It just so happens this 1%er problem also happens to serve the general public's interest as well. I'm more than happy for Eric Schmidt to use his fame and resources to fight a fight which benefits me in at least a small part as well.
It won't benefit you. He's basically asking for government protection (paid for by everyone else) for something that he could easily buy his own protection for, and that nobody else (the vast majority PAYING the taxes for his protection) will ever need (because the paparazzi aren't spying on them).
He's advocating the worst kind of Corporate welfare imaginable.
You have a good point, but I really don't see an issue that calls for more government regulation. Assholes fly their UAVs into private property, property owners and guests shoot them down. What we do not need is a regulation that allows the UAVs to trespass, nor one that prohibits property owners from defending their property.
So in the US, if someone parks on your property, you're allowed to crush their at?
You are certainly within your rights to have it towed at the owner's expense. And, yes, you are allowed to defend your property in a reasonable way. For a drone, your actions would be better defended with "No Trespassing" signs and shouting a warning to the drone and a demand that they leave. If the drone refuses to comply, you can't just pick it up and move it, and it's not practical to try to capture it to make sure it doesn't get damaged, so it's perfectly reasonable to shoot it down.
That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.
His agenda is he wants to prevent paparazzi and other civilians from being able spy on their targets from above. Can you imagine, you are a famous person getting it on with a groupie in your pool within your secluded property and unknown to you paparazzi is filming it all from above. I don't blame Eric Schmidt for his position on this one. It's a privacy issue.
So it's a 1%'er problem? Or more like a 0.001%'er problem? Yea, I'm so sympathetic to the tribulations and suffering of the super-rich and powerful. It's not like they have any way to defend themselves when they are having wild nude parties on their private multi-million dollar estates. Oh, the humanity!
You have a good point, but I really don't see an issue that calls for more government regulation. Assholes fly their UAVs into private property, property owners and guests shoot them down. What we do not need is a regulation that allows the UAVs to trespass, nor one that prohibits property owners from defending their property.
I'm not sure where you got your information from, but that is not true (assuming you mean below 600 ft).
Check right here, for one. As you can see, FAA regulated space starts at 600 feet in most cases (plenty of exceptions, as I pointed out), as a general rule.
First of all, in rural areas I can fly at 500ft above of your home.
That's only IF you have authorization from the FAA, which you don't, and they aren't taking applications now from anyone except DHS and the DoD. More information on that can be found at this link. Note they mention that Certificates of Waiver for Civil (Commercial) Use are currently on hold, which has been the case since 2004.
If I fly at 200ft above your property and you shoot at me because you think I'm trespassing, your ass is going to jail, period.
You may get arrested, but you will never be convicted of a crime related to damaging the property or persons that were trespassing - they are trespassing. There have been cases of this already, including ones involving blimps, and ones I have personal knowledge of that basically came down to the fact that since the craft was flying very low right over the house, the property owner had every right to defend his property with a weapon. You're too low over someone else's property, that's trespassing, period.
As I mentioned, there are exceptions in some areas, especially urban environments, but unless you can site some specific regulation or authority that provides and exception to low-altitude trespassing in general for any random flying craft, then I think you're just making some wrong assumptions.
You can throw out an abusive government, what do you do with an abusive corporation?
If you can get rid of the elected government officials that kow-tow or have ties with the corporate elites, the problem is solved. Unfortunately, they are often the same people these days. A lot of the executives running Goldman Sachs when they trashed the financial system and demanded tax money bailouts are now administration appointees in charge of the Washington regulatory agencies.
Wow you just can't help being obstinate in your ignorance, can you? You could try doing a little research to see if maybe you're wrong before you keep embarrassing yourself with loudly proclaiming your ignorance.
Prove it. Provide for me a hate crime that stands alone in the penal code.
You could have found it yourself, and I don't know why I'm bothering to keep making an effort to educate you. Quick Googling found this one in Alabama, and this one in California.
Shame on The Atlantic for this coverage. They skirt around an issue that is pretty clear. What they say is true when they talk about "What are you going to do about it", as in, if you sue for trespass you may not be able show any "damages" at all, so it may not work. But the law is clear about defending your property, and you are within your rights to take out a trespassing drone with shotgun or slingshot or whatever tool you won't get in trouble just for using.
The general rule (there are restrictions based on proximity to airports, communication tower installations, etc.) you still control your airspace up to 600 feet. ANY object intruding into this space on your property is trespassing, be it a drone, an aircraft, a blimp, what-have-you. ABOVE 600 feet is all regulated in some way by the FAA, and you can NOT fly your drone into that space without authorization. The FAA stopped taking applications for drone licensing in all regulated airspace in 2004, except from DHS and the DoD. So right now no private or local government entity can get clearance to fly above 600 feet, even on their own property.
That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.
You cannot be convicted of a "hate crime" at all. There is no such thing. You can be convicted of a crime, and the punishment varies on the severity.
This is incorrect.
,quote>Alternatively, the prosecutor could proceed on the hate crime charge
Same as the difference between charging "reckless endangerment" and "Second degree murder". Each has a variable punishment, but they are NOT the same CRIME.
You cannot be convicted of a "hate crime" at all. There is no such thing. You can be convicted of a crime, and the punishment varies on the severity.
Completely false. "if a perpetrator was arrested, a prosecutor would have two choices. If the prosecutor chooses to simply charge the perpetrator with criminal damage to property, he or she would only have to prove that the defendant threw the brick though the window. Alternatively, the prosecutor could proceed on the hate crime charge and seek higher penalties."
"Some prosecutors have expressed a reluctance to prosecute bias crimes because of the additional evidentiary burden at trial, but proving the element of intent at trial is not unique to hate crime statutes. Many criminal offenses — including possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, aggravated battery or assault on a peace officer, or murder in the first degree — require additional intent elements to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
So it is in fact a crime you must charge someone with. Sentencing hearings are used to determine penalties after conviction of a crime, but that is not how a "hate crime" works. Your description is just incorrect.
So it's wrong to judge a party for their positions from 1957, because that was OMG 56 years ago and things have changed dramatically,...
Yes, because that's when they began to change. That's when the Dixiecrats started becoming Republicans only to later call themselves the Tea Party and attempt to take over their new party.
So the Tea Party is made up of former Dixiecrats? Makes perfect sense to me. I'm just trying to figure out why people keep calling the Republicans racists if the Tea Party are the Dixiecrats that decided the Republican party isn't racist enough anymore...
Not sure why I'm even trying to explain it to you. You seem far too entrenched with the vast right-wing racist conspiracy propaganda for anything to penetrate the circular logic that justifies that viewpoint.
You've managed to validate that quite handily. Here's some statistics for you, but your own preconceived notions will overwhelm any cognitive dissonance is causes anyway: Election results by county.
Your description of the "Republican narrative" is, frankly, stunningly... Hollywood. It's no wonder the left views black conservatives as traitors or "uncle toms". You should get away from the TV, out of your high-rise apartment, and try exploring fly-over country a bit if you have any desire to understand the world outside of your echo chambers.
You claim the Democrat's aren't "your team", but you have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker. This revisionist history has you conflating everything with racism, including the Confederate flag, and, I assume, everything they tell you is a "code word" that somehow everyone on the left seems to recognize as "secret club racist language". Go figure.
Republicans don't win the Southern vote, they do, however, appeal to rural constituencies, and the south has more rural areas than the north. Rural folks own guns, go hunting, grow their own food, tend their own land, and are fiercely independent. Urban dwellers have much different priorities (you can't haul bails of straw on a bicycle).
Not sure why I'm even trying to explain it to you. You seem far too entrenched with the vast right-wing racist conspiracy propaganda for anything to penetrate the circular logic that justifies that viewpoint.
Australia came up with a much more strict gun control laws after a massacre at a place called Newtown.
The result is that they have a much lower rate of gun violence compared to before the gun control laws.
Gun control works.
You're wrong, gun crime went way up. In fact, they didn't even have laws on the books to deal with home invasion before the ban, because it was pretty unheard of. Since the gun ban, home invasions have become epidemic.
The only statistically significant positive change that can came from banning guns was a drop in the suicide rate.
I think the state should not get involved with it, period.
If the state is going to grant legal rights such as inheritance and over 1000 others it has to be involved.
To reach this conclusion you have to start with the premise that the State has the right to your money and property. Try starting with the premise that they do not, and you realize that the State has simply fooled you into being a slave that requires you to prostrate yourself before it and request to be allowed to keep your own stuff, and dispose of it as you see fit.
The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences.
What's amazing is you actually trying to claim that hate crime prosecutions are actually handled this way. It's demonstrably false. People are charged with a "hate crime" whenever they are NOT a member of a "protected" group (but the victim is), and there is some media coverage of the crime. That's pretty much it. It's more to do with perceived community hatred of the perpetrator than it is the perpetrator's intent.
So it's wrong to judge a party for their positions from 1957, because that was OMG 56 years ago and things have changed dramatically, But because of the election strategy used in 1968, we should all assume that everything is exactly the same as it was 45 years ago and nothing at all has changed, and all the same party leaders are in charge?
I think you have fallen into a partisan fallacy that provides excuses for supporting your team rather than taking an objective view of the current environment. Are we supposed to ignore all the damage that liberal Democratic policies have done to minority communities over the last 40 years? All based on a battle between the parties to secure the "racist vote" over 40 years ago? Do you really think that constituency is (in 2013) so prevalent in the electorate that political strategists think they can win elections by catering to them?
You really, really didn't look very hard. Your next stop should be Coinbase, where you can transfer your coins to a wallet with them and cash them out to a bank account.
I've heard a lot of complaints about Coinbase, but don't have any personal experience with them. Just off the top of my head, though, it seems at odds to use them for a currency exchange with one of its primary selling points being anonymous payments and usage model like cash. At Coinbase you agree they can do whatever they want to verify your identity, and the only transactions they deal with first require a connection to your US bank account.
Mtgox, that largest bitcoin exchange in the world. You must be right, it must not work. lol. I suppose you think it being Japanese is somehow a negative?
Well the site was entirely unresponsive when I tried them last night. Does not instill much confidence. And you must admit, it's quite complicated to sell bitcoins there and get USD into a bank account. You're paying Mtgox their ~ 1% fee, then you pay another fee either to another processor or for an international wire transfer. There is a daily and other periodic withdrawal limits, and with each taking 5 business days, and frequent "unexpected delays", and who knows how long it would take for a sale transaction to take place, well, it still leaves bitcoin as a not-very-useful medium of exchange.
"My landlord hasn't heard of them and isn't interested. He can't buy groceries with them either, so why would he. I transfer my rent payment from my bank to his every month, and he pays his mortgage the same way. I'm sure he would tell me his mortgage holder isn't going to take bitcoins either."
Apparently you missed all that about bitpay... which would deposit local currency into his bank account within 24hrs. There is a 0.99% fee but he probably would be okay with that since unlike your bank transfer it can't be reversed.
You're kidding, right? So I tell my landlord to first set up an e-commerce website, then a merchant account with bitpay, and then take a 1% hit for all that? No, I'm quite sure he would NOT be "okay with that". I don't know what kind of bank transfers you're talking about, but once I send him a transfer from my bank, there is nothing I can to reverse it. I'm sure banks can do whatever they want, but so can all these websites and if they go dark, all you can do is hope you don't have much "money" lost when they disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that some special ingredient was missing until it landed here from outer space is fucking nonsense
From the article:
It's generally accepted that space rocks played an important role in life's genesis on Earth.
It's accepted consensus in science. I guess that makes you a denier.
Oh yeah it does, if we can figure out how life was created, we can create more life. And THAT opens the door to a lot.....
Quite true - so much so, in fact, that my wife insisted I get a vasectomy.
It just so happens this 1%er problem also happens to serve the general public's interest as well. I'm more than happy for Eric Schmidt to use his fame and resources to fight a fight which benefits me in at least a small part as well.
It won't benefit you. He's basically asking for government protection (paid for by everyone else) for something that he could easily buy his own protection for, and that nobody else (the vast majority PAYING the taxes for his protection) will ever need (because the paparazzi aren't spying on them).
He's advocating the worst kind of Corporate welfare imaginable.
You have a good point, but I really don't see an issue that calls for more government regulation. Assholes fly their UAVs into private property, property owners and guests shoot them down. What we do not need is a regulation that allows the UAVs to trespass, nor one that prohibits property owners from defending their property.
So in the US, if someone parks on your property, you're allowed to crush their at?
You are certainly within your rights to have it towed at the owner's expense. And, yes, you are allowed to defend your property in a reasonable way. For a drone, your actions would be better defended with "No Trespassing" signs and shouting a warning to the drone and a demand that they leave. If the drone refuses to comply, you can't just pick it up and move it, and it's not practical to try to capture it to make sure it doesn't get damaged, so it's perfectly reasonable to shoot it down.
That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.
His agenda is he wants to prevent paparazzi and other civilians from being able spy on their targets from above. Can you imagine, you are a famous person getting it on with a groupie in your pool within your secluded property and unknown to you paparazzi is filming it all from above. I don't blame Eric Schmidt for his position on this one. It's a privacy issue.
So it's a 1%'er problem? Or more like a 0.001%'er problem? Yea, I'm so sympathetic to the tribulations and suffering of the super-rich and powerful. It's not like they have any way to defend themselves when they are having wild nude parties on their private multi-million dollar estates. Oh, the humanity!
You have a good point, but I really don't see an issue that calls for more government regulation. Assholes fly their UAVs into private property, property owners and guests shoot them down. What we do not need is a regulation that allows the UAVs to trespass, nor one that prohibits property owners from defending their property.
I'm not sure where you got your information from, but that is not true (assuming you mean below 600 ft).
Check right here, for one. As you can see, FAA regulated space starts at 600 feet in most cases (plenty of exceptions, as I pointed out), as a general rule.
First of all, in rural areas I can fly at 500ft above of your home.
That's only IF you have authorization from the FAA, which you don't, and they aren't taking applications now from anyone except DHS and the DoD. More information on that can be found at this link. Note they mention that Certificates of Waiver for Civil (Commercial) Use are currently on hold, which has been the case since 2004.
If I fly at 200ft above your property and you shoot at me because you think I'm trespassing, your ass is going to jail, period.
You may get arrested, but you will never be convicted of a crime related to damaging the property or persons that were trespassing - they are trespassing. There have been cases of this already, including ones involving blimps, and ones I have personal knowledge of that basically came down to the fact that since the craft was flying very low right over the house, the property owner had every right to defend his property with a weapon. You're too low over someone else's property, that's trespassing, period.
As I mentioned, there are exceptions in some areas, especially urban environments, but unless you can site some specific regulation or authority that provides and exception to low-altitude trespassing in general for any random flying craft, then I think you're just making some wrong assumptions.
You can throw out an abusive government, what do you do with an abusive corporation?
If you can get rid of the elected government officials that kow-tow or have ties with the corporate elites, the problem is solved. Unfortunately, they are often the same people these days. A lot of the executives running Goldman Sachs when they trashed the financial system and demanded tax money bailouts are now administration appointees in charge of the Washington regulatory agencies.
Wow you just can't help being obstinate in your ignorance, can you? You could try doing a little research to see if maybe you're wrong before you keep embarrassing yourself with loudly proclaiming your ignorance.
Prove it. Provide for me a hate crime that stands alone in the penal code.
You could have found it yourself, and I don't know why I'm bothering to keep making an effort to educate you. Quick Googling found this one in Alabama, and this one in California.
He's rich enough and connected enough to be part of the 'government'.
You are not.
This explains Schmidt's motivation here pretty well. The modern equivalent of walking around yelling "shut up slave" and quipping "let them eat cake."
Shame on The Atlantic for this coverage. They skirt around an issue that is pretty clear. What they say is true when they talk about "What are you going to do about it", as in, if you sue for trespass you may not be able show any "damages" at all, so it may not work. But the law is clear about defending your property, and you are within your rights to take out a trespassing drone with shotgun or slingshot or whatever tool you won't get in trouble just for using.
The general rule (there are restrictions based on proximity to airports, communication tower installations, etc.) you still control your airspace up to 600 feet. ANY object intruding into this space on your property is trespassing, be it a drone, an aircraft, a blimp, what-have-you. ABOVE 600 feet is all regulated in some way by the FAA, and you can NOT fly your drone into that space without authorization. The FAA stopped taking applications for drone licensing in all regulated airspace in 2004, except from DHS and the DoD. So right now no private or local government entity can get clearance to fly above 600 feet, even on their own property.
That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.
You can't be convicted of a "hate crime" without the CRIME part.
"Involuntary manslaughter" and "Premeditated murder" are NOT the SAME CRIME. Murder is NOT a "penalty enhancement" to speeding -
You cannot be convicted of a "hate crime" at all. There is no such thing. You can be convicted of a crime, and the punishment varies on the severity.
This is incorrect.
Same as the difference between charging "reckless endangerment" and "Second degree murder". Each has a variable punishment, but they are NOT the same CRIME.
You cannot be convicted of a "hate crime" at all. There is no such thing. You can be convicted of a crime, and the punishment varies on the severity.
Completely false. "if a perpetrator was arrested, a prosecutor would have two choices. If the prosecutor chooses to simply charge the perpetrator with criminal damage to property, he or she would only have to prove that the defendant threw the brick though the window. Alternatively, the prosecutor could proceed on the hate crime charge and seek higher penalties."
"Some prosecutors have expressed a reluctance to prosecute bias crimes because of the additional evidentiary burden at trial, but proving the element of intent at trial is not unique to hate crime statutes. Many criminal offenses — including possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, aggravated battery or assault on a peace officer, or murder in the first degree — require additional intent elements to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
So it is in fact a crime you must charge someone with. Sentencing hearings are used to determine penalties after conviction of a crime, but that is not how a "hate crime" works. Your description is just incorrect.
So it's wrong to judge a party for their positions from 1957, because that was OMG 56 years ago and things have changed dramatically,...
Yes, because that's when they began to change. That's when the Dixiecrats started becoming Republicans only to later call themselves the Tea Party and attempt to take over their new party.
So the Tea Party is made up of former Dixiecrats? Makes perfect sense to me. I'm just trying to figure out why people keep calling the Republicans racists if the Tea Party are the Dixiecrats that decided the Republican party isn't racist enough anymore...
Useless ad-hominems. The results are the results. If you don't like the source, find one yourself the same way I did.
Not sure why I'm even trying to explain it to you. You seem far too entrenched with the vast right-wing racist conspiracy propaganda for anything to penetrate the circular logic that justifies that viewpoint.
You've managed to validate that quite handily. Here's some statistics for you, but your own preconceived notions will overwhelm any cognitive dissonance is causes anyway: Election results by county.
Your description of the "Republican narrative" is, frankly, stunningly ... Hollywood. It's no wonder the left views black conservatives as traitors or "uncle toms". You should get away from the TV, out of your high-rise apartment, and try exploring fly-over country a bit if you have any desire to understand the world outside of your echo chambers.
You claim the Democrat's aren't "your team", but you have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker. This revisionist history has you conflating everything with racism, including the Confederate flag, and, I assume, everything they tell you is a "code word" that somehow everyone on the left seems to recognize as "secret club racist language". Go figure.
Republicans don't win the Southern vote, they do, however, appeal to rural constituencies, and the south has more rural areas than the north. Rural folks own guns, go hunting, grow their own food, tend their own land, and are fiercely independent. Urban dwellers have much different priorities (you can't haul bails of straw on a bicycle).
Not sure why I'm even trying to explain it to you. You seem far too entrenched with the vast right-wing racist conspiracy propaganda for anything to penetrate the circular logic that justifies that viewpoint.
Australia came up with a much more strict gun control laws after a massacre at a place called Newtown. The result is that they have a much lower rate of gun violence compared to before the gun control laws. Gun control works.
You're wrong, gun crime went way up. In fact, they didn't even have laws on the books to deal with home invasion before the ban, because it was pretty unheard of. Since the gun ban, home invasions have become epidemic.
The only statistically significant positive change that can came from banning guns was a drop in the suicide rate.
I think the state should not get involved with it, period.
If the state is going to grant legal rights such as inheritance and over 1000 others it has to be involved.
To reach this conclusion you have to start with the premise that the State has the right to your money and property. Try starting with the premise that they do not, and you realize that the State has simply fooled you into being a slave that requires you to prostrate yourself before it and request to be allowed to keep your own stuff, and dispose of it as you see fit.
The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences.
What's amazing is you actually trying to claim that hate crime prosecutions are actually handled this way. It's demonstrably false. People are charged with a "hate crime" whenever they are NOT a member of a "protected" group (but the victim is), and there is some media coverage of the crime. That's pretty much it. It's more to do with perceived community hatred of the perpetrator than it is the perpetrator's intent.
So it's wrong to judge a party for their positions from 1957, because that was OMG 56 years ago and things have changed dramatically, But because of the election strategy used in 1968, we should all assume that everything is exactly the same as it was 45 years ago and nothing at all has changed, and all the same party leaders are in charge?
I think you have fallen into a partisan fallacy that provides excuses for supporting your team rather than taking an objective view of the current environment. Are we supposed to ignore all the damage that liberal Democratic policies have done to minority communities over the last 40 years? All based on a battle between the parties to secure the "racist vote" over 40 years ago? Do you really think that constituency is (in 2013) so prevalent in the electorate that political strategists think they can win elections by catering to them?
Dad-a-chum? Dum-a-chum?
You really, really didn't look very hard. Your next stop should be Coinbase, where you can transfer your coins to a wallet with them and cash them out to a bank account.
I've heard a lot of complaints about Coinbase, but don't have any personal experience with them. Just off the top of my head, though, it seems at odds to use them for a currency exchange with one of its primary selling points being anonymous payments and usage model like cash. At Coinbase you agree they can do whatever they want to verify your identity, and the only transactions they deal with first require a connection to your US bank account.
Mtgox, that largest bitcoin exchange in the world. You must be right, it must not work. lol. I suppose you think it being Japanese is somehow a negative?
Well the site was entirely unresponsive when I tried them last night. Does not instill much confidence. And you must admit, it's quite complicated to sell bitcoins there and get USD into a bank account. You're paying Mtgox their ~ 1% fee, then you pay another fee either to another processor or for an international wire transfer. There is a daily and other periodic withdrawal limits, and with each taking 5 business days, and frequent "unexpected delays", and who knows how long it would take for a sale transaction to take place, well, it still leaves bitcoin as a not-very-useful medium of exchange.
"My landlord hasn't heard of them and isn't interested. He can't buy groceries with them either, so why would he. I transfer my rent payment from my bank to his every month, and he pays his mortgage the same way. I'm sure he would tell me his mortgage holder isn't going to take bitcoins either."
Apparently you missed all that about bitpay... which would deposit local currency into his bank account within 24hrs. There is a 0.99% fee but he probably would be okay with that since unlike your bank transfer it can't be reversed.
You're kidding, right? So I tell my landlord to first set up an e-commerce website, then a merchant account with bitpay, and then take a 1% hit for all that? No, I'm quite sure he would NOT be "okay with that". I don't know what kind of bank transfers you're talking about, but once I send him a transfer from my bank, there is nothing I can to reverse it. I'm sure banks can do whatever they want, but so can all these websites and if they go dark, all you can do is hope you don't have much "money" lost when they disappear.