He probably didn't show the label because posting personally identifying information on the Internet is generally a bad idea,
He didn't have to post the whole label, just the sender's address. I don't think the label exists.
Having a package mis-delivered by UPS or a call ring through to voicemail are hardly scandalous.
Exactly, but the government putting the wrong address on a package worth about $100K is scandalous. The kid is trying to turn a UPS mistake into a scandal.
Only if it was actually sent to him and not just miss delivered by UPS. He says there was a label addressed to him but no pictures of the label. There are for other picture but none of the label. Also the USPS article is about unsolicited merchandise and the NOA is not a merchant. The paper inside also states ownership of the package. So yeah, he will get a visit to get the package back.
Show me a model plane that has a 15 km radio range, autonomous GPS navigation, IR and visible light camera on a stabilized mount, designed to be reliable in hazardous environments while being handled by infantrymen, and can stay up for 3.5 hours. Then plan to build less than 30,000 of them. Complex systems and low quantities make these things very expensive. This is very different than a simple toy that takes a tens of thousands of dollars to design and hundreds of thousand are aircraft are made.
Sell them to the government at a 100,000% markup.
You even exaggerate or do you really think you can but an RC aircraft with remotely similar capabilities for $1. (The $350K is for the complete system which includes 3 aircraft plus spares).
According to this the $350K is for a complete system and not a single aircraft.
A complete system (controller, spare parts, and three UAVs) costs $250,000 for the Raven and over $400,000 for Puma.
The price for a single aircraft is much closer to $100k. Take a look at the capabilities of the Puma. The optics, communications, and autonomous navigation features are not cheap.
By the way, the label on the box may not have been put on by the Feds. From the article;
“I can tell you that it didn’t come from us addressed to him,” he said.
It could have been done by UPS when they damaged the original label beyond recognition and just picked the closest package label to duplicate. I also doubt the presence of the label considering there are no pictures of it. The recipient's statements are very like made to make the Feds look bad.
The Feds Accidentally Mailed Part of A $350K Drone To Some College Kid
More like "UPS Unloads Extra Box containing Drone Parts at Some College Kid's House". The box was not addressed to him by the Feds. They do enough stupid things without ascribing UPS mistakes to them.
Terrorist plots run on cash not diamonds. Lets see, to transfer money by diamonds you need to do the following. 1. find someone to sell you diamonds who would have to report the transaction if it is over $10k in cash. The seller may also report you for the reward. 2. transport the diamonds to the destination with the risk involved. 3. Find someone to buy the diamonds for near the price you bought them who would also have to report the transaction if more then $10K is involved. The buyer may also report you for the reward. There is time involved in every step and loss of value in steps 1 and 3. Transporting diamonds is easy but getting the same value out of them as was put into them is much more difficult and risky. Conversely crypto-currency has no reporting requirements.
Yet the US government hasn't declared diamonds a terrorist threat yet.
They have not declared crypto-currency a terrorist threat. The headline and summary are inaccurate. In fact, they have not declared anything yet. They are investigating crypto-currency as a medium to transfer terrorist funding and that is all.
I think the US government just went off the deep end.
They are doing due diligence by investigating every viable funding route for terrorism. To do less would leave a door open that could be exploited.
There are already rules dealing with large volumes of cash. For example one must declare the import of $10k or more in cash. Cash is hard to transfer as it is bulky. Crypto-currencies can be transferred much more easily.
Notice I said "editors" and not "contributors"? They have different jobs. Contributors submit crap. The editors are supposed to make it look pretty and be accurate before it is displayed to the readers (us).
They are not investigating Bitcoin as a threat.They are investigating how crypto-currencies can be used to finance terrorism. The editors need to be fired.
Back in January, Bitcoin Magazine unearthed an unclassified memo detailing some of the CTTSO projects. "The introduction of virtual currency will likely shape threat finance by increasing the opaqueness, transactional velocity, and overall efficiencies of terrorist attacks”, the memo said.
why should it be wrong for me to be on the dissenting side?
I was pointing out how in this case there was no dissenting side so therefore you can not use the fact that the Supreme Court does not always agree to support your baseless argument.. Sure, take the dissenting side when there is one but that is not the case here.
There are other arguments that support this position to, of course, it's just the easiest way to demolish this appeal to authority.
"Appeal to authority" is when someone says that a scientist is always right on science. In this case the rulings of the Supreme court are binding. They make what they say true. If there are other arguments then show them. Saying there are arguments without putting them forward is generally a comment from some who has no arguments.
Do you mean the shirt that would be destroyed the first time it came into contact with a couch or chair back when the wearer sat down? Then there is the issue of washing the garment. Yeah, I agree, just ore stupid hype to get money from stupid people.
Jobs was doing stuff like this long before the cancer was involved. In one of the first financial transaction in the software industry Jobs stole $1000 from his partner Wozniac. They wrote a game for Atari and were supposed to split the fee. Jobs told Woz he only got $500 when he actually got $2500. The "I'll do what I want" attitude was there probably most of his life.
What lives on are his works.
Maybe not if enough people like me keep bringing up the reality rather than the hype.
You might want to look into this even further. According to this even the dissenting judges agreed that once an aircraft is in the air it is a federal responsability.
The four dissenting Justices in City of Burbank did not view the Burbank ordinance at issue as trespassing on the federal domain, but,speaking through Justice Rehnquist, they made it plain that they shared the majority’s assessment of the comprehensive preemptive impact of the FAA:
The 1958 Act [the FAA] was intended to consolidate in one agency in the ExecutiveBranch the control over aviation that had previously been diffused within that branch. The paramount concerns of Congress were to regulate federallyall aspects of airsafety,see, e.g. 49U.S.C. 1422 and, once aircraft were “in flight,” airspace management,see, e.g. 49 U.S.C. 1348(a).
So there was actually no dissention on wheter or not airspace is a federal responsability.
Do you believe that your ability to interpret the Constitution is more accurate that the Supreme Court of the United States? Here is some information about how the existance of the FAA is based on the Commerce clause;
In the context of Federal regulation of airports, however, the Commerce Clause has been applied to ensure that voluntary entrants into interstate commerce, i.e., the airlines and passengers, will not be obstructed by a web of disparate local regulations. In upholding this application of the Commerce Clause to voluntary entrants into the air transportation system, as it has done consistently since the passage of the Federal Aviation Act in 1958, 49 U.S.C. 40101, et seq., as amended, the Court held: “The Federal Aviation Act requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency, [cite omitted], and the protection of persons on the ground. . . The interdependence of these factors requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation if the congressional objectives underlying the Federal Aviation Act are to be fulfilled.”
I think you also miss the point that the FAA is regulating the airspace rather than the aircraft. Anyone can own an RC aircraft and the FAA has nothing to say about it.. When it flies the RC aircraft comes into the airspace regulated by the FAA and is therefore regulated by the FAA.
That was just one example. here are a couple more. 1. The ban on most incandescent bulbs. 2. The attempted ban on extra large soft drinks in NY. 3. The ban on plastic grocery bags in many jurisdictions.
The first question is whether or not something should be regulated. Obviously farts should not be regulated and airspace should be. Without airspace regulation we would have aircraft falling out of the sky regularly. The second question is what level of government should regulate it. I have shown how it is a Federal responsibility due to Interstate Commerce.
In what twisted way will they imagine a drone operator, flying a home built drone, in the airspace of 1 state, involves interstate commerce?
Because airspace does cross state lines and aircraft do cross state lines and a home built drone can cross state lines. Due to this state line crossing it is interstate commerce that allows Federal jurisdiction over airspace and everything in it. Do you really think it is viable for the FAA to regulate aircraft but not UAVs that use the same airspace?
Just look at HAM operators.
HAM operators have a very important role to play during civil emergencies. If regular communications go down HAM operators can still keep communications open. Not so much for RC aircraft operators.
Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.
You can fly close to an airport but you have to tell them. There are many RC clubs that fly from unused runways at open airports.
Slashdot Mirror
He probably didn't show the label because posting personally identifying information on the Internet is generally a bad idea,
He didn't have to post the whole label, just the sender's address. I don't think the label exists.
Having a package mis-delivered by UPS or a call ring through to voicemail are hardly scandalous.
Exactly, but the government putting the wrong address on a package worth about $100K is scandalous. The kid is trying to turn a UPS mistake into a scandal.
And some are Democrats as there are rich Democrats too.
Only if it was actually sent to him and not just miss delivered by UPS. He says there was a label addressed to him but no pictures of the label. There are for other picture but none of the label. Also the USPS article is about unsolicited merchandise and the NOA is not a merchant. The paper inside also states ownership of the package. So yeah, he will get a visit to get the package back.
Show me a model plane that has a 15 km radio range, autonomous GPS navigation, IR and visible light camera on a stabilized mount, designed to be reliable in hazardous environments while being handled by infantrymen, and can stay up for 3.5 hours. Then plan to build less than 30,000 of them. Complex systems and low quantities make these things very expensive. This is very different than a simple toy that takes a tens of thousands of dollars to design and hundreds of thousand are aircraft are made.
Sell them to the government at a 100,000% markup.
You even exaggerate or do you really think you can but an RC aircraft with remotely similar capabilities for $1. (The $350K is for the complete system which includes 3 aircraft plus spares).
According to this the $350K is for a complete system and not a single aircraft.
A complete system (controller, spare parts, and three UAVs) costs $250,000 for the Raven and over $400,000 for Puma.
The price for a single aircraft is much closer to $100k.
Take a look at the capabilities of the Puma. The optics, communications, and autonomous navigation features are not cheap.
By the way, the label on the box may not have been put on by the Feds. From the article;
“I can tell you that it didn’t come from us addressed to him,” he said.
It could have been done by UPS when they damaged the original label beyond recognition and just picked the closest package label to duplicate. I also doubt the presence of the label considering there are no pictures of it. The recipient's statements are very like made to make the Feds look bad.
The Feds Accidentally Mailed Part of A $350K Drone To Some College Kid
More like "UPS Unloads Extra Box containing Drone Parts at Some College Kid's House". The box was not addressed to him by the Feds. They do enough stupid things without ascribing UPS mistakes to them.
Terrorist plots run on cash not diamonds. Lets see, to transfer money by diamonds you need to do the following.
1. find someone to sell you diamonds who would have to report the transaction if it is over $10k in cash. The seller may also report you for the reward.
2. transport the diamonds to the destination with the risk involved.
3. Find someone to buy the diamonds for near the price you bought them who would also have to report the transaction if more then $10K is involved. The buyer may also report you for the reward.
There is time involved in every step and loss of value in steps 1 and 3. Transporting diamonds is easy but getting the same value out of them as was put into them is much more difficult and risky.
Conversely crypto-currency has no reporting requirements.
Yet the US government hasn't declared diamonds a terrorist threat yet.
They have not declared crypto-currency a terrorist threat. The headline and summary are inaccurate. In fact, they have not declared anything yet. They are investigating crypto-currency as a medium to transfer terrorist funding and that is all.
I think the US government just went off the deep end.
They are doing due diligence by investigating every viable funding route for terrorism. To do less would leave a door open that could be exploited.
There are already rules dealing with large volumes of cash. For example one must declare the import of $10k or more in cash. Cash is hard to transfer as it is bulky. Crypto-currencies can be transferred much more easily.
Notice I said "editors" and not "contributors"? They have different jobs. Contributors submit crap. The editors are supposed to make it look pretty and be accurate before it is displayed to the readers (us).
They are not investigating Bitcoin as a threat.They are investigating how crypto-currencies can be used to finance terrorism. The editors need to be fired.
Back in January, Bitcoin Magazine unearthed an unclassified memo detailing some of the CTTSO projects. "The introduction of virtual currency will likely shape threat finance by increasing the opaqueness, transactional velocity, and overall efficiencies of terrorist attacks”, the memo said.
From your post
why should it be wrong for me to be on the dissenting side?
I was pointing out how in this case there was no dissenting side so therefore you can not use the fact that the Supreme Court does not always agree to support your baseless argument.. Sure, take the dissenting side when there is one but that is not the case here.
There are other arguments that support this position to, of course, it's just the easiest way to demolish this appeal to authority.
"Appeal to authority" is when someone says that a scientist is always right on science. In this case the rulings of the Supreme court are binding. They make what they say true. If there are other arguments then show them. Saying there are arguments without putting them forward is generally a comment from some who has no arguments.
Didn't you see that shirt.
Do you mean the shirt that would be destroyed the first time it came into contact with a couch or chair back when the wearer sat down? Then there is the issue of washing the garment. Yeah, I agree, just ore stupid hype to get money from stupid people.
Here are ten more
Jeffrey Skilling
He was going to die.
Jobs was doing stuff like this long before the cancer was involved. In one of the first financial transaction in the software industry Jobs stole $1000 from his partner Wozniac. They wrote a game for Atari and were supposed to split the fee. Jobs told Woz he only got $500 when he actually got $2500. The "I'll do what I want" attitude was there probably most of his life.
What lives on are his works.
Maybe not if enough people like me keep bringing up the reality rather than the hype.
You might want to look into this even further. According to this even the dissenting judges agreed that once an aircraft is in the air it is a federal responsability.
The four dissenting Justices in City of Burbank did not view the Burbank
ordinance at issue as trespassing on the federal domain, but,speaking through Justice
Rehnquist, they made it plain that they shared the majority’s assessment of the
comprehensive preemptive impact of the FAA:
The 1958 Act [the FAA] was intended to consolidate in one agency in the
ExecutiveBranch the control over aviation that had previously been diffused
within that branch. The paramount concerns of Congress were to regulate
federallyall aspects of airsafety,see, e.g. 49U.S.C. 1422 and, once aircraft
were “in flight,” airspace management,see, e.g. 49 U.S.C. 1348(a).
So there was actually no dissention on wheter or not airspace is a federal responsability.
Do you believe that your ability to interpret the Constitution is more accurate that the Supreme Court of the United States? Here is some information about how the existance of the FAA is based on the Commerce clause;
In the context of Federal regulation of airports, however, the Commerce Clause has been applied to ensure that voluntary entrants into interstate commerce, i.e., the airlines and passengers, will not be obstructed by a web of disparate local regulations. In upholding this application of the Commerce Clause to voluntary entrants into the air transportation system, as it has done consistently since the passage of the Federal Aviation Act in 1958, 49 U.S.C. 40101, et seq., as amended, the Court held:
“The Federal Aviation Act requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency, [cite omitted], and the protection of persons on the ground. . . The interdependence of these factors requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation if the congressional objectives underlying the Federal Aviation Act are to be fulfilled.”
I think you also miss the point that the FAA is regulating the airspace rather than the aircraft. Anyone can own an RC aircraft and the FAA has nothing to say about it.. When it flies the RC aircraft comes into the airspace regulated by the FAA and is therefore regulated by the FAA.
"EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock," he said.
Another tempest in a teapot caused by misinterpretation of a regulation.
I challenge you to read a little and see how the very few words in the Constitution are interpreted and applied.
That was just one example. here are a couple more.
1. The ban on most incandescent bulbs.
2. The attempted ban on extra large soft drinks in NY.
3. The ban on plastic grocery bags in many jurisdictions.
The first question is whether or not something should be regulated. Obviously farts should not be regulated and airspace should be. Without airspace regulation we would have aircraft falling out of the sky regularly. The second question is what level of government should regulate it. I have shown how it is a Federal responsibility due to Interstate Commerce.
In what twisted way will they imagine a drone operator, flying a home built drone, in the airspace of 1 state, involves interstate commerce?
Because airspace does cross state lines and aircraft do cross state lines and a home built drone can cross state lines. Due to this state line crossing it is interstate commerce that allows Federal jurisdiction over airspace and everything in it. Do you really think it is viable for the FAA to regulate aircraft but not UAVs that use the same airspace?
Just look at HAM operators.
HAM operators have a very important role to play during civil emergencies. If regular communications go down HAM operators can still keep communications open. Not so much for RC aircraft operators.
Do not fly within 5 miles of an active airport or helipad,
Here is the actual circular;
Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.
You can fly close to an airport but you have to tell them. There are many RC clubs that fly from unused runways at open airports.
The FAA appealed and the decision is not in effect.