As much as I’d like to laugh as any Russian military stupidity, the aircraft in the picture doesn’t appear to have propellers attached, so it’s likely in some form of maintenance. Without the weight of engines and props, any strong wind over the wings is likely to move the plane around quite a lot. Putting tires on the wings disrupts the lift and helps keep the plane from moving around in storms.
That feels like a better explanation then the other theory that they are used for some form of anti-drone tech.
Would the tires do anything to protect them other than blunt the damage? Ignoring the fact that each tire conveniently has a bomb sized hole in each section?
I would imagine shrapnel would have an easier time going through a tire then through the exterior of the plane. And those bombs already do that.
Tires are very tough. Aircraft skin is very thin. I think tires would help reduce damage from shrapnel, but agree that weight and airfoil disruption is also a very plausible expansion.
I don’t know how I feel about this. On one hand: I dislike the trend of commercial companies buying up living space to turn around and rent it out to disruptive short-term tenants.
On the other hand: I don’t want to have anyone else present in my rental with me because that’s creepy.
They are trying to address housing shortages. The hotels might benefit, but so does everyone else because it effectively bars commercial operation of AirBnB. No landlords with 50 units etc.
This will not actually help with the housing shortage. It will even result in further evictions as some people lose the potential income of renting out excess space to get over the hump.
Like what, exactly? If you can’t afford a fire alarm or sprinkler system, you really shouldn’t be running a rental business. Hell, if you can’t afford a fire alarm, you have much bigger problems than whether or not you can rent a room to a stranger.
…which makes you a business. You’re making income from rentals. A landlord who has 500 units but can’t seem to fill them but once or twice per year for a weekend doesn’t suddenly stop being a landlord. And if they told me “I’m just supplementing my income” in order to get around installing fire alarms, I’d laugh in their face.
If you’re providing a commercial service to strangers, you should be able to ensure their safety, full stop. If you can’t afford to do that, you can’t afford to provide the commercial service.
What a cockamamie take! We’re not kicking these people out of their homes by forcing them to follow simple rules to ensure they don’t burn families of random strangers in a raging inferno. They’re still free to…y’know…have and live in their home.
By your exact same logic, if someone is making and selling meth out of their home in order to make supplemental income and bridge payment gaps, then by telling them to stop we’re effectively telling them “only the wealthy deserve a home, period.”
<span style="color:#323232;">Meth dealer: "But I can't afford my home without it!"
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Me: "Um, tough shit. Stop it."
</span>
Is “people can’t afford to live” your “get out of jail free” card?
So people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it helps them pay rent, because them making rental payments ipso facto impacts housing availability?
Should a hair stylist require schooling and training? Yes, they put caustic chemicals on people’s heads which can cause sever harm.
Should police have more training? Yes.
This isn’t a good argument because the lack of police training has no bearing on the licensing and training of hair stylists.
Here’s the take you are trying to get people to say, if you cannot afford to own a home without supplementing income by provided room rentals which are potentially unsafe and do not meet the bare minimum of fire code, then you cannot afford that house. It doesn’t mean you don’t afford a house. Just that you cannot afford THAT house. And I make no mention of “deserve housing” because all humans deserve housing.
Putting people’s lives at risk to make a few extra dollars is unacceptable. You have no right to gamble with other people’s lives.
I don’t think that’s an ideal analogy. No-one sells meth legally.
It’s more like selling people food prepared in your uninspected and potentially unsanitary kitchen, and complaining about being told to comply with the food hygiene regulations that every licensed business is required to adhere to.
I find this viewpoint fascinating. Like arguing that trying to put out a burning building will hurt poor people trying to keep warm.
The housing market as a whole is the problem, one which AirBnB is exacerbating. That it locally enriches those renters able to find people willing to rent out their homes – which I’m guessing is disproportionately going to be people without elderly family members & kids – doesn’t mean it isn’t detrimental to the housing market as a whole, particularly at the lower end, and to everyone who rents.
If they can’t afford to sit on multiple empty houses due to increased AirBnB regulations, then they can always sell some of those assets back into the market. In fact, that’s the point of the regulation :P
The idea of some poor landlord barely scraping things together because their 50 rental properties (and thus millions of dollars worth of assets) are less profitable is preposterous
Judging by how hard they are attacking this thread (seriously like half the comments are them), I am going to say yes. I don't believe them denying it.
Units made available as short-term rentals must also abide by building and fire codes, including one that prohibits placing locks between rooms and having certain sprinkler and fire alarm systems on the property.
Growth in home-sharing through Airbnb contributes to about one-fifth of the average annual increase in U.S. rents and about one-seventh of the average annual increase in U.S. housing prices.
Those struggling renters might not be struggling so much if other people renting out their apartments on AirBnB weren’t pushing up their rent by an extra 20%.
Housing markets have problems. AirBnB is not a responsible solution to those problems.
As mentioned previously, then they shouldn’t be housing others. You spend a small sum of money to make money, when I worked for the city of new York, all us engineers knew the saying, “regulations are written in blood” because NYC was one of the first cities to experiment with new housing methods and such. We were thus the first to witness the horrors of lack of regulation.
I wasn’t alive for the triangle waistcoat factory disaster. Will I learn from it? Yes. Will I force others to learn from it and protect innocent people around them? Also yes. Fire does not care about your class or situation, they happen and the steps to being protected are necessary.
If a person has extra rooms and can barely afford rent, they are occupying a unit that doesn’t fit their needs. They would be better served by downsizing to a smaller, more affordable place instead of heaping their financial problems onto the rest of society. Alternatively they could sublet the room(s) which would better serve their community instead of catering to tourists.
Host requirements start on the bottom of page 16. The requirements boil down to posting a fire exit diagram of the unit, keeping records, and not violating building or fire codes. Nothing in there that really seems that onerous, and is stuff that obviously protects the guests.
Oh look, here’s a list of fires that happened in buildings with short-term rentals, where egress, fire alarms, and sprinkler systems saved actual lives…
Yea you’re not really arguing in good faith here. You know fires happen and the lack of basic alerting systems is a concern. These regulations aren’t costing folks 10 grand to do. There is a cost of doing business and New York has stated this is that cost. Take it up with your state assembly if you don’t like it.
It is quite firmly my stance that none of the people barking up this “fire bad” tree are engaging in good faith at all, since none of these AirBnBs demonstrate undue risk worthy of their own fire code ordinances
Asking a person to install their own fire door to rent a room out is absurd.
Then I guess they shouldn’t be opening living spaces to other people for commercial purposes. Almost like doing that implies you have a responsibility to your guests
It’s the same as ride-sharing … which, when it started, was advertised as a cheaper alternative to taxis/cabs but that’s no longer the case.
I use taxis instead od ride-share because taxis are regulated and they have to buy licenses. Does this make them better? Not really, but they are contributing to the local economy through the tax base … and that alone does make them better.
I’ve stayed in plenty of Airbnb’s that the owners were on-site the whole time. It’s not bad at all. I even used Airbnb to rent out a spare room for a couple years and it wasn’t weird at all (except for the people who were much more comfortable with nudity than I was).
The time I visited NYC, the Airbnb I rented was a small apartment divided up into three rooms with other renters staying there. Same as if the owner was there, wasn’t a problem or creepy.
Except that guy isn’t dead. The woman is. The cop has plenty of opportunities to do a really big part of his job, de-escalate, rather than do the opposite, position himself in front of her vehicle and immediately point a gun at her. He went right for the death threat and almost immediately delivered.
Isn’t it kinda stupid of the police officer to put himself in that dangerous position. He could just as well have let her go and find her later or follow her. Trying to stop a car by standing in front of it is imo. just stupid and unprofessional.
This exactly how it works in normal countries. She was not robing a bank she was just shop lifting. You get the license plates and invite her to court some time later.
Nah, you don’t get to just drive away from the police anywhere, sorry. Most would use less lethal means to stop her, but I don’t think any competent force would just let her leave.
Nor would any competent force give an ultimatum of “stop or die” over a trivial crime. Most countries would get in their car and try to follow safely, if that wasn’t possible you run the plates and send a summons. A hand should never be near a gun in this situation.
Can’t speak for anywhere else, but can speak for personal experience, here in Italy “take the license plate” or “get in the police car and follow her” would be our procedure. She has not pulled out a weapon, and law enforcement is not supposed to escalate anything, ever. (Exceptions might apply, poorly trained officers exists). Even if she pulled a gun, probably we’d just try to evacuate everyone in the area and call for reinforcements before thinking of pulling out our firearms.
On average we get 5 police deaths in a year out of about 300-350 thousands agents, so I guess it works well enough.
(and yes, I do realize that in US there’s a lot of armed and trigger happy civilians, but that’s just another issue to solve. If a civilian needs a gun for self protection , there’s something really really wrong with society in my opinion)
The cop deliberately walked in front of her car and pointed a gun at her. She panicked. I’d probably panic too if someone pointed a gun at me. Granted, I probably wouldn’t have drove forward, but it was entirely possible for the cop to not have walked in front of her car, for him not to have pulled a gun. It seems like him pulling the gun is what caused this.
Driving a car without plates is extremely common in this area. It has been ever since they suspended registration requirements during Covid. I see multiple cars without plates every time I go for a drive.
That’s not how plates are obtained. It has nothing to do with it. When buying a car from a dealership new, they submit all the paperwork, and your plates are sent to you within a month. If it’s used, it should already have a plate, but you can still get one from the DMV through online services in almost every state.
Not having a plate is usually someone avoiding tolls or red light cameras or some other petty crime thing. And to play devils advocate, I suppose it could have been stolen, too.
This area doesn’t have tolls or red light cameras.
Dealers don’t submit paperwork for you to get plates unless you pay extra for the service. Otherwise you get a 45 day temporary tag.
If you buy used in a private sale, then you get nothing. You have to go buy plates. There is no transfer of plates between private parties in Ohio when doing a private sale.
I didn’t know that there was any place in the United States that did not require license plates. There were/are a lot of people asking why the cops didn’t just get the number off her license plates and arrest her later. The simplest answer to that is that the car didn’t have plates on it, but I don’t think that fact played any role in the decisions made by the involved parties. Though, I could be wrong about that.
I don’t think the plates would have been in the video frame at any point if they had been on the car. I don’t know if there are any pictures of the scene or not.
Similar memorials have also generated outcry in Canada. Jared McBride, a UCLA historian of Eastern Europe, said that within the Ukrainian diaspora, many believe that the soldiers allied with the Nazis with noble intentions.
But it is a view that he said scholars view widely as historical revisionism.
“The Nazi regime was a genocidal regime,” McBride said. “This idea of parsing these things out — that ‘We were the good SS division,’ or ‘The good police unit,’ or ‘The good mobile death battalion’ — is not the strongest of arguments.”
John-Paul Himka, a retired history professor at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, and an expert on Ukrainian history, said SS Galizien had “very little to do with the Holocaust” since it was not formed until 1943 and first saw combat the following year. But, Himka said, the unit was also tied to other war crimes during World War II.
“Galizien fought with the Germans against the Soviets; it helped suppress the Slovak uprising; it was involved in atrocities against Poles and Slovaks; it welcomed into its ranks many perpetrators of the ethnic cleansing against the Polish population and of the Holocaust; it propagated antisemitism and seems to have been involved in a roundup of Jews in Brody in 1944,” Himka said by email. “I cannot accept the notion that they were ‘freedom fighters.’”
These were not Nazis, but rather a separate organization that fought against everyone at some point, including fighting against Nazis. I don’t have a personal opinion on it
Even the so-called goods people mention were obtained at the cost of blood. A lot of blood of innocent people. How hard is it to denounce nazism really lol fuck.
Kind of like how the US government did the same thing when they protected former Nazis against War crime tribunals because we wanted their help against the Communists?
There’s a bit of a difference between literally volunteering to fight for the nazi state and protecting von Braun so he could work for NASA.
Protecting von Braun doesn’t enable the holocaust and other Nazi atrocities. It’s machiavellian and realpolitik, sure, but the nazi atrocities are over by that point.
Literally enlisting in the SS, though, you’re either actively carrying out atrocities or enabling other people to carry out atrocities.
Imagine assuming your comfortable 2020s life where you can apply black and white morality to everythin was the status quo thoughout world history, and no one has ever had to try and decide between two evils.
Have you been taking stupid pills…? Like yeah, obviously some things are grey and complicated… But some things are black and white. And (I can’t fucking believe I have to say this) Nazis = Bad.
I’d kind of love to hear how you would justify to Ukranians in 1939 that the Russians who have been murdering 10s of millions of Ukranians are the good guys.
The monument, in a Montgomery County community known for its synagogues, is dedicated to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the Schutzstaffel — the Nazi military branch often referred to simply as “the SS.”
Not to be that guy but the SS was also the foreign legions of Germany because they weren’t allowed in the Wehrmacht (normal military) and SS had many people that just wanted to fight the communists.
Doesn’t mean we call them heros and erect monuments to them. if anything we place these objects in a museum dedicated to the group. We acknowledge their troubled past, difficult decisions, horrible actions, good actions, and learn from all of it. A sense of shame and humility doesnt make current Ukrainians bad in any way.
Oh this has nothing to do with taxpayer funds, they’d spend the money on tax cuts for themselves, if they could. This is about denying Biden from getting another win.
I don't see the whataboutism here. It's andalsoism, which we could engage in endlessly with the Republicans, who have become the party of taking things away from other people.
I would hope any company I’m a customer of would at least require a warrant to release my data to law enforcement. I know I’d be disappointed in most companies, but I feel if I’m paying them, they shouldn’t concede until they are at least be required to release my data.
I hate that a shitty picture taken as part of legal proceedings is copyrightable. Just like research paid for by the government should be free and unencumbered, so should things produced by the government itself.
Employees of the federal government generate IP that generally goes into the public domain. States can decide whether their employees, or municipalities ’ employees’ IP goes into the public domain or not. By default, it does not, and from briefly looking into it, it seems most states accept the default, and very few put it into the public domain, or allow for broad use of state-generated IP.
It makes sense, and it isn’t a rule narrowly targeted at mugshots, but I’m not sure how to interpret it as a good thing. More government workers’ IP going into the public domain seems like it would better serve the public interest. Even if it allows Trump to do nonsense like this.
Yes exactly. It isn’t in the public domain, and so is still protected by copyright, and arguably fails the test for Fair Use. But OP’s earlier comment suggested they were not aware that federal works sit in the public domain.
This isn’t accurate as there is no such thing as a federal work or state work nor is there any actual court case. The law covers the whole country and it’s explained in the first sentence of the article:
Donald Trump’s campaign may have violated United States copyright law by selling merchandise featuring the former president’s mugshot, legal experts have warned.
US Copyright law is a federal law about how copyrights are protected, but the posted regulation is about what federal work is copyrighted and NOT applicable to how state work is copyrighted. It even says it right there in the title: “Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States.” The jail photographer is not an employee of the federal government, nor is the trial an activity of the federal government. This photo was not a work by the federal government.
No worries. The big issue is how does Georgia law apply to photographs taken by a state employee as part of the stated job functions for their official job. It’s one thing for an employee to take a photo while on the job, but when their specific job is to take an official photo then I think it would be ridiculous for that person to own the copyright and it not be public property (like NASA images). Should DMV employees own the copyright to license photos?
I’m not a lawyer but my layman’s opinion is that the state should retain ownership over the photo. To give an example, where I live a company began scraping mugshot photos and then compiling them into a newspaper that they distributed and sold for profit. It became really popular but it also drew a lot of negative attention since this company was earning money by spreading photos and arrest records of people that hadn’t even been convicted of a crime. The solution here was to just stop posting mugshots online, which was effective, but didn’t address ownership of the photos at all.
This isn’t exactly a 1:1 comparison since Trump was the subject of the photo and also the one selling merch, but I think there’s a valid argument against allowing people to privately sell products based off work/production funded by the public.
I think the reason for this copyright is so nobody can massively shame the convinced. But nobody thought anyone would be proud about it so much to share it themselves.
He’s not proud of it. He’s just saying he is, so that people stops laughing at him. The fucked up pay is that he’s making money out of it. But you bet he’s seething over that mugshot. Especially because he said Hilary Clinton would be in jail. And he was technically in jail first.
The reason for the copyright is that you automatically get a copyright on any photograph. It seems unlikely the sheriff’s office would want to enforce it. This is all wishful thinking.
Naw, practically everything is copyrighted if it meets some fairly simple rules. Copyrighted is the default and the rules exclude works from being copyrighted.
Copyright can’t stop what you’re saying. People obviously are shaming Trump and other criminals. News articles typically use mugshot photos. Copyright can’t stop memes (and trying to do so usually just causes the Streisand effect).
Fwiw that means nothing until he talks. They (Trump side) are probably training him on how to work this out. No one is new to this. I know people think I’m crazy but I think this is why Roger Stone hasn’t been in the spotlight. He has got to be connected with some pure evil and one of the guys making key moves and pulling strings and plans.
Because conservatives said so! Now, stop acting so uppity and get back to work at one of your minimum wage jobs before supply-side Jesus gets mad again!
What?.. Whenever these two subjects are broached they are always only talking about government loans. While all of these loans are serviced by a company, the debt is owned by/owed to the federal government. So, loan forgiveness is a direct cost to the taxpayer. Claiming otherwise is just silly.
My guess: You can remove the tires for flight, paint adds weight and I don’t see the Russian army scraping off the current paint without fucking up the primer/anti corrosion layer.
Light paint keeps the heat away, so it’s the default. Plus, this entire kerfuffle has been a matter class in lack of planning. They never thought they would need it, so why bother painting 50+ year old planes another color.
In the case of strategic bombers, anti-flash white is a key feature to reflect as much of the thermal pulse of a nuclear detonation as possible; theoretically you want these planes to survive the apocalypse that they’re unleashing to return to base and do it again.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.