You have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you have a window into your home that is viewable from a public location, and the curtains are not drawn
Are you saying that drone operators are changing the rules? Because this means that the space viewable from a "public location" just changed. Don't expect those rule changes to be gleefully accepted; you can expect a LOT of pushback.
I think you mean "it should be ILLEGAL to possess and use them in the appropriate circumstances (inappropriate circumstances?) such as a drone hovering over your backyard"... but then, you ARE American, aren't you... And doubtless you write "COULD care less", instead of "couldN'T care less", because you don't understand what the word "not" means. Fucking American idiot.
Hey buddy, this is the Internet. I realize being a douchebag is a popular thing to do, but in the interests of all, please tone it down a bit. Your shit-posting isn't as appreciated as you might think it is, though doubtless that rant made you feel better about yourself.
Well why buy something if you can't monetize it? Community-based? Does the community pay for the servers? Does the community pay staff salaries? (I did donate to Slashdot, way back when, but not many people did that) Where does the substantial amount of money that it takes to run a major website come from? Why gives that money?
People who cry foul that "it's about the money" aren't the ones paying the bills.
It seems like the sort of discussion that is supposed to be happening on Slashdot. It's nerd/tech/detail-obsessed site, a reasoned bullet list (and his points pretty well reflect what's happened on Slashdot and many other sites) doesn't seem out of place.
2) You hire some UXtards whose job it is to change things for change's sake.
I have to absolutely agree with this point. This was the point of view of a developer on another website I frequent that was pondering major changes (and fortunately they sucked too much to be able to implement those changes), and I remember going back and forth here with a Slashdot designer who was brave enough to venture into a beta discussion, and his entire argument was "the website has to change! It's looked like this for a few years! It becomes stale and people hate it and we'll lose all of our readers because we didn't muck around with the layout!"
This group of people seem to think that every website reader is an "if it's old, it's stupid" teenager. That someone could come along, think, "hmm, the site is pretty nice, maybe I'll poke around a bit," but if you showed them a screenshot from three years earlier, they would shriek "WWwwwwwhhaaaa? You mean it's looked like this the entire time? Forget it, I'm out. Why is it so fast? Shouldn't it have more javascript bogging down your browser? Where are all the sliding windows with auto-playing video ads? Look at all this space dedicated to the story and comments, shouldn't a website page be 20-25% content, max?"
1. The complaints about beta I felt were misplaced. They shouldn't have made the beta default for anyone (and perhaps they should have refined it just a little more first...) but I think Slashdotters seriously overreacted to what was an easy to opt-out of test of a new UI. (And frankly, with D1 broken - thanks Pudge - and D2 horrible, I was looking forward to someone doing something about the/. UI.)
I don't think they were misplaced. I mean, I don't think that the grousing was because the beta was opt-out. The anger was because "this is coming. And it's an absolute disaster."
The Beta absolutely eviscerated the comments system. Slashdot is, first and foremost, about its comments, not its stories, not its editorials, but the user comments. The comments and discussions are the entire reason for coming, and the Beta was all too similar to other poorly-designed flashy sites that are all about flashy stories and ads, with comments added in as a half-functional afterthought. It's like the Beta design team had no idea what made Slashdot... Slashdot.
It was a clear "fuck you" to the readers of the site that a system that was so clearly inferior would be put in place. There were more pictures, the story layout was... it was ok. But the comments section was awful and that's why there was such a firm revolt over it. Fuck Beta started popping up in every unrelated story because people knew, correctly, that if Beta went live, Slashdot would go the way of Digg. You couldn't have a more important discussion than that. The site shutting down. That's what we faced. Nothing less than a user revolt would save it, and so far (knock on wood), it's saved.
Yeah, its so unimportant virtually every mainstream press site has had an article about it and they continue to write about it to this day
GG was the fad, the big uproar du jour for about a month. Then it slowly died down. Now you find references to the obscure corners of the Internet laughably called "gaming journalism," and on feminist websites, and very little of it anywhere else. If you're on slashdot, if you're on Kotaku, you're in an echo chamber. No one else cares.
Ah, you're right, the AC was responding to another AC who only mentioned Michael Brown, but the reference to it being "recorded on video" certainly refers to Scott.
Yes, because an unarmed black man running *away* from you is an immediate threat requiring discharge of 8 rounds in the back
The forensic evidence showed that Brown was facing the officer when he was shot, not that he was running away. The only question is how far away he was when the shots were fired.
Single shot, nobody will know. Just do it. It's your property anyways. Nobody calls the cops when I shoot a snake in my backyard.
You'd have to check the regulations, but the air high above your property is not considered your property. There's a certain distance above which it becomes airspace that you do not own.
Come on, man, don't bring that American League junk in here, this is Slashdot, we should be civilized! Play real baseball -- National League or nothing.
The point isn't why aren't there women successful at this competition -- there are astoundingly successful women at this competition. Just not from the US.
8-12 people is not nearly a large enough sample size to make much of a conclusion about, well, anything really.
This saying has always felt like a selfish, vapid outlook on life. Should we push for progress and get what we want when young, then when we have what we want,, resist the progressiveness of the next generation? "I got what I want so shove off" ?
The opposite (and just as valid, heh) way of looking at it is to say "when you have nothing, you don't care about taking from others, but when you actually have something worth protecting is when you start getting protectionist about money, property, etc."
I meta-moderate every once in awhile, sadly I've never gotten in my metas one of those obvious "clearly gaming the system" situations.:( I suspect it doesn't happen that often compared to all of the -other- moderating that goes on all the time, but that when it does, it's high-profile and visible.
Nobody said Reddit was the government. Free speech is exactly what it means - it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.
Freedom of speech does not mean that others are required to support your speech. Freedom of speech means that, should they choose to, others may support your speech without government interference.
Freedom of speech does not mean that someone else has to pay for your ability to reach as many people as you can with your speech. Freedom of speech does mean that if others agree with you, they can pay for your ability to reach as many people as you can with your speech.
When I've down-modded something for being non-factual, it's been for things that are actually non-factual and fact-checkable, as opposed to subjective statements like "Reddit has NEVER been about free speech!"
Even then, if something is factually wrong, Troll/Flamebait are inappropriate, since that wasn't the original intent. I use "overrated," especially if it was modded up, as the post is not a high enough quality to support its "high" (which might be the default) mod value.
Slashdot Mirror
Then what is the alternative to knocking it out of the sky then?
At the moment, there is none, thus the clash. The law has yet to catch up.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you have a window into your home that is viewable from a public location, and the curtains are not drawn
Are you saying that drone operators are changing the rules? Because this means that the space viewable from a "public location" just changed. Don't expect those rule changes to be gleefully accepted; you can expect a LOT of pushback.
No you'd call the cops and have the guy arrested for being a peeping tom. It's not easy to ascertain who the snooper is with a UAV.
Most cops have better things to do than chase down UAVs and try to find the controller. You can call them, most won't care.
I think you mean "it should be ILLEGAL to possess and use them in the appropriate circumstances (inappropriate circumstances?) such as a drone hovering over your backyard"... but then, you ARE American, aren't you...
And doubtless you write "COULD care less", instead of "couldN'T care less", because you don't understand what the word "not" means. Fucking American idiot.
Hey buddy, this is the Internet. I realize being a douchebag is a popular thing to do, but in the interests of all, please tone it down a bit. Your shit-posting isn't as appreciated as you might think it is, though doubtless that rant made you feel better about yourself.
Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?
That explains their presence. However, advancing onto his property requires much further explanation.
Ah, never mind. They arrived separately.
The drone operator was probably not even considering the risks of approaching a man who just used a gun to shoot his drone out of the sky. Idiot.
Well, he approached the man in the company of police. I think he was pretty safe at that point.
Well why buy something if you can't monetize it? Community-based? Does the community pay for the servers? Does the community pay staff salaries? (I did donate to Slashdot, way back when, but not many people did that) Where does the substantial amount of money that it takes to run a major website come from? Why gives that money?
People who cry foul that "it's about the money" aren't the ones paying the bills.
I suppose that really shouldn't surprise me about HuffPo, which ranks up there with Fox News when it comes to journalistic standards.
Really? Diablo 2 was my favorite out of the 3
I really liked Diablo 2 as well, but the recent changes to Diablo 3 have just barely pushed it ahead for me.
It seems like the sort of discussion that is supposed to be happening on Slashdot. It's nerd/tech/detail-obsessed site, a reasoned bullet list (and his points pretty well reflect what's happened on Slashdot and many other sites) doesn't seem out of place.
2) You hire some UXtards whose job it is to change things for change's sake.
I have to absolutely agree with this point. This was the point of view of a developer on another website I frequent that was pondering major changes (and fortunately they sucked too much to be able to implement those changes), and I remember going back and forth here with a Slashdot designer who was brave enough to venture into a beta discussion, and his entire argument was "the website has to change! It's looked like this for a few years! It becomes stale and people hate it and we'll lose all of our readers because we didn't muck around with the layout!"
This group of people seem to think that every website reader is an "if it's old, it's stupid" teenager. That someone could come along, think, "hmm, the site is pretty nice, maybe I'll poke around a bit," but if you showed them a screenshot from three years earlier, they would shriek "WWwwwwwhhaaaa? You mean it's looked like this the entire time? Forget it, I'm out. Why is it so fast? Shouldn't it have more javascript bogging down your browser? Where are all the sliding windows with auto-playing video ads? Look at all this space dedicated to the story and comments, shouldn't a website page be 20-25% content, max?"
1. The complaints about beta I felt were misplaced. They shouldn't have made the beta default for anyone (and perhaps they should have refined it just a little more first...) but I think Slashdotters seriously overreacted to what was an easy to opt-out of test of a new UI. (And frankly, with D1 broken - thanks Pudge - and D2 horrible, I was looking forward to someone doing something about the /. UI.)
I don't think they were misplaced. I mean, I don't think that the grousing was because the beta was opt-out. The anger was because "this is coming. And it's an absolute disaster."
The Beta absolutely eviscerated the comments system. Slashdot is, first and foremost, about its comments, not its stories, not its editorials, but the user comments. The comments and discussions are the entire reason for coming, and the Beta was all too similar to other poorly-designed flashy sites that are all about flashy stories and ads, with comments added in as a half-functional afterthought. It's like the Beta design team had no idea what made Slashdot... Slashdot.
It was a clear "fuck you" to the readers of the site that a system that was so clearly inferior would be put in place. There were more pictures, the story layout was... it was ok. But the comments section was awful and that's why there was such a firm revolt over it. Fuck Beta started popping up in every unrelated story because people knew, correctly, that if Beta went live, Slashdot would go the way of Digg. You couldn't have a more important discussion than that. The site shutting down. That's what we faced. Nothing less than a user revolt would save it, and so far (knock on wood), it's saved.
Yeah, its so unimportant virtually every mainstream press site has had an article about it and they continue to write about it to this day
GG was the fad, the big uproar du jour for about a month. Then it slowly died down. Now you find references to the obscure corners of the Internet laughably called "gaming journalism," and on feminist websites, and very little of it anywhere else. If you're on slashdot, if you're on Kotaku, you're in an echo chamber. No one else cares.
or the worst of all, Answers.com.
*horrified shudder*
Ah, you're right, the AC was responding to another AC who only mentioned Michael Brown, but the reference to it being "recorded on video" certainly refers to Scott.
Yes, because an unarmed black man running *away* from you is an immediate threat requiring discharge of 8 rounds in the back
The forensic evidence showed that Brown was facing the officer when he was shot, not that he was running away. The only question is how far away he was when the shots were fired.
Single shot, nobody will know. Just do it. It's your property anyways. Nobody calls the cops when I shoot a snake in my backyard.
You'd have to check the regulations, but the air high above your property is not considered your property. There's a certain distance above which it becomes airspace that you do not own.
Come on, man, don't bring that American League junk in here, this is Slashdot, we should be civilized!
Play real baseball -- National League or nothing.
The point isn't why aren't there women successful at this competition -- there are astoundingly successful women at this competition. Just not from the US.
8-12 people is not nearly a large enough sample size to make much of a conclusion about, well, anything really.
This saying has always felt like a selfish, vapid outlook on life. Should we push for progress and get what we want when young, then when we have what we want,, resist the progressiveness of the next generation? "I got what I want so shove off" ?
The opposite (and just as valid, heh) way of looking at it is to say "when you have nothing, you don't care about taking from others, but when you actually have something worth protecting is when you start getting protectionist about money, property, etc."
I meta-moderate every once in awhile, sadly I've never gotten in my metas one of those obvious "clearly gaming the system" situations. :( I suspect it doesn't happen that often compared to all of the -other- moderating that goes on all the time, but that when it does, it's high-profile and visible.
Nobody said Reddit was the government. Free speech is exactly what it means - it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.
Freedom of speech does not mean that others are required to support your speech.
Freedom of speech means that, should they choose to, others may support your speech without government interference.
Freedom of speech does not mean that someone else has to pay for your ability to reach as many people as you can with your speech.
Freedom of speech does mean that if others agree with you, they can pay for your ability to reach as many people as you can with your speech.
When I've down-modded something for being non-factual, it's been for things that are actually non-factual and fact-checkable, as opposed to subjective statements like "Reddit has NEVER been about free speech!"
Even then, if something is factually wrong, Troll/Flamebait are inappropriate, since that wasn't the original intent. I use "overrated," especially if it was modded up, as the post is not a high enough quality to support its "high" (which might be the default) mod value.
It was a vampiric cloud of energy. One of the better Star Trek TOS episodes.