Go ahead and read a few more sentences in that link you provided. In case you're incapable of that, here you go:
In 2016, The FAA set regulations that "allow" drones to fly below 400 feet to prevent interference with planes above that height, and makes it a felony for a landowner to block drones flying through the lower altitudes regardless of ownership.
Also, I don't get why the judge can rule that he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft" when the FAA clearly lays out that it's illegal to "[perform] an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft" Source.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's kind of fucked up.
Well, you're wrong. So is the summary, so it's not your fault. This rocket was NOT one of the ones that have already been flown. See the submitter's comment. SpaceX has just announced that they've found a partner (SES) to launch a payload (SES-10) on a used booster, whereas this payload was AMOS-6.
And not only that, the payload is attached to this rocket during the first ever static test firing of a reused first stage.
Sorry, also wrong here too. See here for video of their first test-fire (full duration too). That one went significantly better.
People were saying that the DNC intentionally scheduled the debates such that they would be competing against primetime TV shows, trying to reduce the viewership.
I've used Runtime's "GetDataBack" software a few times and every time I've recovered ~90% of the original data, even when I ran it from the same system that the deletion happened on.
If your data is super important and you don't have a backup for some reason, you could always ship off to DriveSavers. I'm sure they'll be super appreciative that the malware simply deleted the files and didn't encrypt them in place.
Duh, that's so when a Linux user gets pwned, Microsoft can point the finger and say "See!! Linux is so insecure, you're so much better moving to Win10!"
Right, kick ass. Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded. What I'd do, is just like... like... you know, like, you know what I mean, like...
While I realise some customers in the USA may have only one choice of ISP
That assumption is why you don't understand. It's not some, it's most.
Here's an excerpt from a report from the US Department of Commerce:
[...] only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater;only 9 percent had three or more choices.
Another article says basically the same thing, coming from the FCC.
And even when customers DO have a choice, I wonder how often one of them would offer 'Unlimited' when its competitor doesn't.
I was mainly referring to the fact that if the GP has a LiDAR version of an "avoid-speeding-tickets" detector as he referenced, then the Ford LiDAR might (?) cause his detector to beep. I don't have one either (and only have so much time at work to kill doing research), so pure speculation whether the police LiDAR operate on the same band as the scanning LiDARs.
The jammer will probably not see it as a big light exciting its detectors, put occasional small points crossing 1 or 2 sensors at a time. How it will react to this is an unknown to me, but I'll surely it will be more optimized for long range (to predict laser speed traps) and might (correctly) assume this to be useless noise.
Maybe. I don't know how steady a police officer can hold a laser speedfinder, so the detectors might be programmed to respond to any beam, regardless of duration, just to be safe (but annoying to their users if LiDARs do in fact trigger it).
Yeah it makes other video streaming sites relatively less desirable, but their absolute desirability is the same as before because the cost to stream their data hasn't gone up.
This is only true right now.
ISPs like to trump around saying things such as "99% of our users only use 1GB a month of metered data!" as a justification of setting their cap at 1GB.
As more and more websites/services to pay ISPs to zero-rate those websites/services, ISPs could (and probably will), proudly proclaim that "99% of our users only use 0.5GB a month of metered data!", and lower the cap to 0.5GB. And so on and so on... until the cap gets low enough to seriously hurt the traffic of any website/service not paying to be zero-rated. This effectively forces these websites to pay, otherwise their users will be unable to use their offered service.
Now, if we had some sort of promise that the ISPs wouldn't reduce the cap on metered data in response to the inevitable reduction of use of metered data, then I'd be all in favor of zero-rated content. But we're talking about ISPs here.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought data was Oreos!?
In 2016, The FAA set regulations that "allow" drones to fly below 400 feet to prevent interference with planes above that height, and makes it a felony for a landowner to block drones flying through the lower altitudes regardless of ownership.
Citation attached to that quote
I'd certainly say taking a shotgun to an aircraft is one way to "block drones".
Also, I don't get why the judge can rule that he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft" when the FAA clearly lays out that it's illegal to "[perform] an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft" Source.
now they can't blame piracy for poor sales.
Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a citation for that?
I've got a $8k CD player plugged into a $4k receiver in my living room
Emphasis mine. Hence why he said it would make perfect financial sense to sell it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's kind of fucked up.
Well, you're wrong. So is the summary, so it's not your fault. This rocket was NOT one of the ones that have already been flown. See the submitter's comment. SpaceX has just announced that they've found a partner (SES) to launch a payload (SES-10) on a used booster, whereas this payload was AMOS-6.
And not only that, the payload is attached to this rocket during the first ever static test firing of a reused first stage.
Sorry, also wrong here too. See here for video of their first test-fire (full duration too). That one went significantly better.
Sorry, that means nothing to me. What is it in terms of football fields?
This is Windows literally adding insult to injury.
Perhaps we should require spotlights and mandatory cameras over every square inch of the planet too?
Please, for the love of all that is holy: stop giving them ideas!
People were saying that the DNC intentionally scheduled the debates such that they would be competing against primetime TV shows, trying to reduce the viewership.
Is that you, oh great voice-in-my-head?
Nah, they've just found the part of the brain that the aliens use to control our every waking decision!
I've used Runtime's "GetDataBack" software a few times and every time I've recovered ~90% of the original data, even when I ran it from the same system that the deletion happened on.
If your data is super important and you don't have a backup for some reason, you could always ship off to DriveSavers. I'm sure they'll be super appreciative that the malware simply deleted the files and didn't encrypt them in place.
Probably Access 97 too, so they'd claim security through obscurity.
Duh, that's so when a Linux user gets pwned, Microsoft can point the finger and say "See!! Linux is so insecure, you're so much better moving to Win10!"
Right, kick ass. Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded. What I'd do, is just like... like... you know, like, you know what I mean, like...
If you can't prove it's secure, it must be treated as if it were not secure.
Emphasis mine. Just because you treat something as if it was non-secure, does not make it non-secure.
Non-provably secure != Provably non-secure.
What do you suggest, telling both parties to scrap their candidates and start anew?
Yes.
A thin coating would protect it until an impact occurred.
Sticky adhesive under a thin layer of something which would give way when a sizable impact occurs, allowing the pedestrian to stick to the adhesive.
Topical reference with no link. Here's what they were referring to.
While I realise some customers in the USA may have only one choice of ISP
That assumption is why you don't understand. It's not some, it's most. Here's an excerpt from a report from the US Department of Commerce:
[...] only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater;only 9 percent had three or more choices.
Source.
Another article says basically the same thing, coming from the FCC.
And even when customers DO have a choice, I wonder how often one of them would offer 'Unlimited' when its competitor doesn't.
Basically, the idea that The Oatmeal drew out awhile ago.
Can't say I disagree.
The jammer will probably not see it as a big light exciting its detectors, put occasional small points crossing 1 or 2 sensors at a time. How it will react to this is an unknown to me, but I'll surely it will be more optimized for long range (to predict laser speed traps) and might (correctly) assume this to be useless noise.
Maybe. I don't know how steady a police officer can hold a laser speedfinder, so the detectors might be programmed to respond to any beam, regardless of duration, just to be safe (but annoying to their users if LiDARs do in fact trigger it).
Damn informative comment. Virtual +1
Unless he has one of these:
Which I can only imagine would cause interesting readings on the LiDAR-equipped vehicle.
Yeah it makes other video streaming sites relatively less desirable, but their absolute desirability is the same as before because the cost to stream their data hasn't gone up.
This is only true right now.
ISPs like to trump around saying things such as "99% of our users only use 1GB a month of metered data!" as a justification of setting their cap at 1GB.
As more and more websites/services to pay ISPs to zero-rate those websites/services, ISPs could (and probably will), proudly proclaim that "99% of our users only use 0.5GB a month of metered data!", and lower the cap to 0.5GB. And so on and so on... until the cap gets low enough to seriously hurt the traffic of any website/service not paying to be zero-rated. This effectively forces these websites to pay, otherwise their users will be unable to use their offered service.
Now, if we had some sort of promise that the ISPs wouldn't reduce the cap on metered data in response to the inevitable reduction of use of metered data, then I'd be all in favor of zero-rated content. But we're talking about ISPs here.