Hey A/C, if you're gonna attack the "guntards", grow some fucking balls and use your real account, you fucking coward.
Now that I have that off my chest, why don't you run for office and sponsor a bill that denies privacy for anyone and everyone, you liberal douchebag? Because that is exactly where this is heading; you might as well make it a legal point. A drone flying in the airspace of a private residence (500' in rural and 1000' in urban areas, according to the FAA) completely disregards and destroys the idea of personal privacy, and the property owner absolutely has the right to take his privacy back.
By the way, I do NOT have to be a soldier in order to own or operate a weapon. It is my Constitutional right to bear arms. And since you misspelled "neighborhood" (why waste the extra vowels???), you prove that you are not American, have no sense of American law or rights, and have absolutely NO RIGHT to speak to this situation, which happened in the US. If it happened in your shitty country, fine, talk all you want about the legalities and cultural implications, and you won't hear me talking about it, because I would extend the courtesy that you do not, as it doesn't pertain to me in my country.
So using the rules penned by the immortal George Carlin (another great American), "Fuck the fuck off, you fucking fuckhead!"
You may, being that this is a civilized society, ask for the local authorities to prosecute the trespasser for any laws which are broken.
Please explain exactly how the trespasser is to be identified. The article doesn't elaborate, but I doubt the drone was dragging a sign with the pilot's name and physical location. By the time that an officer responds to this non-life-threatening complaint, the drone will be long gone, leaving absolutely no physical evidence of it's origin. Now you have wasted the time of an LEO who has a whole lot better things to do with his time than answer fruitless calls for help.
A property owner should, in cases like this, be allowed to disable and, if so desired, destroy the drone, or the onboard memory card. There is no reasonable way to assume that law enforcement will be able to help in any way, shape, or form, even if the drone is still in the area when they arrive! Because, just like this situation, how are THEY going to be able to track the drone back to the pilot? They can't! The only real recourse that a property owner has to retain his law given privacy is to take matters into his own hands and deal with the situation on his own at the time of the violation.
Shotgun? Shooting birdshot? OK, depending on where this takes place, that may or may not be legal. However, birdshot used in this manner is designed to be completely safe to anyone on the ground downrange, so public safety is NOT the real issue. And I would be more than happy to be the volunteer downrange to prove this point. So the "public safety" or "reckless endangerment" aspect is entirely bogus and trumped up.
You forgot "female"... Your description would have been a grand slam then...
But you are right: anything should be able to be written, especially in a detached environment such as the Internet. This is not like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: there is a physical separation at work here that will not directly affect your immediate safety from someone's "speech". However, freedom of speech has never, ever been a strong point in the Old World, which is why it was important enough to the founding fathers of the US to vault it to the very first thing that is protected in the Bill of Rights.
If one person acts on another's words, it is the actor at fault, not the writer. If this was not true, there would be many, many artists that would be brought up on charges. For instance, the Beatles could have been brought up on charges for Charles Manson's ilk's actions. As it was, even old Charlie himself almost wasn't able to be accused; it took a lot of work to get the prosecution to take the case.
Now, in the EU, this seems like it is soon to be the case, though...
...It is unclear what the end goal of having an Earthly life is, but it certainly is implied that testing is involved.
Love this.... Great way to put it.
To me that means that you work for heaven here, but that you take care of yourself while you're here.
Take care of yourself, and more importantly, others who cannot take care of themselves...
There may be people who do believe as you suggest, but that has nothing to do with being religious, and more to do with people who don't care about long term effects because they can't see how it affects them.
Or they have completely lost confidence in the reporting/research/reliability of the scientists who are pundits for whatever end-world crisis is being discussed.
Take GW/GCC for instance. There have been so many scandals about the data being used, and false warnings year after year, that they are becoming the proverbial "boy who cried wolf", with no chance of wolf in the yet-to-be-proven forecast. The fact that they shout any naysayers down (rather than accepting criticism and dealing with it, as true scientists are supposed to do) does not help their case. The fact that there is so much money available for research, offered up by BOTH sides of the argument, also makes both sides look like they are finding the answer that fits the mindset of the moneychangers. The fact that they offer the opinion that "EVERYONE" now believes and backs their theory smells dangerously like the Eugenics movement at the turn of the last century.
The fact that they blame religion for unbelief is spectacularly laughable... I myself want to see solid proof of GW/GCC, I want to see some predictions come true, I want to hear even one GW/GCC pundit calmly and rationally explain how the naysayers are wrong, with actual proof. No proof has been given, other than "We KNOW this is true, so you have to believe us!" No predictions have come true, or have even been CLOSE to reality. None of them have said, "You know, the climate is really, really complex, with lots of variables, really one of the most complex systems that humans have ever tried to understand, and there will be mistakes made, there will be poor calculations given, and we will be wrong most of the time."
The end game should be to make the Earth a more habitable, less polluted environment. I'm all for that, and I don't need a FUD like GW to make me work toward that goal. And that is exactly what GW/GCC is being used as: FUD. When a person recognizes that, it's another nail in the coffin, and they turn their attention elsewhere and think, "Those greenies are nuts, they are wrong, and they will continue to be wrong, so why bother?"
Well said. "Since our data doesn't disprove the opposition, let's just 'fix' the data so that it does."
Because of things like this, GW and GCC are dead to me. If "scientists" can't proof their theories without manipulating real-world data, and refuse to accept that peers will double check and, yes, even disagree and try to disprove their theories, then they aren't real scientists. They are puppets for their grant money and will find whatever conclusion that keeps that money rolling in.
I think you're the one who's deluded. Have you even tried a newer version of any of the distros?
I have been running Mint since either 11 or 12 (now on 17), and I have never seen a printer it won't just connect and print to.
Installation is easily 1/4 the time of a Windows installation. And things just work. I don't know where you are getting your opinion, honestly and seriously.
I have used Mint on my laptop since 11 or 12 (I can't remember which). I run (typically) weeks on end before rebooting. What kind of "buggy" are you talking about, because it's much more stable than either my Windows laptop (reboot at least every day) or my Macbook Pro (which, admittedly, is aging.)
Not saying that some pets wouldn't be more comfortable and (mentally) secure inside of a carrier; it all depends on the individual. However, you may not want to strap it in, as it may kill your pet in the event of a crash:
And, fine, let's say you can buy a $20 computer from goodwill (probably running XP, just waiting to virus the place up, though I've never seen goodwill selling used computers), but what about access? Can't get to the e-book without Internet access. People living hand-to-mouth cannot afford Internet access. People living hand-to-mouth shouldn't be able to afford a cell phone either, or they technically aren't living hand-to-mouth. So, how the hell are they supposed to access the e-book with their $20 computer?
This whole thing is a stunt. The Administration is taking credit for what a bunch of publishers are giving away (probably for hefty tax savings or something) to people who aren't going to be able to use the give-away anyhow. Unless, of course, they spend time in a library (where this would work very well), but do the libraries have the infrastructure and devices available to use in-house?
A stunt not thought through thoroughly. And very transparent as a stunt.
Actually, water will stop the latter much more easily than the former... Larger rounds hit the surface tension of a body of water with so much force that they typically disintegrate, whereas smaller rounds, moving more slowly, will penetrate deeper into the water. Either way, a couple of feet of water between you and the bullet will protect you pretty well. Now, the shockwave from that 30mm round hitting the water may be something to contend with...
Also, I haven't seen this type of test performed with depleted uranium shells either. That would be a cool test...
That's the whole point, though... The logical endgame here is to NOT allow you to change your headlamp bulb, and require you to bring it into the shop so that an authorized, qualified technician will replace it properly, thus maintaining the integrity and safety of the automobile.
Logic is not necessarily at play here. They are again going after the aftermarket and home mechanics. If you are not an "authorized" aftermarket manufacturer, who has paid the fee to get the "authorized" label, you will have no business, UNDER THE LAW! This is just like a Microsoft EULA: you pays the price, but you don't really own the device. It's still under the control and maintenance of the manufacturer, and you won't have the right to do any maintenance. Taken to the extreme, there won't be a way to even open the hood unless you have the special tool to open it. And selling the tool to any unauthorized people will be made illegal. Have a flat? You better have paid up your AAA, or you're stranded.
This is a very slippery slope that the law is considering. I hope this is completely and totally quashed. Or at least limited to a voided warranty.
And, there are LOTS of vehicles with LED elements in their headlamps now. They aren't necessarily the headlamp bulb itself, but rather secondary marking lamps. I think that's what A/C was talking about. Hopefully they don't come out with a law that states that they have to be fully functional, OR ELSE a ticket.
Love your post... Unfortunately, it's completely logical. Therefore, it will not be done. People are stupid pack-thought animals that don't respond well to logic, even if it's in their best interest.
I miss Kinison and Carlin. Both used simple logic and common sense in their comedy.
Like "they" have done so far in the US? They've been deploying for 30+ years and STILL don't have a well deployed network! They were supposed to be 100% done by 1985, before the FCC sold it's soul and started accepting cash for extensions rather than selling the unfulfilled licenses to competitors!
And now you expect them to deploy a 4k radius network in any usable amount of time?
2. Because rule of democratic law is, in a functioning civilisation, not something for usurpation by the powerful when it hinders their ability to become more powerful.
Riiiiiight. History has shown this to be completely relevant.
The powerful can do anything they damn well please in this country, whether it's legal or not. Nothing is there to stop them, especially the government, which is bought and paid for.
Agreed. In fact, even MORE regulation was passed with the Bell breakup. And service suffered in many ways. With Bell, you didn't have any repair charges: Bell owned every piece of wire in the home. Including the phone itself. When the phone (or any wire) was broken, Bell fixed it, quickly, without charging the customer. If the phone broke, or some standard changed (50Hz to 60Hz, for instance), Bell just fixed it. No cost, no question. Without Bell, now you are responsible for your wiring in your home and any device connnected to it. If you break something (or a mouse chews through a wire), you are responsible for getting it repaired, and you will be charged for it.
Ever heard of the Rural Call Completion problem? Would never have happened with Bell.
The FCC's rules post-Bell increased the costs of the consumer in multiple ways, and created reams more regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Why did you A/C???? That deserves to be modded up!
Hey A/C, if you're gonna attack the "guntards", grow some fucking balls and use your real account, you fucking coward.
Now that I have that off my chest, why don't you run for office and sponsor a bill that denies privacy for anyone and everyone, you liberal douchebag? Because that is exactly where this is heading; you might as well make it a legal point. A drone flying in the airspace of a private residence (500' in rural and 1000' in urban areas, according to the FAA) completely disregards and destroys the idea of personal privacy, and the property owner absolutely has the right to take his privacy back.
By the way, I do NOT have to be a soldier in order to own or operate a weapon. It is my Constitutional right to bear arms. And since you misspelled "neighborhood" (why waste the extra vowels???), you prove that you are not American, have no sense of American law or rights, and have absolutely NO RIGHT to speak to this situation, which happened in the US. If it happened in your shitty country, fine, talk all you want about the legalities and cultural implications, and you won't hear me talking about it, because I would extend the courtesy that you do not, as it doesn't pertain to me in my country.
So using the rules penned by the immortal George Carlin (another great American), "Fuck the fuck off, you fucking fuckhead!"
This may be 10 feet, 20 feet, whatever you might reasonably use and/or access from the ground or your buildings.
The FAA already defines this: 500 feet in a rural area and 1000 feet in an urban area. He was well within his rights.
Now you go off the rails:
You may, being that this is a civilized society, ask for the local authorities to prosecute the trespasser for any laws which are broken.
Please explain exactly how the trespasser is to be identified. The article doesn't elaborate, but I doubt the drone was dragging a sign with the pilot's name and physical location. By the time that an officer responds to this non-life-threatening complaint, the drone will be long gone, leaving absolutely no physical evidence of it's origin. Now you have wasted the time of an LEO who has a whole lot better things to do with his time than answer fruitless calls for help.
A property owner should, in cases like this, be allowed to disable and, if so desired, destroy the drone, or the onboard memory card. There is no reasonable way to assume that law enforcement will be able to help in any way, shape, or form, even if the drone is still in the area when they arrive! Because, just like this situation, how are THEY going to be able to track the drone back to the pilot? They can't! The only real recourse that a property owner has to retain his law given privacy is to take matters into his own hands and deal with the situation on his own at the time of the violation.
Shotgun? Shooting birdshot? OK, depending on where this takes place, that may or may not be legal. However, birdshot used in this manner is designed to be completely safe to anyone on the ground downrange, so public safety is NOT the real issue. And I would be more than happy to be the volunteer downrange to prove this point. So the "public safety" or "reckless endangerment" aspect is entirely bogus and trumped up.
Well done. IDK why you posted this AC.
You forgot "female"... Your description would have been a grand slam then...
But you are right: anything should be able to be written, especially in a detached environment such as the Internet. This is not like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: there is a physical separation at work here that will not directly affect your immediate safety from someone's "speech". However, freedom of speech has never, ever been a strong point in the Old World, which is why it was important enough to the founding fathers of the US to vault it to the very first thing that is protected in the Bill of Rights.
If one person acts on another's words, it is the actor at fault, not the writer. If this was not true, there would be many, many artists that would be brought up on charges. For instance, the Beatles could have been brought up on charges for Charles Manson's ilk's actions. As it was, even old Charlie himself almost wasn't able to be accused; it took a lot of work to get the prosecution to take the case.
Now, in the EU, this seems like it is soon to be the case, though...
BS. ALL livestock (not just cattle, and not just DAIRY cattle) eat alfalfa.
I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the AC troll...
OK, that was funny as hell.
...It is unclear what the end goal of having an Earthly life is, but it certainly is implied that testing is involved.
Love this.... Great way to put it.
To me that means that you work for heaven here, but that you take care of yourself while you're here.
Take care of yourself, and more importantly, others who cannot take care of themselves...
There may be people who do believe as you suggest, but that has nothing to do with being religious, and more to do with people who don't care about long term effects because they can't see how it affects them.
Or they have completely lost confidence in the reporting/research/reliability of the scientists who are pundits for whatever end-world crisis is being discussed.
Take GW/GCC for instance. There have been so many scandals about the data being used, and false warnings year after year, that they are becoming the proverbial "boy who cried wolf", with no chance of wolf in the yet-to-be-proven forecast. The fact that they shout any naysayers down (rather than accepting criticism and dealing with it, as true scientists are supposed to do) does not help their case. The fact that there is so much money available for research, offered up by BOTH sides of the argument, also makes both sides look like they are finding the answer that fits the mindset of the moneychangers. The fact that they offer the opinion that "EVERYONE" now believes and backs their theory smells dangerously like the Eugenics movement at the turn of the last century.
The fact that they blame religion for unbelief is spectacularly laughable... I myself want to see solid proof of GW/GCC, I want to see some predictions come true, I want to hear even one GW/GCC pundit calmly and rationally explain how the naysayers are wrong, with actual proof. No proof has been given, other than "We KNOW this is true, so you have to believe us!" No predictions have come true, or have even been CLOSE to reality. None of them have said, "You know, the climate is really, really complex, with lots of variables, really one of the most complex systems that humans have ever tried to understand, and there will be mistakes made, there will be poor calculations given, and we will be wrong most of the time."
The end game should be to make the Earth a more habitable, less polluted environment. I'm all for that, and I don't need a FUD like GW to make me work toward that goal. And that is exactly what GW/GCC is being used as: FUD. When a person recognizes that, it's another nail in the coffin, and they turn their attention elsewhere and think, "Those greenies are nuts, they are wrong, and they will continue to be wrong, so why bother?"
Why did you A/C this? It's dead on...
Well said. "Since our data doesn't disprove the opposition, let's just 'fix' the data so that it does."
Because of things like this, GW and GCC are dead to me. If "scientists" can't proof their theories without manipulating real-world data, and refuse to accept that peers will double check and, yes, even disagree and try to disprove their theories, then they aren't real scientists. They are puppets for their grant money and will find whatever conclusion that keeps that money rolling in.
I think you're the one who's deluded. Have you even tried a newer version of any of the distros?
I have been running Mint since either 11 or 12 (now on 17), and I have never seen a printer it won't just connect and print to.
Installation is easily 1/4 the time of a Windows installation. And things just work. I don't know where you are getting your opinion, honestly and seriously.
Also Linux is very buggy on desktop.
Citation?
I have used Mint on my laptop since 11 or 12 (I can't remember which). I run (typically) weeks on end before rebooting. What kind of "buggy" are you talking about, because it's much more stable than either my Windows laptop (reboot at least every day) or my Macbook Pro (which, admittedly, is aging.)
Or for those of us who prefer to have our pet as part of the family and not caged during family outings:
http://www.petsmart.com/dog/sa...
Safety and inclusiveness both met.
Not saying that some pets wouldn't be more comfortable and (mentally) secure inside of a carrier; it all depends on the individual. However, you may not want to strap it in, as it may kill your pet in the event of a crash:
http://centerforpetsafety.org/...
http://centerforpetsafety.org/...
This.
And, fine, let's say you can buy a $20 computer from goodwill (probably running XP, just waiting to virus the place up, though I've never seen goodwill selling used computers), but what about access? Can't get to the e-book without Internet access. People living hand-to-mouth cannot afford Internet access. People living hand-to-mouth shouldn't be able to afford a cell phone either, or they technically aren't living hand-to-mouth. So, how the hell are they supposed to access the e-book with their $20 computer?
This whole thing is a stunt. The Administration is taking credit for what a bunch of publishers are giving away (probably for hefty tax savings or something) to people who aren't going to be able to use the give-away anyhow. Unless, of course, they spend time in a library (where this would work very well), but do the libraries have the infrastructure and devices available to use in-house?
A stunt not thought through thoroughly. And very transparent as a stunt.
Actually, water will stop the latter much more easily than the former... Larger rounds hit the surface tension of a body of water with so much force that they typically disintegrate, whereas smaller rounds, moving more slowly, will penetrate deeper into the water. Either way, a couple of feet of water between you and the bullet will protect you pretty well. Now, the shockwave from that 30mm round hitting the water may be something to contend with...
Also, I haven't seen this type of test performed with depleted uranium shells either. That would be a cool test...
Damn! Beat me to it...
That's the whole point, though... The logical endgame here is to NOT allow you to change your headlamp bulb, and require you to bring it into the shop so that an authorized, qualified technician will replace it properly, thus maintaining the integrity and safety of the automobile.
Logic is not necessarily at play here. They are again going after the aftermarket and home mechanics. If you are not an "authorized" aftermarket manufacturer, who has paid the fee to get the "authorized" label, you will have no business, UNDER THE LAW! This is just like a Microsoft EULA: you pays the price, but you don't really own the device. It's still under the control and maintenance of the manufacturer, and you won't have the right to do any maintenance. Taken to the extreme, there won't be a way to even open the hood unless you have the special tool to open it. And selling the tool to any unauthorized people will be made illegal. Have a flat? You better have paid up your AAA, or you're stranded.
This is a very slippery slope that the law is considering. I hope this is completely and totally quashed. Or at least limited to a voided warranty.
And, there are LOTS of vehicles with LED elements in their headlamps now. They aren't necessarily the headlamp bulb itself, but rather secondary marking lamps. I think that's what A/C was talking about. Hopefully they don't come out with a law that states that they have to be fully functional, OR ELSE a ticket.
Love your post... Unfortunately, it's completely logical. Therefore, it will not be done. People are stupid pack-thought animals that don't respond well to logic, even if it's in their best interest.
I miss Kinison and Carlin. Both used simple logic and common sense in their comedy.
No, he was saying, rightfully, that a GB is 8 Gb.
a well deployed and layed out wireless network.
Like "they" have done so far in the US? They've been deploying for 30+ years and STILL don't have a well deployed network! They were supposed to be 100% done by 1985, before the FCC sold it's soul and started accepting cash for extensions rather than selling the unfulfilled licenses to competitors!
And now you expect them to deploy a 4k radius network in any usable amount of time?
Riiiiiiight.
But then someone has to patent it...
New? Or knew? Just sayin'...
2. Because rule of democratic law is, in a functioning civilisation, not something for usurpation by the powerful when it hinders their ability to become more powerful.
Riiiiiight. History has shown this to be completely relevant.
The powerful can do anything they damn well please in this country, whether it's legal or not. Nothing is there to stop them, especially the government, which is bought and paid for.
The rest of your points are dead on, though.
Agreed. In fact, even MORE regulation was passed with the Bell breakup. And service suffered in many ways. With Bell, you didn't have any repair charges: Bell owned every piece of wire in the home. Including the phone itself. When the phone (or any wire) was broken, Bell fixed it, quickly, without charging the customer. If the phone broke, or some standard changed (50Hz to 60Hz, for instance), Bell just fixed it. No cost, no question. Without Bell, now you are responsible for your wiring in your home and any device connnected to it. If you break something (or a mouse chews through a wire), you are responsible for getting it repaired, and you will be charged for it.
Ever heard of the Rural Call Completion problem? Would never have happened with Bell.
The FCC's rules post-Bell increased the costs of the consumer in multiple ways, and created reams more regulation.