The letter didn't mention what Federal criminal code violation he wanted the FBI to use to justify such a response. After a quick search, I found no such law.
If you read the article, he talks about how they have "policies" against indiscriminate snooping. But it's all a lot of talk. For example, he says the FISA court "can be quite harsh" in their written opinions -- as if this were a real consequence. Maybe it's a big deal for a lawyer, but there's an extremely large cultural divide between lawyers and non-lawyers.
No one will be reassured by any of these statements. Nor should they be, if this is the best story the NSA can tell.
And then refuel it each time? Or change out the battery for a charged one? How much time do you really save? How much money is the delivery truck driver's time worth? $25/hour? Do you really think you're going to save $50 worth of his time in a day?
And who is piloting it? If it's autonomous, how does that work? What keeps it from running into a power line or a clothes line or a TV antenna or landing on the dog?
It just sounds like a lot of effort for a low chance at a small return.
Maybe. I don't know how you could possibly land a drone safely at an arbitrary address. You'd need a designated landing area to be able to do it autonomously.
And I don't know how much bicycle messengers get paid. Maybe they make more than $20 for a 10 minute delivery. Maybe it takes them more than 10 minutes to go a mile or 2. Maybe $20 is economical for a drone delivery. But maybe not -- to all of these things.
It doesn't. But the other forms of power have their own problems. A gasoline powered drone needs to carry the additional weight of an engine, and it needs to be refueled. Perhaps the refueling could be done by robots, but however you do it, it adds additional costs.
A long range drone needs to be able to downlink video to the pilot reliably over long distances. There may be a way to use the mobile phone network for this -- but not in rural areas with no network coverage. Otherwise you're going to need a proprietary communications system using a tower or using satellites or a blimp or something similar for a relay.
Then there's the weather. Drones won't be able to fly in some weather.
It will be very hard to beat the cost effectiveness and reliability of a truck. I don't think anyone can do it. It will be really cool if I'm wrong though.
Yes, but packages don't really mind waiting in traffic. They usually have a lot of other packages in the truck to keep them company as they are all delivered, one by one, along the delivery route. It turns out to be pretty efficient.
Some people are in too much of a hurry to receive their package to wait for a truck to navigate traffic. They'll pay extra for quick delivery. But in that case, it's hard to see how a drone beats a bicycle. Bicycle messengers are low-skilled and numerous while drone pilots are rare and presumably more skilled and more highly paid.
Drone delivery seems really cool. I just don't see many situations where it can be economically competitive. Not for a long, long time.
Except that doesn't make sense. Drones will have very limited range when carrying any package with significant weight. Rural areas are probably outside that range, unless the drones are big -- big enough to carry a package and a lot of fuel/energy. Big drones will be very expensive.
Drone delivery makes the most sense when delivering items to boats offshore or to other recipients who are inaccessible by land. Aside from those specific cases, my guess is that drone delivery can never compete economically with truck or bicycle delivery.
If you believe in freedom for everyone involved, then that means everyone. If you believe in forced association, then you want the Jewish deli owner imprisoned or fined or put out of business for discrimination.
Or you don't, because you want to pick and choose which discrimination is OK and which isn't -- micromanaging force to be used for whatever whimsical objective you feel good/bad about on a particular day. No one is ever free to choose any different than you. Penalties for unapproved choices will be severe.
Can a Jewish deli owner refuse to serve a guy with a swastika tattoo? Why shouldn't he have that choice? Why shouldn't everyone simply be free to choose who they do business with without the government bullying them?
You're discriminating against Apple based on your beliefs. If discriminating based on one's beliefs is impermissible, you should be forced to buy iPhones. I hope you're prepared to pay a huge fine or go to jail or be forced out of your job or property by government (or government court-supported) bullying.
Should salesforce.com be forced by law to do business in Indiana? Why is it permissible for salesforce.com to discriminate against Indiana based on the CEO's beliefs?
Plagues are natural. Eradicating them is artificial. Saying "changes are not natural" is like saying "warmth in the winter is not natural" and then breaking all the windows in your house on the coldest day of the year. I realize you think "natural" is synonymous with perfect holiness and righteousness, but this is a science topic, so please keep your arguments rational.
The intelligence services are together with the President and his staff. They don't get to claim they're independent. If you want independence from your boss' misdeeds, resign. If you want independence from your underlings' misdeeds, fire them.
So the argument is that they're useful enough to be somewhat worthwhile but not useful enough to make the threat to Germany a serious one? I'm not sure how that could ever make them "the good guys". Are we grading on a curve?
This is a poor argument even by internet standards. If they never prevent anything, they're not "the good guys" because they're spying on people for no reason. If they do prevent attacks, they just threatened to allow Germany to be attacked for spite.
versus who else? (It's hard to follow unstated reasoning.) And why does it matter? The intelligence agencies are a party to the threat, even if they didn't say the words themselves.
It does confirm one thing: the US intelligence agencies aren't "the good guys". The good guys wouldn't condemn Germany to suffer otherwise preventable terrorist attacks for spite. Thanks to Germany for confirming this and making it known to all.
Denying people the ability to acquire weapons is meddling. Any kind of trade could also be called meddling, or refusing to trade. But if you trade goods, including weapons, without choosing sides, locals get to choose their own path.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that revenge porn is not against Federal law has "impeded the FBI from ... making arrests".
The letter didn't mention what Federal criminal code violation he wanted the FBI to use to justify such a response. After a quick search, I found no such law.
If you read the article, he talks about how they have "policies" against indiscriminate snooping. But it's all a lot of talk. For example, he says the FISA court "can be quite harsh" in their written opinions -- as if this were a real consequence. Maybe it's a big deal for a lawyer, but there's an extremely large cultural divide between lawyers and non-lawyers.
No one will be reassured by any of these statements. Nor should they be, if this is the best story the NSA can tell.
I think you're missing the point. If delivery by truck is cheaper, why take any delivery trucks off the road?
And then refuel it each time? Or change out the battery for a charged one? How much time do you really save? How much money is the delivery truck driver's time worth? $25/hour? Do you really think you're going to save $50 worth of his time in a day?
And who is piloting it? If it's autonomous, how does that work? What keeps it from running into a power line or a clothes line or a TV antenna or landing on the dog?
It just sounds like a lot of effort for a low chance at a small return.
Hard to believe. What did it use for fuel?
Maybe. I don't know how you could possibly land a drone safely at an arbitrary address. You'd need a designated landing area to be able to do it autonomously.
And I don't know how much bicycle messengers get paid. Maybe they make more than $20 for a 10 minute delivery. Maybe it takes them more than 10 minutes to go a mile or 2. Maybe $20 is economical for a drone delivery. But maybe not -- to all of these things.
It doesn't. But the other forms of power have their own problems. A gasoline powered drone needs to carry the additional weight of an engine, and it needs to be refueled. Perhaps the refueling could be done by robots, but however you do it, it adds additional costs.
A long range drone needs to be able to downlink video to the pilot reliably over long distances. There may be a way to use the mobile phone network for this -- but not in rural areas with no network coverage. Otherwise you're going to need a proprietary communications system using a tower or using satellites or a blimp or something similar for a relay.
Then there's the weather. Drones won't be able to fly in some weather.
It will be very hard to beat the cost effectiveness and reliability of a truck. I don't think anyone can do it. It will be really cool if I'm wrong though.
Yes, but packages don't really mind waiting in traffic. They usually have a lot of other packages in the truck to keep them company as they are all delivered, one by one, along the delivery route. It turns out to be pretty efficient.
Some people are in too much of a hurry to receive their package to wait for a truck to navigate traffic. They'll pay extra for quick delivery. But in that case, it's hard to see how a drone beats a bicycle. Bicycle messengers are low-skilled and numerous while drone pilots are rare and presumably more skilled and more highly paid.
Drone delivery seems really cool. I just don't see many situations where it can be economically competitive. Not for a long, long time.
Except that doesn't make sense. Drones will have very limited range when carrying any package with significant weight. Rural areas are probably outside that range, unless the drones are big -- big enough to carry a package and a lot of fuel/energy. Big drones will be very expensive.
Drone delivery makes the most sense when delivering items to boats offshore or to other recipients who are inaccessible by land. Aside from those specific cases, my guess is that drone delivery can never compete economically with truck or bicycle delivery.
If you believe in freedom for everyone involved, then that means everyone. If you believe in forced association, then you want the Jewish deli owner imprisoned or fined or put out of business for discrimination.
Or you don't, because you want to pick and choose which discrimination is OK and which isn't -- micromanaging force to be used for whatever whimsical objective you feel good/bad about on a particular day. No one is ever free to choose any different than you. Penalties for unapproved choices will be severe.
Can a Jewish deli owner refuse to serve a guy with a swastika tattoo? Why shouldn't he have that choice? Why shouldn't everyone simply be free to choose who they do business with without the government bullying them?
You're discriminating against Apple based on your beliefs. If discriminating based on one's beliefs is impermissible, you should be forced to buy iPhones. I hope you're prepared to pay a huge fine or go to jail or be forced out of your job or property by government (or government court-supported) bullying.
Should salesforce.com be forced by law to do business in Indiana? Why is it permissible for salesforce.com to discriminate against Indiana based on the CEO's beliefs?
Plagues are natural. Eradicating them is artificial. Saying "changes are not natural" is like saying "warmth in the winter is not natural" and then breaking all the windows in your house on the coldest day of the year. I realize you think "natural" is synonymous with perfect holiness and righteousness, but this is a science topic, so please keep your arguments rational.
No. It's just complaining. No one buys furniture because they enjoy easy 3D puzzles. Assembly is an annoying extra hill to climb.
It's about time the people displaced by Ikea's relentless territorial expansion found shelter.
The intelligence services are together with the President and his staff. They don't get to claim they're independent. If you want independence from your boss' misdeeds, resign. If you want independence from your underlings' misdeeds, fire them.
So the argument is that they're useful enough to be somewhat worthwhile but not useful enough to make the threat to Germany a serious one? I'm not sure how that could ever make them "the good guys". Are we grading on a curve?
Acting in your own interest is one thing. Acting in the interest of spite is another.
This is a poor argument even by internet standards. If they never prevent anything, they're not "the good guys" because they're spying on people for no reason. If they do prevent attacks, they just threatened to allow Germany to be attacked for spite.
versus who else? (It's hard to follow unstated reasoning.) And why does it matter? The intelligence agencies are a party to the threat, even if they didn't say the words themselves.
It does confirm one thing: the US intelligence agencies aren't "the good guys". The good guys wouldn't condemn Germany to suffer otherwise preventable terrorist attacks for spite. Thanks to Germany for confirming this and making it known to all.
That will never happen.
I guess there's no point in talking about it then. Knowing the future must make reading the news a little boring for you.
Denying people the ability to acquire weapons is meddling. Any kind of trade could also be called meddling, or refusing to trade. But if you trade goods, including weapons, without choosing sides, locals get to choose their own path.