Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | st2p's commentslogin

That's not correct. See 14 CFR 61.113 (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

edit: the exceptions of the CFR are (b) through (h) but (c) is the most typical


Tried to edit my other comment but accidentally deleted it.

So I just skimmed over the ruling here:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B7...

and you're right (if you're getting at what I think you're getting at).

The argument is that expense sharing is compensation, but it is allowed under the FARs in specific circumstance. Difference here being that the combination of holding out on a public website and receiving compensation via expense sharing put it in common carrier land.

Which does seem to make sense under current rules.


Np. And right. I hated to be pedantic but outright dismissing the fact that there are exceptions to the compensation rule is wrong.

edit: wording


[deleted]


Okay, then what would you call it?


Sharing operating expenses is not the same thing as compensation which connotes services rendered.


Sharing expenses is compensation and the reg alludes to that fact in part (a) and by virtue of the list of the exceptions to said reg. If you really need a concrete example that includes the "compensation or hire" verbiage look at exception (b) of the reg.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.


Thought it was either written by Russ Cox or it had something to do with Roosters. But seriously, it's more of a personal problem if someone can't make the minute mental leap to discriminate between cox and cocks-the name is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be changed.


Just to clarify, Microsoft bought the mobile phones division from Nokia, not Nokia itself.


In 2 or 3 years when you move a few notches up on the developer continuum look back on this comment and reflect.


It's blub all the way up.


Please elaborate on why Nimrod "looks awful" to you?


I just started looking at Rust and like what I see so far. I may be able to help; I worked on the Windows port of Go and put together the MinGW build environments as well as the binary installers.

If someone can point me to a list of outstanding issues/requirements and a contact person it'd be much appreciated. Note, I've already found this https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/8996 and this https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/1237.

I'm assuming the workflow notes at https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Notes are up to date?


Thanks for offering! I'd suggest that you make a post to the mailing list for maximum visibility:

https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev

HN comments and IRC chats tend to get lost in the shuffle without always attracting the attention of the devs.


I personally don't know what's necessary now, but if you feel like joining #rust or #rust-internals on irc.mozilla.org (which I recommend :) ), then vadimcn and klutzy are the people to talk to. (IRC handles match their GitHub names.)


...doing it now.


Installing Go on windows was a breeze.. thanks =)


Misleading title - Microsoft acquired the handset division; Nokia lives on in infrastructure and maps.


It's as simple as, something that's concurrent (simultaneous) may not be parallel (physically) but if it's parallel it's also concurrent. When used as a verb, parallel is interchangeable with concurrent.


Being in the military he has no private life; he's in violation of the UCMJ. Also, because of his rank and position there are security issues. But I'm guessing the real reason for the investigation is that he pissed the wrong person off, or it probably would have been swept under the rug, so to speak.


CIA is civillian not military, so he is under civillian law. At least currently.

The affair, however, may have pre-dated his current apointment.


He retired from the military last year.


    import cocoa_keypress_monitor.py
                                 ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

No surprises here; retarded comment with retarded code


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: