If user fees go into effect I'm done

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
..


The US is a direct democracy? The US government cannot ignore what the
people want?

No, it is not.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


p

Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?



When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.


Freedom of speach is misunderstood my most Americans, just like most
misunderstand the presumption of innocence for a defendant in a criminal
proceeding.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.


There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans. People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:01:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


They'll have a bit less to do.


Agreed.

However, the pilots of airliners an biz jets may get a lot more to do.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...

However, the pilots of airliners an biz jets may get a lot more to do.


Is that because the pilots of airliners and biz jets don't look for traffic
unless it's called by ATC?

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:45:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"B A R R Y" wrote in message
.. .

However, the pilots of airliners an biz jets may get a lot more to do.


Is that because the pilots of airliners and biz jets don't look for traffic
unless it's called by ATC?


I would think they would and should look for traffic, but I'm not
them. G

I know you're a controller, maybe your work location has different
preferences and opinions. Our local ATC reps have stated that the
more traffic talking and squawking, and possibly with a rough idea of
pilot intentions, the more options the controller has for managing
traffic. They feel that it's much easier to slightly change to course
of a spam can early on than to move around heavier, faster traffic.

What's your take on that?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:09:16 -0500, "Blueskies"
: wrote in
: :
:
: I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
: rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
: because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.
:
:
...snip..
:
: The one thing everyone agreed on was that the Indiana deal was just a
: prelude to a host of such efforts to come. Across the nation, there is
: now talk of privatizing everything from the New York Thruway to the
: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey turnpikes, as well as of inviting
: the private sector to build and operate highways and bridges from
: Alabama to Alaska. More than 20 states have enacted legislation
: allowing public-private partnerships, or P3s, to run highways. Robert
: Poole, the founder of the libertarian Reason Foundation and a longtime
: privatization advocate, estimates that some $25 billion in
: public-private highway deals are in the works-a remarkable figure
: given that as of 1991, the total cost of the interstate highway system
: was estimated at $128.9 billion.
:

Thanks Larry...

Now, if you don't live on or very near these privatized roads, what will your roads look like? The govment don't do it
anymore. Remember the troll under the bridge? What about the old cattle toll roads?

What keeps the mail delivered to someone way out in the sticks? The USPS. FedEx and UPS don't deliver everywhere, simply
because they could not make a profit at it.

Should that prevent the emergency services for responding? I'm sorry sir, you are outside our area of service. Please
move your house and family back within 25 miles and we will send the ambulance right away...

"scott moore" wrote in message ...
::
:
: And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
: satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
: reads web pages to you.
:
: The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
: weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.
:
: By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
: expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
: the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
: (without commercial help)
:
: Scott

Exactly my point, we (the US govment) have captured and disseminated the data using tax payer dollars. That data is
given to a private company and then sold back us (the US tax payer) in a different form. That is not right. The
non-responsiveness of the govment is not right either, but just because they are slow to the 'market' does not mean we
should throw out the baby with the bathwater...

"scott moore" wrote in message :
: So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service, and replace it with a privatized service
for a
: fee. Yes, that is the problem...
:
:
:
: First, you can get your briefing for free on the ground. Second,
: the inflight wx is provided by commercial services that compete
: with each other, not by a monolithic FAA service. This is a far
: better deal than we will ever get from the government, even if
: they privatize it (which just creates yet another monopoly).
:
: Scott



Where does the data for this 'free' ground based briefing come from?

Sam Spade wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it
can be, yes.



There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans.
People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the
more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

And you are like most Americans and don't understand either.

Matt