If a blind and deaf person gets augmented with digital eyes and digital ears why would their rights be any different? Would you discriminate against their right to see and hear? Why?
Yes. Because if those eyes can see through clothes, and their ears can hear through walls then it would breach my reasonable right to privacy.
Society has expectations. Seeing through walls, or flying eyes are not included in those expectations, hence we have rules to protect them.
That's odd. In the U.S., I can buy isopropyl alcohol by the liter at a 70% concentration for a couple dollars, and the cashier won't blink. Out of curiosity, what is the justification for making it difficult to obtain?
I won't even bother looking it up, but without knowing either stats, I'm betting that the US has worse drug problems than NZ?
It's not a ban, you simply need to get a license. Considering you can seriously injure someone if you get it wrong, I can't see why this is such a big deal.
I would say that if we don't like it, we can simply stay out of New Zealand.
You're implying there is someplace else you can go instead that isn't afflicted by similar restrictions. If the worst thing about NZ is you can't fly your drone without a permit, then that's still not such a bad place.
Flying a quadcopter with a camera in a public place (or over private property) where your yard is incidentally within view is NOT an invasion of privacy
I think it is, as do many others. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
and no additional laws should ever come into place to change that.
Because 2015 is the pinnacle of human existence and no new laws should ever be created again. Even if new technology allows you to breach the principals of existing laws, we should never ever make new laws because.... ???
People seem to have this delusion lately that they're suddenly much more important than they used to be, and any camera MUST be in operation solely to record them. It's asinine.
No, people have always demanded a reasonable amount of privacy, with laws that protect this belief. New technology is allowing access that didn't previously exist, so new laws like this are merely maintaining the same expectation we've had for centuries. I fail to see why anyone expected any different result.
Can the landowner also consent to an object randomly falling out of the sky and causing injury? I haven't encountered that issue in any CCTV enable store I've ever been in.
Private car companies can (and do) decline service to customers who make the car unfit for the next customer.
Doesn't help if I have to get to work and the previous passenger has pissed on the seat. It means the pisser doesn't get to use robot cars again, and I'll never rely on them again either. It's hard to see how you get any market penetration with this line of reasoning.
The most expensive part of a car is the driver.
As soon as self-driving cars become practical, taxis will become cheaper than owning your own car.
Taxis are already cheaper than owning my car. Cost is not the issue, security, cleanliness and reliability are, none of which are addressed with a robot car.
Why wouldn't the future be nearly everyone taking a robo-Uber whenever they need to? In the future, driving or owning a car will be just another interesting hobby.
Already the future in places like Hong Kong and Singapore where nearly no-one owns private transport. They are largely clean and crime free cities though, how do you deal with the situation when the previous passenger does a shit in the car that comes to pick you up? If we can't get public trains, buses and toilets right, there's no way and shared robot car service will ever work.
Well Olga, your shitty joke will now be an example of the Streisand effect.
I think a lot of people don't realise what this actually means as it gets used a lot in thew wrong context. In this case, the non-name comedian is actually looking for publicity and getting it. There is no Streisand Effect, simply a play at attention which appears to be working.
"Actually, hardly anyone wants to buy this software yet. The best thing that could happen would be it would catch on fire on pirate networks. That's called free marketing."
The most enjoyable thing about watching Dragon's Den/Shark Tank is how these startups come through the door thinking their great idea is about to take the world by storm. Invariably the first question asked by the Dragons/Sharks is, "how many have you sold"? And the last question is usually, "would you prefer 50% of something, or 100% of nothing"?
Most people leave empty handed never to be heard of again.
Our country, with its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons has absolutely no right telling Iran that they can't have their own.
I think they do. It's called self preservation.
I'm not American, and the US has plenty of flaws, but out of all the bullies in the yard, I'm quite happy America is the biggest. Sometimes principals have to give way to practicality, and equal rights is not something we should be handing out to religious nutbags that want to kill us.
Same goes for "right to bear arms". In principal it sounds nice, the reality though is it results in more innocent people being killed. Having rights doesn't mean much if you are dead.
, I'd say there's no reason for another law in this case.
Good thing we live in a democracy and what you say is only one opinion.
I'd be willing to bet that most people won't want drone mounted guns flying around over their schools, and hence new laws will be created to maintain peace and order. This is precisely why we have a functioning government and our society is more advanced than those states without out them.
Now, because all four have the same job title, the critical question: should the company go back and increase the three other workers' pay to the same pay rate of the fourth worker with the specialized skill?
We pay our employees based on skills and experience, not titles. If the 4th person has skills the other three don't then of course you can pay them more. That is precisely how it should work.
It's a lot easier to be more efficient in higher density areas. A metro rail line for example can replace 100,000 cars, and anything electric can be offset by buying carbon credits. Not saying it will be easy, but it's good to see someone is trying.
Everyone has different needs. Having lived in smallsville and megacity, I prefer the later. Being able to go to a vast array of restaurants, shows and sports, having varied work options and friends, and being close to an International Airport are all requirements. This is not for everyone, but there are strong statistics that suggest the majority of people think the same.
but you don't need to make another law because you feel threatened by the brave/stupid things people choose to do with their life and property.
So thousands of years of creating and refining laws can stop now in 2015? If this is the pinnacle of human existence then you have a very weak imagination.
A credible threat of bodily injury should be a crime. The specific means of accomplishing that should be irrelevant.
My friend of mine killed a man with one punch once upon a time, we should make all hands illegal.
Iran should be allowed nukes as long as they don't use them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any problem with a drone flying over my property,
But I do, and last time I checked, you weren't the boss.
If a blind and deaf person gets augmented with digital eyes and digital ears why would their rights be any different? Would you discriminate against their right to see and hear? Why?
Yes. Because if those eyes can see through clothes, and their ears can hear through walls then it would breach my reasonable right to privacy.
Society has expectations. Seeing through walls, or flying eyes are not included in those expectations, hence we have rules to protect them.
That's odd. In the U.S., I can buy isopropyl alcohol by the liter at a 70% concentration for a couple dollars, and the cashier won't blink. Out of curiosity, what is the justification for making it difficult to obtain?
I won't even bother looking it up, but without knowing either stats, I'm betting that the US has worse drug problems than NZ?
Do we really need to pass new laws that include the text of the old ones with the phrase "using a drone" tacked on the end?
I think we do. Because drones open a whole new physical dimension that never previously existed.
Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the freedoms of the many.
Er, yes they should, that is exactly how it should work. Or do you think we wait until 50% of drivers kill someone before we introduce any road rules?
It's not a ban, you simply need to get a license. Considering you can seriously injure someone if you get it wrong, I can't see why this is such a big deal.
I would say that if we don't like it, we can simply stay out of New Zealand.
You're implying there is someplace else you can go instead that isn't afflicted by similar restrictions. If the worst thing about NZ is you can't fly your drone without a permit, then that's still not such a bad place.
Flying a quadcopter with a camera in a public place (or over private property) where your yard is incidentally within view is NOT an invasion of privacy
I think it is, as do many others. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
and no additional laws should ever come into place to change that.
Because 2015 is the pinnacle of human existence and no new laws should ever be created again. Even if new technology allows you to breach the principals of existing laws, we should never ever make new laws because.... ???
People seem to have this delusion lately that they're suddenly much more important than they used to be, and any camera MUST be in operation solely to record them. It's asinine.
No, people have always demanded a reasonable amount of privacy, with laws that protect this belief. New technology is allowing access that didn't previously exist, so new laws like this are merely maintaining the same expectation we've had for centuries. I fail to see why anyone expected any different result.
Can the landowner also consent to an object randomly falling out of the sky and causing injury? I haven't encountered that issue in any CCTV enable store I've ever been in.
This is why I still come here, to hear the other side of the story. Can you supply sources for this info?
Private car companies can (and do) decline service to customers who make the car unfit for the next customer.
Doesn't help if I have to get to work and the previous passenger has pissed on the seat. It means the pisser doesn't get to use robot cars again, and I'll never rely on them again either. It's hard to see how you get any market penetration with this line of reasoning.
The most expensive part of a car is the driver. As soon as self-driving cars become practical, taxis will become cheaper than owning your own car.
Taxis are already cheaper than owning my car. Cost is not the issue, security, cleanliness and reliability are, none of which are addressed with a robot car.
Why wouldn't the future be nearly everyone taking a robo-Uber whenever they need to? In the future, driving or owning a car will be just another interesting hobby.
Already the future in places like Hong Kong and Singapore where nearly no-one owns private transport. They are largely clean and crime free cities though, how do you deal with the situation when the previous passenger does a shit in the car that comes to pick you up? If we can't get public trains, buses and toilets right, there's no way and shared robot car service will ever work.
No, I see a drone, it's shoot first and ask questions later.
Even if there are people in the area? That's responsible gun ownership right there...
Well Olga, your shitty joke will now be an example of the Streisand effect.
I think a lot of people don't realise what this actually means as it gets used a lot in thew wrong context. In this case, the non-name comedian is actually looking for publicity and getting it. There is no Streisand Effect, simply a play at attention which appears to be working.
And Apple shares have outperformed Gold, so by this logic, the world should switch to using Apple shares as currency?
"Actually, hardly anyone wants to buy this software yet. The best thing that could happen would be it would catch on fire on pirate networks. That's called free marketing."
The most enjoyable thing about watching Dragon's Den/Shark Tank is how these startups come through the door thinking their great idea is about to take the world by storm. Invariably the first question asked by the Dragons/Sharks is, "how many have you sold"? And the last question is usually, "would you prefer 50% of something, or 100% of nothing"?
Most people leave empty handed never to be heard of again.
Computer companies are depending more and more on media companies every day.
Which is why we need to continue support for independent and start up developers.
Our country, with its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons has absolutely no right telling Iran that they can't have their own.
I think they do. It's called self preservation.
I'm not American, and the US has plenty of flaws, but out of all the bullies in the yard, I'm quite happy America is the biggest. Sometimes principals have to give way to practicality, and equal rights is not something we should be handing out to religious nutbags that want to kill us.
Same goes for "right to bear arms". In principal it sounds nice, the reality though is it results in more innocent people being killed. Having rights doesn't mean much if you are dead.
, I'd say there's no reason for another law in this case.
Good thing we live in a democracy and what you say is only one opinion.
I'd be willing to bet that most people won't want drone mounted guns flying around over their schools, and hence new laws will be created to maintain peace and order. This is precisely why we have a functioning government and our society is more advanced than those states without out them.
Now, because all four have the same job title, the critical question: should the company go back and increase the three other workers' pay to the same pay rate of the fourth worker with the specialized skill?
We pay our employees based on skills and experience, not titles. If the 4th person has skills the other three don't then of course you can pay them more. That is precisely how it should work.
But, but.. SOCIALISM!
Growing square footage, population... good luck.
It's a lot easier to be more efficient in higher density areas. A metro rail line for example can replace 100,000 cars, and anything electric can be offset by buying carbon credits. Not saying it will be easy, but it's good to see someone is trying.
Big crowded smelly cities are obsolete.
Everyone has different needs. Having lived in smallsville and megacity, I prefer the later. Being able to go to a vast array of restaurants, shows and sports, having varied work options and friends, and being close to an International Airport are all requirements. This is not for everyone, but there are strong statistics that suggest the majority of people think the same.
but you don't need to make another law because you feel threatened by the brave/stupid things people choose to do with their life and property.
So thousands of years of creating and refining laws can stop now in 2015? If this is the pinnacle of human existence then you have a very weak imagination.
Oh that old gag...
A credible threat of bodily injury should be a crime. The specific means of accomplishing that should be irrelevant.
My friend of mine killed a man with one punch once upon a time, we should make all hands illegal.
Iran should be allowed nukes as long as they don't use them.
Somewhere in there the logic doesn't add up....