The OP claimed to be "libertarian leaning" and not a libertarian, so I'm sure he would agree with you.
I gather from the tone of his post that he sees himself as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" which tends to fall into the same part of the spectrum as libertarian. I also note that OP is doing a pure economic analysis of the situation and finding it cheaper than what we have today, hence his support.
If I'm putting words into your moth, OP, you have my apologies.
Indeed I do! Titles are limited in length, so 'leaning' tends to get left out. One problem I see a lot on slashdot is confusion between libertarians, Libertarians(IE fundies), and Anarchists. While I enjoy an on and off membership in the libertarian party, I am very much a moderate in that respect. As one poster on another forum put it, I'm more of a 'practical minarchist'.
I am indeed socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
As for pure economic analysis - it's almost pure, but I did manage to sneak a 'freedom!' into there. One problem with welfare is that the closer it is to being 'pure money', the more efficient it is on average. But for those giving out welfare, giving pure cash is difficult. We want to make sure the money we're giving away is spent in ways that we see as efficient, we believe that because we're giving them the money that it entitles us to a say in how it's spent. Really, the only difference between most 'liberals' and 'conservatives' is their list of desired controls.
My principles: 1. A person should always be better off earning additional money than being solely 'on the dole'. 2. A person should always be better off earning MORE money 3. People's 'needs' vary, and much of the welfare 'fraud' on behalf of legitimate recipients is them taking steps to render restricted payments(such as 'food stamps') fully fungible again. Just giving them straight cash removes the need for that kind of stuff, so you can actually 'get away' with paying less money.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I don't know, I've always thought it rather simple myself. They also tend to have trouble understanding 'the people'.;)
This is something that I'm seeing a lot of - a seeming assumption that the payments can't be tuned.
As another poster put it - figure it as a redistributive tax - x% of income(they used 17%), equally distributed to all.
As long as you keep the percentage stable, it should quickly settle into a stable amount.
The higher the payment, the fewer/less people work. The lower the payment, the more they work. By the same token, you also have the idea that if fewer workers are available(because they don't NEED to work), the better employers will have to treat their employees.
But still, it can be set up to be a 'self-solving' problem. Too many people lying about? The payments go down, reducing quality of living below acceptable for many of them, so they return to the work force.
Or, to put it another way - if employers are screaming that they need employees louder than workers are screaming that they need jobs, it's time to reduce payments. If it's the opposite, time to increase them.
Indeed. If we could get individual healthcare down to about the median of what Europe is paying, we could cover 90% of it with current federal government spending. For everybody. I figure the remaining 10% could easily be covered by including current state expenditures.
Just imagine, not having to pay for healthcare, without a single tax increase.
And when does "money leave the economy"? Almost nobody who is wealthy has a lot of money because money has a negative return on investment.
You are correct on this. A better term would be to consider money to have a 'velocity'. The faster the money is moving, the more economic activity it generates.
Well, so long as it isn't on a non-productive 'treadmill'. Two banks trading money back and forth is a treadmill. A man getting a haircut from a woman, who then spends the money he paid her that day on lunch, and the waiter who served her proceeds to see a movie off of her tip - that's productive velocity, and quite high.
And before everyone goes "ERHMAHGHERD THE TAXPAYERS NEED TO SUPPORT A NATION OF HOMELESS JOBLESS BUMS!!!!", maybe consider the fact that you already are, except no-one's quality of life is actually improved.
One demonstration of this? A homeless person costs around $40k/year. I'd rather pay ~$12k to get them into permanent shelter and far enough up the 'hierarchy of needs' to be able to start addressing things like mental illness and drug addiction. It's actually cheaper.
Disclaimer: I'm a libertarian leaning supporter of a BIG.
1. If you check out their actual site, they're proposing a much more modest $800-1500/month. 2. No, the money comes from eliminating most other forms of welfare. This would fund about 3/4 of the BIG@1k/month 3. The rest could be funded through tax 'adjustments'. For example, put in a flat tax. It need not be progressive or have lots of deductions because 'everybody' gets the BIG, which serves as a huge tax deduction/credit. A flat 30% from $1 earned, for example, has you 'breaking even' at $40k worth of income. Don't give a break for long term capital gains, so people like Trump doesn't get away with only paying 20%(15% earlier), and you have your income back. 4. If they 'print' money instead by using the reserve, we aren't going deeper in debt so much as causing inflation. Which I've almost forgotten about recently...
Personally, I like the BIG because it's mechanical, neutral, fungible, and therefore free(libertarian leaning, remember). Mechanical - it's neutral. You don't have people using it to try to tell you how to live your life, as they do with welfare and taxes today. Fungible - use it for YOUR needs, which may not be the needs the legislature forsaw when they passed a welfare package with restricted spending. Eat cheap but need warm clothing? Too bad! EBT money is only for food, not clothing!
I might be libertarin - but I'm a practical minarchist, not an anarchist. I've seen enough research to believe that a practical safety net is cheaper than our current policies. Multiple research studies have shown that, for example, homeless people are extremely expensive, between shelters, emergency rooms, police, court, and such. To the tune of $250k per homeless person per year. Turns out that a 'shelter first' policy works better than requiring them to detox on the street. Worst case, ~$12k/year per person is a whole lot cheaper than $250k. And this is only one example of many.
While $12k might not seem like much - put 4 'would be homeless' into a house or apartment, and you're looking at a decent amount of purchasing power.
It also helps solve the 'welfare cliff' problems where earning extra money when you're on assistance can actually end up costing you money. Sure, you might be paying 30% of everything you earn in taxes, but you don't have any cases where earning $1 more makes you ineligible for a program, costing you $5k.
When Canada tried a similar program in a town, they found employment was maintained, but graduation rates went up, hospital visits went down, and mothers spent more time with their newborns.
Wait a minute there. The proposal was for a beacon to be installed in places where there was a no-fly zone, like airports or at wildfire TFR sites. Now you say that if there ISN'T a valid beacon signal received then the drone won't take off. So that requires beacons to be EVERYWHERE that drones CAN fly -- which is a hell of a lot of places.
Never heard of combined antennas?
Your chance of getting caught is infinitely small.
People who operate cell phone jammers are routinely caught.
You're saying that if there isn't a police officer standing there telling you "don't rob that guy", you shouldn't be charged with a felony when you do it.
No, actually, I'm not. I'm saying that you shouldn't be able to commit felony trespass by accidentally walking/driving somewhere. Not a violent felony like robbery. Of course, this is the second time I point this out to you.
To put it in context, if there were zones where robbery was perfectly legal, and zones where it isn't, then I'd want them marked somehow. Given that *most* areas are illegal, it's logical to mark where it's legal. For something like trespassing, it's the opposite, and thus areas where you can't just walk up need to be marked.
You aren't broadcasting where you are, you are transmitting a radio signal that someone will have to locate.
With the proper equipment, determining your location takes all of a second to nail your current location down to about a meter.
What do movie ratings have to do with felonious operation of drones? What an absurd nonsequitor.
In order to protect those that operate their equipment, and to keep it from becoming law, they voluntarily put a system in place. Same idea. Maybe you should re-read my posts after a bit, and consider whether I had an alternate meaning behind my writings than what you first considered.
The absurd nonsequitor is, when I'm talking about trespass, rewriting it to be about assault.
No fly zones may no change often but when they do change they are highly transient not known in advance, and not staying around for long (e.g. firefighting, events etc). That's a key problem right there.
The vast majority of No-fly zones are highly static. Go back to my original proposal - it amounts to: Permanent no-fly zones: Updated through standard data systems. Transients: Beacons are placed to act as 'keep aways'.
. If you think this is a false equivalency or if you have an idea of how it would work then I'm all ears.
1. You're proposing 'eliminating' computer crime. I believe that I've only ever framed it in terms of 'reduce'. 2. I'm not mandating some specific computer package or implementation. Merely a (probably already existing) machine-readable description of no-fly zones, and some standard for beacons for temporary zones.
I was attempting to point out in a humorous way how this beacon system could be abused by those who wanted to, not specifically that they'd sell them a 3AM on a cable channel. Yes, selling them would be illegal, already. Distributing information on how to take a Baofeng $40 radio and turn it into a beacon transmitter is less illegal. And websites with information on how to clip the beacon receiver antenna would be legion.
Then the drone doesn't take off because it's not getting the signal for it's control system properly... But like I said, you clip the antenna or otherwise disable the system, the results are on your head.
As for the beacons, who's talking about selling them? Operating them without a license is illegal, and you're broadcasting right where you are...
You mean like when you point a gun at someone and tell them to give you all their money, the little pop-up window that appears in your line of sight that says "you're about to commit a felony -- click OK or CANCEL"? I'm sorry, but it just isn't feasible to put physical barriers in front of everyone who is about to commit a felony that require them to explicitly acknowledge their desire to do so.
...And you completely ignored my previous paragraph, not to mention the 'like some other posters have presented' (I should have said proposed), in order to create this straw man. Felony trespass should, with few exceptions, require bypassing an obvious barrier. I'm willing to count an officer telling you 'don't come back here' as a barrier. You should NOT be able to get one by 'merely' making a wrong turn or flying a drone.
As for new law mandating the drone protection, it could be done without law by a trade group or something. It wouldn't be universal, but it'd be something. By the way, were you aware that movie ratings don't have the force of law behind them?
As far as reliability, schools with almost zero budget manage to keep them working through much higher workloads then a few elections a year so the equipment is obviously robust enough and the likelyhood that it will become outdated is zero.
I think that one of the states I lived in actually rented the school's machines for the election - the ballots were the same as the scanning sheets the school used.
Why would someone throw away a vote if they didn't need to vote at all?
I'm pretty sure it's the same situation in Australia, but in the USA, we typically don't vote for just one election when we're filling out the ballot. A voter might care(or not) about the president, senator, and representative. He might be neutral on the county clerk, to bring up one position that's actually elected in at least one state(I think it's silly).
There have been years were my feelings between the presidential candidates amounts to a coin toss, why shouldn't I spoil my vote for that election?
That's all they have to do. Make it a burden on the state, and they can satisfy everyone. But no, we get pretend measures like alleged "free" ID that the citizen still needs to document, and they may even need to travel far outside of their area to get one.
You mean the ID that most countries require to vote? ID is required in Mexico, India, and China in order to vote. Massive poverty and they still have their IDs.
Requiring ID isn't actually 'racist' in their view. You could get away with classist. Republicans don't hate people of color. If anything, they hate poor people equally. That it affects blacks and hispanics unequally is happenstance for most of them.
I don't normally respond to ACs, but I think it was even more than 15 years ago that I saw my grandfather using an electro-stimulation system.
My grandfather has spinal damage from both polio and industrial accident. The stimulation system was intended to do much what the Op proposes, and I think it was closer to 25 years ago that I saw him using it.
Now, the 'giving the shock just as you attempt to use it' is a new bit. I think gramps just turned it on for a prescribed period.
"If you call within the next ten minutes, we'll double your order. That's right, not one, but two 'no-fly beacons' for the price of one (just pay additional shipping and handling)."
Enjoy your $1k fine from the FCC. Existing law, not new law.
It's already on the operator's head if they fly stupidly. Will adding another law stop someone who is already breaking the law?
I wasn't adding another law. I was proposing adding a physical system that attempts to stop someone from breaking the law, perhaps unknowingly.
I remember reading about somebody who, in the midst of confusing construction markings and detours, made a wrong turn and committed felony trespassing (mail-in ticket ~$100). He didn't figure out that it was a felony because that bit of the ticket was messy and smudged until it came up in a background check that he was a felon. I think he eventually got it downgraded because it was indeed just silly, but having pled guilty by just paying the ticket(he was traveling at the time and in a different state), it was an uphill battle.
I happen to think that's wrong. You should have to break a barrier - an actual obvious barrier, before you're hit with a felony like some other posters have presented.
You're never going to stop no-fly zone intrusions. A few times a year somebody intrudes into the DC zone, but that's a manageable amount. The idea here is that we eliminate the 'vast majority' of unintentional intrusions by having an automatic system in place.
If somebody is modding their drone in order to be able to fly into a no-fly zone, that means that it's much more likely that they know what a no-fly zone is, and the probable consequences of breaking it.
At a more moderate 5%, that's actually $200k of investments earning you money before you're paying taxes. Thus, I dispute your 'majority not at all'.
The majority of people have SOME investments. They all get to enjoy a 0% tax rate on those investments. Then consider the time factor. Less than $10k of investment return? Don't have to do anything further, simplifying their taxes.
Plus, $10k of investment return a year is hardly rich today. It's chump change for the rich, who are generally getting 'millions' a year in investment return. which is why I placed it where I did - where the poor and middle class don't have to worry about taxes on what investments they can manage, but the rich make so much that the benefit is drowned out.
So, by eliminating/reducing the income from investments(at least in amounts you could live on), I am rewarding work. Investing in education is complicated - and frankly speaking we're investing too much in the wrong areas today, watering down the value of a college education. We've lost some things in attempting to get high school and college graduation as high as possible. To wit, when 40% of people have a high school diploma, it has more value in the work force than when 90% of people have it. Same with college.
Computer and radio do NOT imply internet connection.
Well, it's a good thing I didn't specify an internet site, now does it? An internet version does make some sense, no-fly zones don't change that often.
Why? It's not like it's currently legal to fly in no-fly zones. Why should another law make it any different?
Note that I'm not proposing another law so much as making it harder to ignore the law. I know that ignorance isn't an excuse, but I don't like making committing a felony by not paying attention easy.
What you're effectively saying is that we can do the equivalent of eliminating computer based crime by having the government mandate which software we use. It won't work. Ever.
I'll give a self aware drone about 5 minutes before someone hacks their bios to load Cyanogen Drone OS because fuck you don't tell me what to do with my property even if it's violating someone else's property.
Personally, I find the idea of equipping drones above a certain class with a receiver such that it refuses to fly (or returns to launch area to land) if it detects a specific beacon signal to be acceptable, with the idea that it's on the operator's head if they hack their drone so it ignores the signal.
even begin to consider transient zones like during fire fighting exercises.
The drones people are concerned about have to have computers and radios. I prefer 'technical' solutions rather than simply making flying a drone in a no-fly zone a felony.
As such, I suggest having a site such that the drone controls can pull the latest 'no-fly' listing rather easily from. That takes care of areas like Groom Lake. It can even catch most 'temporary' no-fly zones.
For the temporary, frequently updated no-fly zones, I suggest adding or dual-purposing a radio on drones, then whoever is declaring the no-fly zone drops or operates beacons around it that transmit that it's a no-fly zone. Stupid drones refuse to fly if they 'hear' one, preferably giving users as detailed of a reason as possible so the user isn't in the dark as to why their drone refuses to take off. A blink code or something, at a minimum. Smarter drones pull codes from the beacon telling it the GPS coordinates of the blocked area, and refuses to fly into them, again, preferably telling the user that it detects a no-fly zone close by.
If users then disable said systems, NOW you can consider hitting them with a felony.
The problem with this is that when you break it down, there are many possible positions on taxation.
For example, I consider myself mostly conservative when it comes to taxation - I believe that the budget needs to be balanced(on average), taxes simplified, etc... I support a 'flat' tax with a large deductible. As such, I found the long-term capital gains tax reduction without limits to be horrible - amounting to a regressive tax system. I feel better now that it's 20%, but it's still half of what it should be(39.6% for the highest tax bracket).
I'd prefer something like you getting a $10k/year deduction for investment income, long term or not, in order to encourage savings, emergency funds, etc...
It doesn't matter when calculating the mass of the ball, because velocity for firearms is measured at the muzzle, and there's not enough space between it and the ball to be significant. Heat losses are guaranteed, but again, that's accounted for in the inelastic collision calculations. Momentum is conserved, energy is not - and most of that is lost as heat.
It's when the round continues on that the extra frontal area matters, but then, it's about the same as a bean-bag round at that point.
Expecting this round to knock someone down is really wishful thinking (unless it's a nut-shot - then it's guaranteed to double a guy over, and probably fall to the floor in agony).
This is another problem we're seeing here. People think these devices are supposed to work through pure kinetic power - as though the human body is just a dummy target. It's not, it's a complex system.
Bean-bag rounds are supposed to disable by causing muscle spasms from the impact, I imagine that the same intent is here.
To be blunt, I figure that it's disabling effects are going to come more from pain reactions than straight physical force transfer.
You can actually calculate the mass if you have the initial mass of the bullet, it's initial velocity, and the velocity of the combined object after impact. It's a perfectly inelastic collision, after all. Classic physics problem.
It works out that the ball is probably about 30 grams for a 9mm.
Mythbusters did an episode on this. They had to hit the pig with their biggest rounds while it was wearing armor to knock it down when it was being held up by the most sensitive of systems.
What's more likely is a biological reason for falling down. The body's systems have just been disrupted, and a human stays up only by sensitive balance anyways, it's fundamentally unstable most of the time. Shock, surprise, pain, and such disrupt the balancing act, and they hit the dirt.
That being said, this device seems to be about 3/4 of a beanbag round(calculations here), so it's logical to figure that it works much the same way - inflict a sharp blow that causes a muscle spasm, or such, disabling the target long enough for officers to move in and finish subduing.
Are you accounting for the extra mass of the airbag device? Going by physics: It's momentum is 370*7.5 = 2775 gm/s 2775/75 m/s = 37 grams for "the alternative" + bullet, meaning the sphere should weigh ~30 grams.
37 grams@75m/s = 208 J
BTW, when I calc your figure I come up with 42 J, not 21. 7.5 grains* (75 m/s)^2 = 42.2 J
By the way, I looked up Bean bag rounds. 40 grams@70-90 m/s, which impacts ~6cm^2.
Seems roughly equivalent to me. The ball is right in that velocity zone, a little light by my estimate, but it's likely to impact a slightly smaller area. Might just work.
Slashdot Mirror
The OP claimed to be "libertarian leaning" and not a libertarian, so I'm sure he would agree with you.
I gather from the tone of his post that he sees himself as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" which tends to fall into the same part of the spectrum as libertarian. I also note that OP is doing a pure economic analysis of the situation and finding it cheaper than what we have today, hence his support.
If I'm putting words into your moth, OP, you have my apologies.
Indeed I do! Titles are limited in length, so 'leaning' tends to get left out. One problem I see a lot on slashdot is confusion between libertarians, Libertarians(IE fundies), and Anarchists. While I enjoy an on and off membership in the libertarian party, I am very much a moderate in that respect. As one poster on another forum put it, I'm more of a 'practical minarchist'.
I am indeed socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
As for pure economic analysis - it's almost pure, but I did manage to sneak a 'freedom!' into there. One problem with welfare is that the closer it is to being 'pure money', the more efficient it is on average. But for those giving out welfare, giving pure cash is difficult. We want to make sure the money we're giving away is spent in ways that we see as efficient, we believe that because we're giving them the money that it entitles us to a say in how it's spent. Really, the only difference between most 'liberals' and 'conservatives' is their list of desired controls.
My principles:
1. A person should always be better off earning additional money than being solely 'on the dole'.
2. A person should always be better off earning MORE money
3. People's 'needs' vary, and much of the welfare 'fraud' on behalf of legitimate recipients is them taking steps to render restricted payments(such as 'food stamps') fully fungible again. Just giving them straight cash removes the need for that kind of stuff, so you can actually 'get away' with paying less money.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I don't know, I've always thought it rather simple myself. They also tend to have trouble understanding 'the people'. ;)
This is something that I'm seeing a lot of - a seeming assumption that the payments can't be tuned.
As another poster put it - figure it as a redistributive tax - x% of income(they used 17%), equally distributed to all.
As long as you keep the percentage stable, it should quickly settle into a stable amount.
The higher the payment, the fewer/less people work. The lower the payment, the more they work. By the same token, you also have the idea that if fewer workers are available(because they don't NEED to work), the better employers will have to treat their employees.
But still, it can be set up to be a 'self-solving' problem. Too many people lying about? The payments go down, reducing quality of living below acceptable for many of them, so they return to the work force.
Or, to put it another way - if employers are screaming that they need employees louder than workers are screaming that they need jobs, it's time to reduce payments. If it's the opposite, time to increase them.
Indeed. If we could get individual healthcare down to about the median of what Europe is paying, we could cover 90% of it with current federal government spending. For everybody. I figure the remaining 10% could easily be covered by including current state expenditures.
Just imagine, not having to pay for healthcare, without a single tax increase.
And when does "money leave the economy"? Almost nobody who is wealthy has a lot of money because money has a negative return on investment.
You are correct on this. A better term would be to consider money to have a 'velocity'. The faster the money is moving, the more economic activity it generates.
Well, so long as it isn't on a non-productive 'treadmill'. Two banks trading money back and forth is a treadmill. A man getting a haircut from a woman, who then spends the money he paid her that day on lunch, and the waiter who served her proceeds to see a movie off of her tip - that's productive velocity, and quite high.
And before everyone goes "ERHMAHGHERD THE TAXPAYERS NEED TO SUPPORT A NATION OF HOMELESS JOBLESS BUMS!!!!", maybe consider the fact that you already are, except no-one's quality of life is actually improved.
One demonstration of this? A homeless person costs around $40k/year. I'd rather pay ~$12k to get them into permanent shelter and far enough up the 'hierarchy of needs' to be able to start addressing things like mental illness and drug addiction. It's actually cheaper.
Disclaimer: I'm a libertarian leaning supporter of a BIG.
1. If you check out their actual site, they're proposing a much more modest $800-1500/month.
2. No, the money comes from eliminating most other forms of welfare. This would fund about 3/4 of the BIG@1k/month
3. The rest could be funded through tax 'adjustments'. For example, put in a flat tax. It need not be progressive or have lots of deductions because 'everybody' gets the BIG, which serves as a huge tax deduction/credit. A flat 30% from $1 earned, for example, has you 'breaking even' at $40k worth of income. Don't give a break for long term capital gains, so people like Trump doesn't get away with only paying 20%(15% earlier), and you have your income back.
4. If they 'print' money instead by using the reserve, we aren't going deeper in debt so much as causing inflation. Which I've almost forgotten about recently...
Personally, I like the BIG because it's mechanical, neutral, fungible, and therefore free(libertarian leaning, remember). Mechanical - it's neutral. You don't have people using it to try to tell you how to live your life, as they do with welfare and taxes today. Fungible - use it for YOUR needs, which may not be the needs the legislature forsaw when they passed a welfare package with restricted spending. Eat cheap but need warm clothing? Too bad! EBT money is only for food, not clothing!
I might be libertarin - but I'm a practical minarchist, not an anarchist. I've seen enough research to believe that a practical safety net is cheaper than our current policies. Multiple research studies have shown that, for example, homeless people are extremely expensive, between shelters, emergency rooms, police, court, and such. To the tune of $250k per homeless person per year. Turns out that a 'shelter first' policy works better than requiring them to detox on the street. Worst case, ~$12k/year per person is a whole lot cheaper than $250k. And this is only one example of many.
While $12k might not seem like much - put 4 'would be homeless' into a house or apartment, and you're looking at a decent amount of purchasing power.
It also helps solve the 'welfare cliff' problems where earning extra money when you're on assistance can actually end up costing you money. Sure, you might be paying 30% of everything you earn in taxes, but you don't have any cases where earning $1 more makes you ineligible for a program, costing you $5k.
When Canada tried a similar program in a town, they found employment was maintained, but graduation rates went up, hospital visits went down, and mothers spent more time with their newborns.
Wait a minute there. The proposal was for a beacon to be installed in places where there was a no-fly zone, like airports or at wildfire TFR sites. Now you say that if there ISN'T a valid beacon signal received then the drone won't take off. So that requires beacons to be EVERYWHERE that drones CAN fly -- which is a hell of a lot of places.
Never heard of combined antennas?
Your chance of getting caught is infinitely small.
People who operate cell phone jammers are routinely caught.
You're saying that if there isn't a police officer standing there telling you "don't rob that guy", you shouldn't be charged with a felony when you do it.
No, actually, I'm not. I'm saying that you shouldn't be able to commit felony trespass by accidentally walking/driving somewhere. Not a violent felony like robbery. Of course, this is the second time I point this out to you.
To put it in context, if there were zones where robbery was perfectly legal, and zones where it isn't, then I'd want them marked somehow. Given that *most* areas are illegal, it's logical to mark where it's legal. For something like trespassing, it's the opposite, and thus areas where you can't just walk up need to be marked.
You aren't broadcasting where you are, you are transmitting a radio signal that someone will have to locate.
With the proper equipment, determining your location takes all of a second to nail your current location down to about a meter.
What do movie ratings have to do with felonious operation of drones? What an absurd nonsequitor.
In order to protect those that operate their equipment, and to keep it from becoming law, they voluntarily put a system in place. Same idea. Maybe you should re-read my posts after a bit, and consider whether I had an alternate meaning behind my writings than what you first considered.
The absurd nonsequitor is, when I'm talking about trespass, rewriting it to be about assault.
No fly zones may no change often but when they do change they are highly transient not known in advance, and not staying around for long (e.g. firefighting, events etc). That's a key problem right there.
The vast majority of No-fly zones are highly static. Go back to my original proposal - it amounts to:
Permanent no-fly zones: Updated through standard data systems.
Transients: Beacons are placed to act as 'keep aways'.
. If you think this is a false equivalency or if you have an idea of how it would work then I'm all ears.
1. You're proposing 'eliminating' computer crime. I believe that I've only ever framed it in terms of 'reduce'.
2. I'm not mandating some specific computer package or implementation. Merely a (probably already existing) machine-readable description of no-fly zones, and some standard for beacons for temporary zones.
I was attempting to point out in a humorous way how this beacon system could be abused by those who wanted to, not specifically that they'd sell them a 3AM on a cable channel. Yes, selling them would be illegal, already. Distributing information on how to take a Baofeng $40 radio and turn it into a beacon transmitter is less illegal. And websites with information on how to clip the beacon receiver antenna would be legion.
Then the drone doesn't take off because it's not getting the signal for it's control system properly... But like I said, you clip the antenna or otherwise disable the system, the results are on your head.
As for the beacons, who's talking about selling them? Operating them without a license is illegal, and you're broadcasting right where you are...
You mean like when you point a gun at someone and tell them to give you all their money, the little pop-up window that appears in your line of sight that says "you're about to commit a felony -- click OK or CANCEL"? I'm sorry, but it just isn't feasible to put physical barriers in front of everyone who is about to commit a felony that require them to explicitly acknowledge their desire to do so.
...And you completely ignored my previous paragraph, not to mention the 'like some other posters have presented' (I should have said proposed), in order to create this straw man. Felony trespass should, with few exceptions, require bypassing an obvious barrier. I'm willing to count an officer telling you 'don't come back here' as a barrier. You should NOT be able to get one by 'merely' making a wrong turn or flying a drone.
As for new law mandating the drone protection, it could be done without law by a trade group or something. It wouldn't be universal, but it'd be something. By the way, were you aware that movie ratings don't have the force of law behind them?
As far as reliability, schools with almost zero budget manage to keep them working through much higher workloads then a few elections a year so the equipment is obviously robust enough and the likelyhood that it will become outdated is zero.
I think that one of the states I lived in actually rented the school's machines for the election - the ballots were the same as the scanning sheets the school used.
Why would someone throw away a vote if they didn't need to vote at all?
I'm pretty sure it's the same situation in Australia, but in the USA, we typically don't vote for just one election when we're filling out the ballot. A voter might care(or not) about the president, senator, and representative. He might be neutral on the county clerk, to bring up one position that's actually elected in at least one state(I think it's silly).
There have been years were my feelings between the presidential candidates amounts to a coin toss, why shouldn't I spoil my vote for that election?
That's all they have to do. Make it a burden on the state, and they can satisfy everyone. But no, we get pretend measures like alleged "free" ID that the citizen still needs to document, and they may even need to travel far outside of their area to get one.
You mean the ID that most countries require to vote? ID is required in Mexico, India, and China in order to vote. Massive poverty and they still have their IDs.
Requiring ID isn't actually 'racist' in their view. You could get away with classist. Republicans don't hate people of color. If anything, they hate poor people equally. That it affects blacks and hispanics unequally is happenstance for most of them.
I don't normally respond to ACs, but I think it was even more than 15 years ago that I saw my grandfather using an electro-stimulation system.
My grandfather has spinal damage from both polio and industrial accident. The stimulation system was intended to do much what the Op proposes, and I think it was closer to 25 years ago that I saw him using it.
Now, the 'giving the shock just as you attempt to use it' is a new bit. I think gramps just turned it on for a prescribed period.
"If you call within the next ten minutes, we'll double your order. That's right, not one, but two 'no-fly beacons' for the price of one (just pay additional shipping and handling)."
Enjoy your $1k fine from the FCC. Existing law, not new law.
It's already on the operator's head if they fly stupidly. Will adding another law stop someone who is already breaking the law?
I wasn't adding another law. I was proposing adding a physical system that attempts to stop someone from breaking the law, perhaps unknowingly.
I remember reading about somebody who, in the midst of confusing construction markings and detours, made a wrong turn and committed felony trespassing (mail-in ticket ~$100). He didn't figure out that it was a felony because that bit of the ticket was messy and smudged until it came up in a background check that he was a felon. I think he eventually got it downgraded because it was indeed just silly, but having pled guilty by just paying the ticket(he was traveling at the time and in a different state), it was an uphill battle.
I happen to think that's wrong. You should have to break a barrier - an actual obvious barrier, before you're hit with a felony like some other posters have presented.
You're never going to stop no-fly zone intrusions. A few times a year somebody intrudes into the DC zone, but that's a manageable amount. The idea here is that we eliminate the 'vast majority' of unintentional intrusions by having an automatic system in place.
If somebody is modding their drone in order to be able to fly into a no-fly zone, that means that it's much more likely that they know what a no-fly zone is, and the probable consequences of breaking it.
At a more moderate 5%, that's actually $200k of investments earning you money before you're paying taxes. Thus, I dispute your 'majority not at all'.
The majority of people have SOME investments. They all get to enjoy a 0% tax rate on those investments. Then consider the time factor. Less than $10k of investment return? Don't have to do anything further, simplifying their taxes.
Plus, $10k of investment return a year is hardly rich today. It's chump change for the rich, who are generally getting 'millions' a year in investment return. which is why I placed it where I did - where the poor and middle class don't have to worry about taxes on what investments they can manage, but the rich make so much that the benefit is drowned out.
So, by eliminating/reducing the income from investments(at least in amounts you could live on), I am rewarding work. Investing in education is complicated - and frankly speaking we're investing too much in the wrong areas today, watering down the value of a college education. We've lost some things in attempting to get high school and college graduation as high as possible. To wit, when 40% of people have a high school diploma, it has more value in the work force than when 90% of people have it. Same with college.
We need infrastructure investment as well.
Computer and radio do NOT imply internet connection.
Well, it's a good thing I didn't specify an internet site, now does it? An internet version does make some sense, no-fly zones don't change that often.
Why? It's not like it's currently legal to fly in no-fly zones. Why should another law make it any different?
Note that I'm not proposing another law so much as making it harder to ignore the law. I know that ignorance isn't an excuse, but I don't like making committing a felony by not paying attention easy.
What you're effectively saying is that we can do the equivalent of eliminating computer based crime by having the government mandate which software we use. It won't work. Ever.
False equivalency.
I'll give a self aware drone about 5 minutes before someone hacks their bios to load Cyanogen Drone OS because fuck you don't tell me what to do with my property even if it's violating someone else's property.
Personally, I find the idea of equipping drones above a certain class with a receiver such that it refuses to fly (or returns to launch area to land) if it detects a specific beacon signal to be acceptable, with the idea that it's on the operator's head if they hack their drone so it ignores the signal.
even begin to consider transient zones like during fire fighting exercises.
The drones people are concerned about have to have computers and radios. I prefer 'technical' solutions rather than simply making flying a drone in a no-fly zone a felony.
As such, I suggest having a site such that the drone controls can pull the latest 'no-fly' listing rather easily from. That takes care of areas like Groom Lake. It can even catch most 'temporary' no-fly zones.
For the temporary, frequently updated no-fly zones, I suggest adding or dual-purposing a radio on drones, then whoever is declaring the no-fly zone drops or operates beacons around it that transmit that it's a no-fly zone. Stupid drones refuse to fly if they 'hear' one, preferably giving users as detailed of a reason as possible so the user isn't in the dark as to why their drone refuses to take off. A blink code or something, at a minimum. Smarter drones pull codes from the beacon telling it the GPS coordinates of the blocked area, and refuses to fly into them, again, preferably telling the user that it detects a no-fly zone close by.
If users then disable said systems, NOW you can consider hitting them with a felony.
The problem with this is that when you break it down, there are many possible positions on taxation.
For example, I consider myself mostly conservative when it comes to taxation - I believe that the budget needs to be balanced(on average), taxes simplified, etc... I support a 'flat' tax with a large deductible. As such, I found the long-term capital gains tax reduction without limits to be horrible - amounting to a regressive tax system. I feel better now that it's 20%, but it's still half of what it should be(39.6% for the highest tax bracket).
I'd prefer something like you getting a $10k/year deduction for investment income, long term or not, in order to encourage savings, emergency funds, etc...
It doesn't matter when calculating the mass of the ball, because velocity for firearms is measured at the muzzle, and there's not enough space between it and the ball to be significant. Heat losses are guaranteed, but again, that's accounted for in the inelastic collision calculations. Momentum is conserved, energy is not - and most of that is lost as heat.
It's when the round continues on that the extra frontal area matters, but then, it's about the same as a bean-bag round at that point.
Expecting this round to knock someone down is really wishful thinking (unless it's a nut-shot - then it's guaranteed to double a guy over, and probably fall to the floor in agony).
This is another problem we're seeing here. People think these devices are supposed to work through pure kinetic power - as though the human body is just a dummy target. It's not, it's a complex system.
Bean-bag rounds are supposed to disable by causing muscle spasms from the impact, I imagine that the same intent is here.
To be blunt, I figure that it's disabling effects are going to come more from pain reactions than straight physical force transfer.
You can actually calculate the mass if you have the initial mass of the bullet, it's initial velocity, and the velocity of the combined object after impact. It's a perfectly inelastic collision, after all. Classic physics problem.
It works out that the ball is probably about 30 grams for a 9mm.
Yep, that's what I get for not verifying my formulas.
Note that my comparing it to a conventional beanbag round is by velocity, mass, and surface area, not energy.
Sometimes momentum matters 'more' than energy.
Mythbusters did an episode on this. They had to hit the pig with their biggest rounds while it was wearing armor to knock it down when it was being held up by the most sensitive of systems.
What's more likely is a biological reason for falling down. The body's systems have just been disrupted, and a human stays up only by sensitive balance anyways, it's fundamentally unstable most of the time. Shock, surprise, pain, and such disrupt the balancing act, and they hit the dirt.
That being said, this device seems to be about 3/4 of a beanbag round(calculations here), so it's logical to figure that it works much the same way - inflict a sharp blow that causes a muscle spasm, or such, disabling the target long enough for officers to move in and finish subduing.
Are you accounting for the extra mass of the airbag device? Going by physics:
It's momentum is 370*7.5 = 2775 gm/s
2775/75 m/s = 37 grams for "the alternative" + bullet, meaning the sphere should weigh ~30 grams.
37 grams@75m/s = 208 J
BTW, when I calc your figure I come up with 42 J, not 21.
7.5 grains* (75 m/s)^2 = 42.2 J
By the way, I looked up Bean bag rounds.
40 grams@70-90 m/s, which impacts ~6cm^2.
Seems roughly equivalent to me. The ball is right in that velocity zone, a little light by my estimate, but it's likely to impact a slightly smaller area. Might just work.