Except that anyone who comes in contact with a lifer (guards, staff, other inmates) is in danger. What are we going to do if a lifer kills someone else? Throw them in jail?
That is exactly the purpose a jury is supposed to serve. If the community, as represented by a jury of peers deems a punishment unconscionable, they not only have the right but the moral obligation to acquit. If the government wants the people to sign off on its punishments, the government must levy punishments that the community can accept. The jury is supposed to be a check on the legal system.
The issue with that is a jury decision must be unanimous. If one juror disagrees it is a hung jury. It then becomes rule by minority as 1/12 of the jury can vote for not executing the convicted criminal. What would you define as the community? To me 11/12th of the jury would be a very good representation of what the community can accept.
There are many people who agree with the need to kill but can not bring themselves to do it. Think of all the soldiers with PTSD due to seeing so many people die. How many bus and train drivers are permanently scarred because someone stepped in from of their vehicle even though they could do nothing to stop it. How many people take their animals to vets to be "put to sleep"? We are taught not to kill and it is almost impossible for many people to do it not matter how much they agree with the need.
-- Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment. There's ways you can relieve the burden on society, too.
Life imprisonment is harsher on anyone who who has to come into contact with lifers. A lifer has no incentive to behave in a reasonable way. If someone says the wrong word a lifer may kill them. The lifer is already subject to the harshest penalty possible. What are they going to do? Throw the lifer in jail?
I lifer is a danger to every guard and inmate they come into contact with. The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.
You are right that they are not paying, but they aren't damaging the roads either.
While vehicle weight is one factor it is not the only factor. While I agree that heavier vehicles should pay more I don't believe electric vehicles should pay nothing. Weather causes damage. Roads need to be expanded to handle more traffic.
Additionally, state governments and the US government have been subsidising electric vehicles for a while based on the principle of weaning us off of our petroleum habit.
When we are weaned off of petroleum and the subsidies go away causing a big jump in transportation costs then what? What about the years of under-funding road repairs due to the decrease in fuel tax revenue?
Federal and state payroll and income taxes, sales taxes, per-capita taxes, vehicle inspection and registration fees, and capital gains off the top of my head
Notice I said "fair share" and not "any tax". They don't pay a $0.30/gallon tax on fuel. That is a big tax break for going electric and a lot of revenue lost that would go to road construction.
The immediate thing would be to raise registration fees to offset lower revenues from gas sales rather than a new and highly invasive per-km driven tax.
Different people drive different distances. How would one come up with a fair price for increasing registration fee. People who do not drive much would be overcharged and people who drive a lot would be undercharged.
It depends on how it is implemented; It tracking could be done as an op in where a standard rate would be applied if the data was taken from an odometer reading and discounts could be applied if the owner opted in to tracking.
Recording also makes a difference. For example there could be a running total of the number of miles traveled during off hours with no record of which day or exact time those trips were made. There could also be a system where the device queries a server to see if the vehicle is in a congested area and that mileage added to a running total of "congested area mileage" with no record of the exact location. Server logs may be an issue but that can be handled by proper rules.
The article implies that the "hacker" label was instrumental in deciding to issue the injunction. That is not true. The label only came into consideration of whether or not notice would be given. The decision is very step by step;
Having determined that Battelle is entitled to a temporary restraining order, the Court now turns to the question of whether that order can be entered without notice to defendants
Here is another telling quote;
Rather, Battelle must show that the defendants have “a history of disposing of evidence or violating court orders or that persons similar to the adverse party have such a history.
It then goes on to show an affidavit from an investigator who has seen data wiped in similar situations and evidence that other self identified "hackers" have wiped data.
Battelle has therefore shown under Reno Air that “persons similar to” the defendant – a former employee who allegedly stole data and is a self-described computer hacker – have a history of disposing of evidence.
The hacker label is used as a point of similarity not proof of intent.
One of the main issues the court considered when making a ruling is the harm that could come from making the ruling or not making the ruling. On one hand, by granting the injunction the "hackers" would be deprived of their computers for a few hours while the HD was duplicated. On the other hand, there is a good possibility that evidence would be destroyed, and the plaintiff's case greatly weakened if not destroyed, if the "hackers" were given notice. Little harm on the "hacker's" side and great harm to the plaintiff's side. The court sided with the plaintiff.
The Fourth Amendment was not breached in this case as due process, even if you don't agree with it, was done.
Now the defendant gets to be heard in court as to whether or not the contents of the hard drive can be seen by the plaintiff.
Finding the source of a lase requires eyes which almost everyone has. Finding a radio signal requires a directional antennae which almost everyone does not have. Both are impossible to find if the source is turned off. By the way, it takes three directional antennae to accurately locate a radio source. One antenna give a direction but not distance. Considering the thousands of laser incidents in the past few years and the few arrests, lasers are very hard to track too.
Wow, that is an extreme interpretation of my posts. I just get really tired of people calling anything they want to do a "right" and then playing the Liberty card. There are many things we do that are not a right.
The point that seems to be missed is that there are many people who are against the policy of licensing drones in the US which would have allowed this drone to be licensed and therefore legally fly.
Electricity wouldn't be cheaper if what you've said is true.
The difference is that the cost of coal is much lower than the cost of oil. Coal costs $58/ metric ton a barrel of oil costs about $100/bbl. Heat energy in coal is about 34GJ/ton or about $1.70/GJ. Heat energy in oil is about 6.34gJ/barrel or $15.77/GJ. In raw heat energy costs oil is 9 times as expensive as coal. You also burn a lot more coal and produce a lot more C02 when burning coal than when burning oil.
Or the driver can get out and plug in the standardized cable. That method greatly simplifies the gear and uses the already existing plug standard. If you are going to plug in and you need to do it automatically you are just lazy.
This is not a recharge while driving technology; it is a recharge while parked technology. The problem is that almost all existing manhole covers are not located where people park. They would need to be within a few feet of the pickup coil in the vehicle to be effective. The better the alignment the better the transfer.
Both animals root through garbage, defecate on public land and can cause a safety hazard to small children. Licensing allows identification of the owner. The parallel I was trying to draw is that there are some things we can not regulate and we live with them but that is not a reason to not regulate things we can.
Private citizens and news agencies will never misuse data gathered by drones? Why is privacy from news agencies different than privacy from the government. Both can ruin someone's life.
Take that article and discussion summarized as "drones are a danger to privacy" and this article and discussion summarized as "the regulation of drones is interfering with the freedom to observe" and I see a dichotomy.
Did you notice that the regulations are about commercial drones? AKA one use by corporations. News agencies are corporations.
Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)
It is difficult to see the inside of a model aircraft. Useful to return a lost aircraft. Not so useful to identify violators. One also does not have to be an AMA member to fly a drone.
If you mean "do what I want when I want how I want" that is not Liberty it is Anarchy. What does Liberty have to do with the government not being allowed to do things that the people are allowed to do.
I looked a a few of your other posts. Part of the time you are demanding citations from others and part of the time you are defending not having citations yourself. Maybe you need to look up the term hypocrisy.
People have been arrested for shining laser pointers at aircraft.
The person arrested was at the source of the laser. A radio transmission is much more difficult to trace.
That said: This hasn't been a problem.
Which does not mean there won't be a problem when the number of drones explode. Will you be one of the many decrying the lack of regulation when there is a problem?
Those are less of a threat then many birds.
Since we can't regulate birds we should not regulate lesser threats? That logic seems flawed to me. We regulate what we can to decrease threat.
The difference is that the offending Cessna has a tail number that can be reported to the FAA. A pilot caught breaking the rules could get his license pulled. An unregulated drone would not have that kind of identification or consequences.
Ypu seem to be a very conscientious pilot. Not all pilots are like you. What happens when someone finds an unlicensed drone above 400 ft or near airports? Nothing because there is no way to identify the owner.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that anyone who comes in contact with a lifer (guards, staff, other inmates) is in danger. What are we going to do if a lifer kills someone else? Throw them in jail?
That is exactly the purpose a jury is supposed to serve. If the community, as represented by a jury of peers deems a punishment unconscionable, they not only have the right but the moral obligation to acquit. If the government wants the people to sign off on its punishments, the government must levy punishments that the community can accept. The jury is supposed to be a check on the legal system.
The issue with that is a jury decision must be unanimous. If one juror disagrees it is a hung jury. It then becomes rule by minority as 1/12 of the jury can vote for not executing the convicted criminal. What would you define as the community? To me 11/12th of the jury would be a very good representation of what the community can accept.
There are many people who agree with the need to kill but can not bring themselves to do it. Think of all the soldiers with PTSD due to seeing so many people die. How many bus and train drivers are permanently scarred because someone stepped in from of their vehicle even though they could do nothing to stop it. How many people take their animals to vets to be "put to sleep"? We are taught not to kill and it is almost impossible for many people to do it not matter how much they agree with the need.
-- Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment. There's ways you can relieve the burden on society, too.
Life imprisonment is harsher on anyone who who has to come into contact with lifers. A lifer has no incentive to behave in a reasonable way. If someone says the wrong word a lifer may kill them. The lifer is already subject to the harshest penalty possible. What are they going to do? Throw the lifer in jail?
I lifer is a danger to every guard and inmate they come into contact with. The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.
You are right that they are not paying, but they aren't damaging the roads either.
While vehicle weight is one factor it is not the only factor. While I agree that heavier vehicles should pay more I don't believe electric vehicles should pay nothing. Weather causes damage. Roads need to be expanded to handle more traffic.
Additionally, state governments and the US government have been subsidising electric vehicles for a while based on the principle of weaning us off of our petroleum habit.
When we are weaned off of petroleum and the subsidies go away causing a big jump in transportation costs then what? What about the years of under-funding road repairs due to the decrease in fuel tax revenue?
Maybe they should just increase the gas tax..
And further shift the burden of road repairs off of electric vehicles and onto fossil fueled vehicles.
Federal and state payroll and income taxes, sales taxes, per-capita taxes, vehicle inspection and registration fees, and capital gains off the top of my head
Notice I said "fair share" and not "any tax". They don't pay a $0.30/gallon tax on fuel. That is a big tax break for going electric and a lot of revenue lost that would go to road construction.
The immediate thing would be to raise registration fees to offset lower revenues from gas sales rather than a new and highly invasive per-km driven tax.
Different people drive different distances. How would one come up with a fair price for increasing registration fee. People who do not drive much would be overcharged and people who drive a lot would be undercharged.
It depends on how it is implemented;
It tracking could be done as an op in where a standard rate would be applied if the data was taken from an odometer reading and discounts could be applied if the owner opted in to tracking.
Recording also makes a difference. For example there could be a running total of the number of miles traveled during off hours with no record of which day or exact time those trips were made. There could also be a system where the device queries a server to see if the vehicle is in a congested area and that mileage added to a running total of "congested area mileage" with no record of the exact location. Server logs may be an issue but that can be handled by proper rules.
How are owners of electric vehicles paying for their share of using public roads? (Hint; they are not)
The article implies that the "hacker" label was instrumental in deciding to issue the injunction. That is not true. The label only came into consideration of whether or not notice would be given. The decision is very step by step;
Having determined that Battelle is entitled to a temporary restraining order, the Court now turns to the question of whether that order can be entered without notice to defendants
Here is another telling quote;
Rather, Battelle must show that the defendants have “a history of disposing of evidence or violating court orders or that persons similar to the adverse party have such a history.
It then goes on to show an affidavit from an investigator who has seen data wiped in similar situations and evidence that other self identified "hackers" have wiped data.
Battelle has therefore shown under Reno Air that “persons similar to” the defendant – a former employee who allegedly stole data and is a self-described computer hacker – have a history of disposing of evidence.
The hacker label is used as a point of similarity not proof of intent.
One of the main issues the court considered when making a ruling is the harm that could come from making the ruling or not making the ruling. On one hand, by granting the injunction the "hackers" would be deprived of their computers for a few hours while the HD was duplicated. On the other hand, there is a good possibility that evidence would be destroyed, and the plaintiff's case greatly weakened if not destroyed, if the "hackers" were given notice. Little harm on the "hacker's" side and great harm to the plaintiff's side. The court sided with the plaintiff.
The Fourth Amendment was not breached in this case as due process, even if you don't agree with it, was done.
Now the defendant gets to be heard in court as to whether or not the contents of the hard drive can be seen by the plaintiff.
Finding the source of a lase requires eyes which almost everyone has. Finding a radio signal requires a directional antennae which almost everyone does not have. Both are impossible to find if the source is turned off. By the way, it takes three directional antennae to accurately locate a radio source. One antenna give a direction but not distance. Considering the thousands of laser incidents in the past few years and the few arrests, lasers are very hard to track too.
Wow, that is an extreme interpretation of my posts. I just get really tired of people calling anything they want to do a "right" and then playing the Liberty card. There are many things we do that are not a right.
The point that seems to be missed is that there are many people who are against the policy of licensing drones in the US which would have allowed this drone to be licensed and therefore legally fly.
Electricity wouldn't be cheaper if what you've said is true.
The difference is that the cost of coal is much lower than the cost of oil. Coal costs $58/ metric ton a barrel of oil costs about $100/bbl. Heat energy in coal is about 34GJ/ton or about $1.70/GJ. Heat energy in oil is about 6.34gJ/barrel or $15.77/GJ. In raw heat energy costs oil is 9 times as expensive as coal. You also burn a lot more coal and produce a lot more C02 when burning coal than when burning oil.
Or the driver can get out and plug in the standardized cable. That method greatly simplifies the gear and uses the already existing plug standard. If you are going to plug in and you need to do it automatically you are just lazy.
This is not a recharge while driving technology; it is a recharge while parked technology. The problem is that almost all existing manhole covers are not located where people park. They would need to be within a few feet of the pickup coil in the vehicle to be effective. The better the alignment the better the transfer.
It's nice that your definition differs from the dictionary definition.
A pilotless aircraft operated by remote control.
Both animals root through garbage, defecate on public land and can cause a safety hazard to small children. Licensing allows identification of the owner. The parallel I was trying to draw is that there are some things we can not regulate and we live with them but that is not a reason to not regulate things we can.
The fact he used an unlicensed commercial drone was the issue not that the drone was used in an illegal way.
Private citizens and news agencies will never misuse data gathered by drones? Why is privacy from news agencies different than privacy from the government. Both can ruin someone's life.
Take that article and discussion summarized as "drones are a danger to privacy" and this article and discussion summarized as "the regulation of drones is interfering with the freedom to observe" and I see a dichotomy.
Did you notice that the regulations are about commercial drones? AKA one use by corporations. News agencies are corporations.
From the AMA web site;
Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)
It is difficult to see the inside of a model aircraft. Useful to return a lost aircraft. Not so useful to identify violators. One also does not have to be an AMA member to fly a drone.
If you mean "do what I want when I want how I want" that is not Liberty it is Anarchy. What does Liberty have to do with the government not being allowed to do things that the people are allowed to do.
I looked a a few of your other posts. Part of the time you are demanding citations from others and part of the time you are defending not having citations yourself. Maybe you need to look up the term hypocrisy.
People have been arrested for shining laser pointers at aircraft.
The person arrested was at the source of the laser. A radio transmission is much more difficult to trace.
That said: This hasn't been a problem.
Which does not mean there won't be a problem when the number of drones explode. Will you be one of the many decrying the lack of regulation when there is a problem?
Those are less of a threat then many birds.
Since we can't regulate birds we should not regulate lesser threats? That logic seems flawed to me. We regulate what we can to decrease threat.
Such as? Citation please. By the way, flying a drone is not a right.
The difference is that the offending Cessna has a tail number that can be reported to the FAA. A pilot caught breaking the rules could get his license pulled. An unregulated drone would not have that kind of identification or consequences.
Ypu seem to be a very conscientious pilot. Not all pilots are like you. What happens when someone finds an unlicensed drone above 400 ft or near airports? Nothing because there is no way to identify the owner.
That is incorrect I am referring to this discussion about the use of unarmed commercial surveillance drones in the US.