being able to prosecute certain crimes for lack of evidence is the cost that a society pays for having a level playing field and a fair trial.

Comment: Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (Score 1) 464

Considering modern planes are fly-by-wire, can you even land without power? (wondering, don't know myself)

Short answer: yes.

Most passenger aircraft that require electronics to fly are outfitted with a so-called RAT: Ram Air Turbine. In case of a catastrophic engine failure (or fuel burnout), the RAT will be deployed and provide power for critical systems. The RAT is a small device that looks like a propeller and is usually mounted underneath the aircraft. The forward momentum of the plane will provide sufficient wind to generate power.

There is good episode of Air Crash Investigation on this as well.

Comment: Re:Two sides to every issue (Score 1) 401

by sabri (#47400329) Attached to: No Shortage In Tech Workers, Advocacy Groups Say

A take-over is easier than a reapplication for a new visa, if the current visa limit is exhausted (which it constantly is), so unless this happens at the start of a year, and you have all the ducks in a row before tendering notice, you are likely going home as soon as you give notice to the current visa sponsor.

H1-B Portability takes care of that, this process is cap-exempt.

A take-over is allowed, but voluntary on the part of the original sponsor, who may be, er, a "little spiteful"...

The original sponsor does not have to cooperate. You may be mistaken with an older practice where I-140 sponsors would withdraw the petition when a worker left, and the process had to start all over again.

Comment: Re:Two sides to every issue (Score 4, Informative) 401

by sabri (#47396481) Attached to: No Shortage In Tech Workers, Advocacy Groups Say

H1-Bs in America currently have two options: 1) Remain at current sponsoring employer or 2) go home, because quitting means immediate revocation of their visa.

2B: Hop to an employer that is willing to sponsor a change in their H1-B.

From Wikipedia:

Despite a limit on length of stay, no requirement exists that the individual remain for any period in the job the visa was originally issued for. This is known as H-1B portability or transfer, provided the new employer sponsors another H-1B visa

From the employees perspective, there is one problem with this: once an employer has started the permanent residency (greencard) process, it is a bad idea to move because you'll be starting all over again.

+ - No shortage in tech workers, advocacy groups say

Submitted by sabri
sabri (584428) writes "To have a labor shortage or not to have, that's the question. According to the San Jose Mercury News:

Last month, three tech advocacy groups launched a labor boycott against Infosys, IBM and the global staffing and consulting company ManpowerGroup, citing a "pattern of excluding U.S. workers from job openings on U.S soil."

They say Manpower, for example, last year posted U.S. job openings in India but not in the United States."

Comment: Re:How are they going to get proof? (Score 1) 65

by sabri (#47372717) Attached to: Seven ISPs Take Legal Action Against GCHQ

If the ECJ rules something, the EU Member State must abide by that ruling, even if a more local court has already ruled differently? If so, then the ECJ is a superior court. If there is no court above which can be petitioned to hear the matter, they they are the supreme court.

I totally follow your line of thinking, I just slightly disagree. The EU is a not a country. It is a group of countries which have a bunch of treaties together, making them close friends. The ECJ hears and rules on disagreements between countries.

The ECHR only rules based on the ECHR, and can only marginally touch the "local" member states' parliaments decisions (local laws) and practices.

The SCOTUS is the highest legal authority for a federation. If you'd like a EU comparison: Germany is a federation. The SCOTUS makes decisions based on the US constitution, not on a bunch of treaties between member states.

Now of course, you can go back and say "that's not what I intended to say", but in that case I'd like to refer you to the original message I was responding to which said:

the EU supreme court

and my simple response was "there is no such thing as the EU supreme court". And I'll happily stand by that. No single court has been appointed the Supreme Court of the European Union, with jurisdiction of every legal matter in the EU. SCOTUS does have jurisdiction over pretty much every legal matter in the US. And that is what I pointed out.

Comment: Re:How are they going to get proof? (Score 1) 65

by sabri (#47371959) Attached to: Seven ISPs Take Legal Action Against GCHQ

*cough* The European Court of Justice has ultimate jurisdiction if plaintiffs can show that GCHQ violated any EU ordinance.

Did you even read the page you're quoting? The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ. Even if you were confused with the ECHR, you're still mistaken. The ECHR only takes on cases involving human rights (i.e., no patent cases) and is limited to the interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the SCOTUS (with limited exceptions) only handles appeals cases.

The Supreme Court has a much broader horizon when it comes to legal issues, most notably they can declare a national law to be unconstitutional. There is no European Constitution and even if there were, the ECHR has no jurisdiction in that area at this moment.

So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.

I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.