HN Gopher Feed (2017-09-27) - page 1 of 10
With lax oversight, the FAA has enabled secrecy in the skies
32 points by duckhttps://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/secrets-in-the-sky/series...ky/series/part-one/
CryptoPunk - 42 minutes ago
While many social evils, like the ones mentioned in the article,
can be stopped when we end privacy, profound harm can be caused by
doing so as well.In a democratic society, the end of privacy means
we are all fully at the mercy of the majority. When the majority
errs, our freedom and even our lives can be lost. Privacy is the
check against that unimaginably large systemic risk.The piece
doesn't even look at the other side of the privacy argument. That
highly placed opinion makers like the authors of this article can
write such a one sided article about privacy just goes to show that
we could very well end up in a situation where the majority is
steered in a terribly destructive direction.
IncRnd - 37 minutes ago
1) Plurality not majority.2) The end of privacy means you are at
the mercy of a minority not a majority, possibly a minority of
CryptoPunk - 32 minutes ago
I'm giving the anti-privacy camp the benefit of doubt and
assuming we can create a democratic system in which the will of
the majority is reflected. Even then, giving up almost all
forms of meaningful privacy could end up being terribly
godzillabrennus - 1 hours ago
Visit it from an archive: http://archive.is/uTdNq
FabHK - 24 minutes ago
> The FAA has a reputation for making change at a snail?s pace even
when problems are clearly identified: The agency, for example,
still doesn?t put a photo of the pilot on airman?s licenses 13
years after Congress called for it.Yeah, well, but you have to
carry a valid photo ID with your pilot's license when you fly, so
what's the big deal? (somebody with the same name and birth date
and size could fly with your license?)
bsder - 19 minutes ago
I don't know, they seem to have moved relatively fast about
drones.Perhaps the FAA moves slowly because A) they don't want to
break things that people's lives depend upon and B) they react to
actual problems rather than breathless prose.
kevingadd - 1 hours ago
This article is interesting but it's also completely unreadable in
Firefox and Edge because they inexplicably decided to render black
text on top of relatively dark photos.??? What is with modern
newspaper site design these days? Every time they update their
designs it gets harder to read them, even though they're trying to
convince me to pay for it.
maxerickson - 36 minutes ago
Edit: actually, no, it doesn't, it misses much of the text.Reader
View in Firefox 55 works fine.
vhartman - 1 hours ago
It's not only that. I was unable to read any text even after the
facebook-popup since scrolling did only sometimes lead to
scrolling, and arrows did not do anything either.How was I
supposed to view this website?
matt4077 - 1 hours ago
I ran into the same problem until I disabled ad blocking. Which
I want to do anyway for high-quality journalism. It's
unfortunate that there's no blacklist that explicitly tries to
allow for quality content to be financed by non-intrusive
advertisement such as here.
jrockway - 1 hours ago
I couldn't read it in Chrome. I scrolled down with the mouse
wheel, but then it stopped working, and I never saw any text.
Thriptic - 9 minutes ago
Try using the arrow keys, that worked for me.I also had to
highlight the entire page because someone thought it was a good
design decision to use black text on a dark background. Oh and
also none of their real time stats work; they all show up as 0
FabHK - 53 minutes ago
Same in Safari on macOS, annoying (non-standard) scrolling (have
to target the little text box with your mouse before you can
scroll, can't scroll with keyboard, ...), and then black text
over dark background picture. POS.EDIT: might be my adblocker,
yeah. I'm just wondering what I like less - annoying nagging
(Forbes, spiegel.de, ...), or reduced functionality...
hondo77 - 23 minutes ago
Works fine in my Safari on MacOS; AdBlock turned on.
FabHK - 19 minutes ago
Ah ok. It worked for me after disabling the ad blocker
bogomipz - 1 hours ago
It was also unreadable for me because before I was able to read a
single word I was presented with a pop up to connect with them on
Facebook. Thats my queue to hit the back button.
a3n - 45 minutes ago
isostatic - 44 minutes ago
You could also sign up with an email address. I attempted
"email@example.com", but it said "please use another email".
Heh.Either way by the time I'd got past that level I'd
forgotten why I was there in the first place so I'm off to
youtube to watch kitten videos.
IncRnd - 49 minutes ago
There is only a title page that I cannot scroll in chrome. I'm not
willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a
different browser to read the story.
xelxebar - 33 minutes ago
IncRnd - 20 minutes ago
Thanks! I can't read it in chrome with JS disabled, but I can
read the first box if I go into dev tools. Then I can scroll
when the mouse is over the text box.
colonelxc - 33 minutes ago
You have the right to prevent your browser from downloading
certain content, or running certain scripts (in this case
ads).The site also has the right to prevent you from viewing
their content without compensation (in this case, through ads).Of
course it is probably not intentional on their part, they
probably have never tested with an adblocker. Even if they were
aware of the issue, I can't imagine it being very high priority.
IncRnd - 20 minutes ago
hondo77 - 25 minutes ago
Works fine in Safari; AdBlock turned on.
IncRnd - 17 minutes ago
FabHK - 45 minutes ago
> But it?s enough to give clients both anonymity and coveted US
registration for their planesWell, a US registration is "coveted"
because of fairly reasonable and light regulation for GA (general
aviation) aircraft (and the pilots who fly them ). Other
jurisdictions (EU) are cracking down on N-registered planes based
in their territory, though. It's not like the US registration is
prestigious or hard to get or anything.However, as it happens, only
US persons may register a plane in the US (don't quote me on the
exact terms, IANAL). That means that if you want to operate an
N-registered airplane as a foreigner, you have to go through a
trust (or some other legal construction, IANAL). That's why there's
a cottage industry for those, and I suppose criminals tag along
happily.: The Chicago convention established (a long time ago,
after WW II) that every country ("contracting party") would have a
register of aircraft, and a register of pilots ("airmen"), and that
a pilot of one country with an aircraft registered in the same
country could fly in that country, of course, and also all other
contracting parties. So, if there's an N-registered plane (i.e., an
aircraft registered in the US) based in Europe or Asia, a pilot
with an FAA license (i.e., an airman registered in the US) can fly
it.A pilot from country A can fly a plane from country A in country
A (of course) and B and C and all other countries (by Chicago
convention), but can't fly a plane from country B in country A or B
necessarily (there are exceptions) or country C or any other
country.As FAA rules for pilots are fairly reasonable and benign, a
good number of (non-commercial) pilots internationally likes to fly
on a FAA license in N-registered planes.