Slashdot Mirror
Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses
Fubar writes: Two city council members from Phoenix, AZ are introducing "draft language" for public discussion that would make it illegal to use a drone to film people without their knowledge. The council members are worred about privacy of people in their own yards, even including the requirement that law enforcement obtain a warrant for drone surveillance. A violation of the ordinance would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries up to a $2,500 fine and six months in jail.
A) It needs to only be applied to Drones with Cameras
B) Do people legally have privacy in an uncovered yard? I don't think they do. I'm talk about legal, not rudeness.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Without their knowledge? You and your gf (or bf) are getting busy in the back yard and you see a drone. That drone can now film away as you know about it.
From TFA
Two City Council members today will unveil a draft ordinance that would make it a crime to use a drone to film, audiotape or photograph people on their private property without their consent.
Which basically goes against well established photography law that basically says if you can see it from a public location then its fair game.
OTOH I'm not sure how you can reasonably legislate pics taken from drones. Do you now define a private location to include the airspace above it? But what if I am in public airspace, yet high enough to see over a wall?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The Article claims that
[...]the growing popularity of drones [...]creates a pressing need for new regulations because existing airspace and privacy laws have too many gray areas.
Why on earth do they think they need to regulate drone use? That would be an excellent opportunity to get some proper privacy laws, like the EU has.
Well, as long as it also applies to law enforcement, not just ordinary citizens, I'm okay with this. The the majority of the people don't like this law, they can vote these officials out of office in the next election.
Is there already a law about filming someone without their knowledge? If there is it's all that is needed. No need to add "On the internet"...I mean "with a drone" to it. If not then why should it be illegal for use with a drone? Would that mean that it is illegal to do with a drone but perfectly legal if I am using a jetpack? It's just like having a specific no texting and driving law when it's already illegal to drive distracted. Just start enforcing the law already there!
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I am 100% in favor of privacy, but there are places you shouldn't expect privacy. For example if you have your lights on and the windows open you can't expect the right to privacy from the street. If you want to get it on with your partner in your backyard without cover, that does entail a privacy risk. You don't have the right to the airspace of all angles to your home. I mean with adequate zoom you could be filmed or watched from an airplane or satellite too. The way I see it, if I have the right to be someplace, I also have the right to record what I see.
It's already an accepted standard of law that people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when on their own property, including in their vehicles. Thus, photographing them by ANY means (my emphasis) is already illegal unless supported by a lawfully-obtained surveillance or search warrant. To single out "drones" as a means of obtaining photos or video is knee-jerk at best, and arguably could lead to severe restrictions on photography in general.
It's sad that there are some (for lack of a better term coming to mind) quadrotor-cowboys that are more interested in whether they CAN obtain footage using their newfangled toys than stopping to think about whether they SHOULD. Those are the ones that will poison the well for legitimate experimentation and application, such as search and rescue, crop monitoring, etc. Before the dust has settled, the moneyed interests will make sure that the only players allowed to take to the air are Department Of Defense contractors, and if people aren't careful, even the radio-controlled-model industry will find itself under the heavy end of the regulatory hammer, even more so than when the FAA issued its "interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft" in July. That "interpretation" alone could, IMO, completely destroy the first-person-view mode of operation if followed to the letter.
Just my 2p worth...save up the change for a spool of Cat6 or something.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
We've come a long way. Apparently domestic spying on people and sniffing in their private life has become common enough that we consider it a surprise when someone has the outlandish idea that the executive should first get a warrant for it...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This will have a chilling effect on hobbies in AZ. Joe Arpaio's jail is a deterrent like no other jail in the USA.
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
if they ban that that defeats the entire purpose
Me? I'm worred too, a lot!
If you're white, you don't have to worry about about Apraio's jail/tents.
First, I'm almost positive that Arizona can't regulate use of its airspace, including the reasons for use.
Second, this seems like a bad idea. The problem is not drones, it's a lack of comprehensive privacy protection. With well-defined expectations for privacy, it won't matter how those expectations are violated or what technology is used to do it. Address privacy, and the rest will follow naturally. (And good luck expecting privacy in outdoor spaces.)
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
This is a feel-good law.
The PPD isn't going to be out with binoculars searching for copter pilots. At best a your neighbor is going to call them on a nuisance call and make them knock on your door and ask that you quit bothering your neighbor so they can go back to not bothering you.
I anticipate the Arizona Republic running a story in a few years about how some New Times reporter flew a copter over Arpaio's or Mark Brvinovich's back yard and how they could be impacted by this pointless and obscure law.
That's it. It's another lasers-at-airplanes law. :/
Somewhat off-topic, TFS mentions the penalty is up to six months in jail or a $2,500 fine. I've noticed recently the fine vs jail time often seems quite out of balance. Somewhere I saw 1 year or $1000. I'd rather pay a $1000 fine than spend a WEEK in jail, much less a YEAR. Does anybody know why the fines are always so low compared to the jail time?
I'd think it would be in the state's interest to do the opposite- collect a $5,000 fine from someone rather than housing them in jail for six months.
where you get a death sentence for walking in the street. Two shots to the head. Two to the torso. One to the groin. One to the leg. Covered all the bases.
It seems to be pretty common sense, balancing privacy, civil & property rights. It might need some tweaks but overall it seems to be good (at least based on the article which doesn't seem to have a link to the draft law). My biggest concern would be the specific wording of the laws sections, I can just see property owners being harassed over video/images of their own property (with or without people/trespassers), video of protests/police conduct being deleted, etc due to some poor/vague wording.
Is this legislation (and I am a Phoenix resident) about legislating a solution to the inescapable problem, or is it merely a method to subjugate those who film illegal activities, most likely perpetrated or endorsed by the same government?
Joe Arpaio's jail is a deterrent like no other jail in the USA.
Then why are they so crowded?
Joe has a big mouth, but when it comes to actually reducing crime, he has the worst performance numbers of any sheriff in the Southwest. He's the Doctor Oz of crime.
Here in Vancouver it seems Peeping Toms have started using drones to peer into high rise apartments:
https://twitter.com/Conner_G/s...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
I would say the era of the legal 'personal drone' is rapidly coming to an end. Some people can't use them responsibly, so like everything else fun they will be banned.
This is why we can't have nice things.
This ordinance doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it struck down if it passes.
The way privacy law works now is that if you're standing in your yard and are plainly visible from a public area (the street), you can be photographed without your consent because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is an exception for things like fences and tall hedges and the like, but for the most part, if you can see it without trespassing on someone's land it's fair game.
Under this ordinance, I could photograph my neighbor mowing his lawn with a regular camera, but doing so with a drone would be in violation. I'm surprised they didn't simply say "Existing laws and regulations governing photography and the right to privacy also apply to cameras mounted on drones."
I'm all for banning use of drones and other means of specifically filming someone in their own backyard without their knowledge. On the other hand, in the not too distant future we might have drones delivering packages to peoples' homes, searching for lost people and/or pets, or doing some other useful stuff, where cameras may be helpful for navigating around obstacles etc. Filming should be allowed for such purposes, but heavy penalties should be placed on storing, distributing or otherwise misusing such footage without a valid reason.
". It's another lasers-at-airplanes law"
You're pretty god damned clueless.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, why Joe's jail has decreased, whoops, I mean INCREASED crime in the serviced area.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And, as established previously, you're a dick. ...since we've gone from 0 to name-calling in 1 post.
This law, like a lasers-at-airplanes law, won't be enforced by a bunch of police running around with binoculars. It won't be actively enforced by anyone at all. It'll stop a few people from spying on their neighbors (by increasing awareness), but won't otherwise do much except remind people that, like shining a light at planes, spying on your neighbors is bad. A few people will be caught after-the-fact and they'll throw this silly charge at them -- which will be pointless since there are already other things to charge them with.
The good council members need to find a more important topic to occupy their time. Flying a drone over someone's yard is bad, but flying a news helicopter over it is just fine? How about kites with cameras on them? Balloons? African swallows?
watching livefeeds of the Ferguson riots, I keep thinking the press could use drones for videoing or at least placing cameras in convenient places l;ike on top of lampposts.
This is exactly the kind of legislation we need nationally. Whatever we make OK for the public will automatically be OK for law enforcement. I don't consider a house with a six foot fence around the yard to be lacking in an expectation of privacy. We should have a right not to have gadgets flying in the airspace above our property. Just because an individual or a member of law enforcement can take that which is not in plain view and cause it to be in plain view by taking photos from a vantage point that defies reasonable expectation does mean it should be allowed.
Any modern satellite can get photos of you from space. Any plane passing over can also snap pics as well. Beyond that anything in public view is fair game. Obviously if you are concerned about privacy you should have a roof and walls around you. Can you imagine a balloonist shooting pics of his voyage and accidentally getting people in the background of the pics? In essence if anything is private it needs to be tightly held aside and never shared with anyone in any way. Many people are expanding the concept of privacy rather foolishly. We are also encouraging all manner of crimes by disallowing voice recordings in many situations. How many seniors have been violated by dishonest sales tactics in their homes? Yet it is a crime to record voice. It is time for people to take responsibility for their deeds and words instead of allowing people to commit all kinds of crimes and encouraging lies.
Doesn't this pretty much eliminate any usage of a camera equipped drone anywhere in the city? How could you avoid filming bystanders if you were filming anything using a drone -- a high school football game, for instance.
I understand the reasons for the law -- we don't want people intentionally flying drones in areas where privacy would be expected -- and I include a back patio in that definition, if the owner has made a reasonable effort to make it a private space. But I'm concerned that a too-broad interpretation would ban all uses where there is any chance of unintentionally filming a stranger.
Photographers deal with this issue frequently. It's generally understood that if I take a photo of a street or a building, I don't need signed releases from every passer-by. But if I put my camera on a pole and raise it over the fence in someone else's enclosed back yard, I could get arrested (and would deserve to). Now that I think about it, wouldn't privacy issues regarding drones be covered by existing law?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Lawmakers wouldn't want their slave workforce from being stifled now would they? I can just imagine how many amateur drone pilots are taking it upon themselves to watch the border, and preventing those free votes for lawmakers from entering the US scott free.
No, actually the laws about pointing lasers at airplanes is routinely enforced, so he's right, you are clueless.
That little prank is incredibly dangerous and the penalties for breaking that set of laws are pretty steep. Just because it is really difficult to find some yahoo with a laser pointer, doesn't mean they don't try, and sometimes succeed.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No, he may be rude, but he is right about you being clueless. The " lasers-at-airplanes law" is federal law and it has been used to bring down the wrath of the Feds on more than one person (it is a Felony). Check out some of the convictions on laserpointersafety.
They aren't explicitly 'criminalized'.
http://www.laserpointersafety....
You mean the roughly 1 conviction per year since 2008 that didn't include pointing a laser directly at police?!?
Just like the example of enforcement I suggested of someone getting in trouble for using a copter to film our Sheriff or likely-future Attorney General instead of buzzing your neighbor's house?
> lasing of a commercial jet and the sheriff’s helicopter that was sent to investigate
> repeatedly aiming a green laser at a Fresno Police Department helicopter.
> aiming a laser pointer at a Pima County Sheriff’s department airplane
> aiming a “powerful red laser” at a Fresno County Sheriff’s Office helicopter.
> aimed a blue laser at a Columbus police helicopter “because he was bored.”
> aiming a laser pointer at a Customs and Border Patrol helicopter.
> aimed a green laser attached to his 9mm pistol at a police helicopter.
> A green laser beam was aimed at Dallas Police Department’s Air One at least four times over 10 minutes.
> lasing of a police helicopter.
> for aiming a green laser at a news media helicopter
> aiming a “commercial grade” green laser pointer at an aircraft and a police helicopter
> arrested on multiple charges for lasing a LAPD helicopter
> On November 9 2011, Cerise aimed a green laser at two commercial aircraft.
> aimed a green laser multiple times at a Virginia Beach police helicopter
> aiming a green laser at a Los Angeles Police Department helicopter
> aiming a laser four times at a Kern County Sheriff's Office helicopter
> illuminating a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department helicopter with a green laser.
> aimed a green laser at a boat, car, and commercial airliner.
> arrested for aiming a green laser at an Orange County (FL) sheriff's helicopter.
> aimed a green laser at a cargo plane.
> aimed 50 milliwatt handheld lasers at river barges, airplanes and a police helicopter
> aimed a laser at a California Highway Patrol helicopter.
> aimed a green laser pointer at a sheriff's department helicopter
> aimed a laser at a Philadelphia police helicopter.
> illuminated a police helicopter in Philadelphia.
> aimed a laser at a commercial aircraft and then at a police helicopter.
> aimed a laser pointer at a Columbus OH police helicopter.
> aimed a blue laser pointer at a sheriff's helicopter.
> lased a Massachusetts state police helicopter at least five times.
> aimed a green laser at a California Highway Patrol helicopter.
> aimed a green laser at a California Highway Patrol helicopter at least four times
> illuminated an Arizona police helicopter with a green laser pointer
> aimed a laser at a sheriff's helicopter.
> 2008, Welch aimed a laser at two commercial jets landing at John Wayne Airport
> aimed a green laser at a sheriff's helicopter
> aimed a laser pointer at a police helicopter
Misleading, at best.
The MSCO serves, in short, pretty shitty parts of the Phoenix metro area.
The USDOJ report condemning the MCSO is a good read on background information.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/abo...
In the last decade, the "heart" of Phoenix has gotten vastly safer, and the bad parts of Phoenix - unincorporated areas served by the MCSO (again, as someone who lives here) has gone to hell. I don't have to lock my doors in my neighborhood, but I wouldn't wander after dark in some MCSO served neighborhoods. [There are bad neighborhoods served by Phoenix PD too, but MCSO has it bad.]
In short, MCSO's crime rate is about the neighborhoods they serve, not them being ineffective.
I forgot to mention another gap in logic here...
The MCSO provides jail services for Metro Phoenix as a whole, but the MSCO only directly polices unincorporated areas of town. Phoenix and all of its major suburbs have their own police. Crime in Phoenix (as a whole) is way, way down.
Most assuredly, "drone" will have to be defined. Whoever is responsible for doing that better get it right.
Maybe I can use a kite?
I think a workable law will have to leave out "drone" and focus (ha!) on the camera part.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I believe in the US you control the air space over your house to ~80 to ~500 feet. (depends on states?)
Stems from a case involving someone living at the end of a runway (smirk),
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
What about when the press uses a quad copter with a camera to go behind the gates of a company doing something nasty, or a wealthy politician's compound where something illegal is going on? Seems like this would make it harder for whistle-blowers to do their thing.
Lonny's link claims that:
"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."
I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:
"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."
But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increa
There is no expectation of privacy in public. Whenever you are out in public, you may be recorded. It has been that way forever. There is nothing wrong with recording someone in public without their knowledge and consent.
This is nothing but a city trying to legislate the type of things that need to be left up to state and federal legislators. A city commission consisting of a bunch of old geezers that have no idea about real laws don't need to be drafting these type of ordinances. They should focus on doing things that would actually improve life inside of the city, and the infrastructure around it.
Shouldn't the right and wrong with regard to viewing people in their private yards be all about intent? For example, if someone puts a stepladder against my fence for the purposes of observing myself in my backyard, then that person has the express intention of viewing me in a "private" area. This is what the Peeping Tom law is all about.
Now, just because a drone flies over my neighborhood with a camera doesn't mean there was any intent to violate my reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the drone operator is flying over my property to purposefully observe/film me in my yard. It's also important to consider altitude; is a camera flying drone flying at 100 feet over your yard ok? 200 feet? 2000 feet? Where do you draw the line before sounding ridiculous?
I have light aircraft flying over my home and yard every day at atltitudes of less than 300 feet (and I'm not near an airport). I don't know what their intentions are, but I do know that privately operated drones must strongly account for weight. You won't find serious photo gear with telephoto lenses on a private drone, whereas you can load many pounds of camera gear on light aircraft or helicopters.
Look, if a drone flies over my yard at 100 feet or more and keeps moving, I just don't care. If it hovers for no apparent reason, then I'll investigate. Drafting legislature that is so broad as to say that any drone flying with a camera over any private yard is breaking the law is just plain stupid.
Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out. Jane replied:
Jane claims he needs no such lesson because he said:
No, the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures isn't irrelevant. Anyone making that claim either needs a lesson about conservation of energy, or is deliberately spreading misinformation.
The basis of all my calculations is the very relevant principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. I've never even mentioned the power used by the cooler of the chamber walls, so Jane either needs a lesson about conservation of energy or Jane's deliberately spreading misinformation. Which is it?
Remember that conservation of energy at equilibrium let us calculate the 233.8F equilibrium temperature of a heated plate enclosed by a superconducting shell. But we can also account for the finite thermal conductivity of an aluminum shell using this same relevant principle by drawing a boundary within the enclosing shell.
The same relevant principle applies: in equilibrium, power in = power out. Again, electrical power flows in. But all the other boundaries we drew were in vacuum, so heat transfer was by radiation. This time the boundary is inside aluminum, so heat transfer out is by thermal conduction.
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c) (Eq. 4)
For aluminum, thermal conductivity k = 215 W/(m*K). Sage solves this equation for an equilibrium inner shell temperature of 149.9F rather than 149.6F for a superconducting shell. This warms the enclosed plate to 234.0F rather than 233.8F for a superconducting shell.
Hopefully this exercise shows how useful it is to start with the widely applicable principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. Hopefully it's also clear that none of these equations has anything to do with the power used by the cooler. Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium.
Why does Jane wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? Does Jane need a lesson about conservation of energy, or is he deliberately spreading misinformation?
"If you don't thi
Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?
Why would you think the experiment has changed? Of course it's still in vacuum. It's the same experiment I described here, based on Dr. Spencer's description of the passive plate enclosing the heated plate. Maybe you should read it again, then explain why you think it just changed.
I've repeatedly explained that net heat flows from the electrical heater to the heated plate, to the enclosing shell. I've repeatedly explained that adding the enclosing shell reduces the net heat flow away from the heated plate, which warms it. I've explained that your bizarre focus on the exact final outer temperature of the enclosing shell relative to the initial temperature of the heated plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.
The only way you'll be able to understand this is if you write down the equation governing equilibrium temperature. That's why I did that for you. If you still insist that the heated plate doesn't warm when it's enclosed, then write down the equation that you think describes the equilibrium temperature of the heated plate after the enclosing shell is added. If your equation is different than mine, explain why.
As long as you keep insisting that the heated plate doesn't warm when the passive enclosing plate is added, my argument is with you, so I'll keep asking you why you're spreading this civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
You either need guidance, or you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
You won't point out mistakes because you can't.
You won't point out how this simple equation 1 doesn't apply because you can't.
You won't point out other mistakes because you can't.
Again, I'd rather not go to that pedophile's website and debate with a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
It's fascinating that you'd wrongly implied my previous calculations had units confused somewhere, but haven't pointed out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted yesterday.
I made a mistake by forgetting to divide by the 1mm thickness "x" of the enclosing shell:
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)
Here's the corrected Sage worksheet; the old wrong worksheet is here. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and I've corrected the equation at Dumb Scientist.
The corrected temperatures with the aluminum enclosing shell are so close to those with the superconducting shell that the differences don't show up with the four significant figures I'm using. So my original thermal superconductor approximation was even more accurate than I thought.
"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]
Jane, instead of typing all those charming statements, have you considered that it might be quicker and easier to just write down the equation describing conservation of energy aroun
Every other day we fly our drones in Phoenix over roofs and property of HOA's and apartments for reserve studies and property condition assessments, we take that video and photo for qnty. take-offs and insert it into reporting for either a real estate transaction or cost analysis, if we fly a 30 building apartment complex roof and the pool has sunbathers are we going to jail? Or if the neighboring resident neighborhood backing up to it has a sunbather captured in the video? Stupid proposal Phoenix Council Sal Diciccio and Michael Nowakowski have drafted, nazi minded they are...