If someone puts stuff in your yard, it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. This covers trash like drink cups and what not. Anything mailed to you becomes yours, even if it was mailed by accident. I think this pattern implies that owner of the drone flew it to the shooters yard, and then the drone becomes the property of the shooter.
Unfortunately, your pattern doesn't exist. Inconsequential things like drink cups may perhaps become yours to do with as you please (because there is a valid assumption that it is abandoned property), but if someone drops a bag of money while walking past your house and it falls on your lawn, it doesn't suddenly become your money. I came home one night to find a box of stuff next to my garage. It was a UPS delivery that was stolen from a neighbor's front step, left behind by the thief when he found out it was cheap Specialty Merchandise Corporation gimcracks. That box didn't become mine.
Nor does anything mailed to you become yours even if it was sent by accident. There is a requirement (at least in all the laws I know) that you make a good-faith attempt at returning the object. That good-faith attempt requires you to notify the sender and make the thing available for return (at their expense), and only if they fail to take advantage of that does it become yours.
And your pattern falls completely apart when you talk about things flying through what you think is your personal airspace. Try arguing that the police helicopter that was assisting in an arrest in your neighborhood becomes your property if it hovers over your house and see how far you get.
I'm not sure about firing a weapon in city limits, but shooting your own stuff seems legal.
The laws against discharge of projectile weapons in city limits do not differentiate based on ownership of target. You can't "shoot your own stuff" legally if you can't "shoot" legally.
The only reason manned flight works is air traffic lanes, it's a real highway system up there for the manned guys.
That is simply untrue. The reason manned flight works, and the basis for the system, is the concept of "see and avoid". The only time that "see and avoid" is not rule number 1 is if you are flying in the clouds. If you are doing that, then it has become ATC responsibility for "separation" -- i.e. keeping other people flying in the clouds from running into you and vice versa. If you aren't operating on an IFR clearance, then there are rules about how close to the clouds you can go which are based on giving you and the guy who pops out of a cloud time to see and avoid each other.
Otherwise, "see and avoid", wherever you happen to be.
Now, there are "airways" that are defined routes, but there is no requirement to actually fly on them (unless you've received an ATC instruction to do so), and even large airliners don't need to fly on them. They'll often get instructions like "direct XYZ direct ABC" which bypass those airways. And the FAA Next-Gen concept is to do away with such airways and operate mostly direct. That's because there will be better tracking of aircraft enroute.
And the guys that fly "off-road" (some manned Cessna and tv copter pilots fly over my house! And I found is a big no-no & should be fined) are penalized if caught and yes do create potential dangers.
It is not a danger nor is it illegal to fly "off-road". You are quite incorrect in your belief that it is a "big no-no". It IS a no-no to fly closer than a certain distance from people or structures, or below certain altitudes (1000' over a populated area, unless in the process of landing or taking off), but "off-road" is quite common and quite safe. And that 1000' restriction doesn't apply to helicopters. Their rule says they have to fly at or above a level from which a safe landing can be made in an emergency.
5miles of an airport? I live 3.5 miles from one & can't fly in my own back yard?
Life sucks, but yes. Many airports have controlled airspace from ground to 3000' AGL in a 5 mile radius, specifically to protect aircraft operations into, out of, and in the vicinity of the airport. That's the general boundary of control of ATC at a towered airport, and it is mirrored in uncontrolled fields.
manned operations? really no one (even the ATC in some ways) has good ADB-S yet.
ADS-B has nothing to do with a prohibition on interfering with manned flights. If you can see your toy, then you really ought to be able to see that much larger manned aircraft that is passing by. You don't need radar or transponders.
I wouldn't think so, since as far as I know "aircraft" need to do things like file flight plans and such.
You know wrong. Aircraft don't file flight plans, pilots (or their dispatchers) do. And there is no blanket requirement to file one. The only three requirements I ca think of right now are 1) if you are going to ask for or need an IFR clearance, 2) you are going to cross or enter an ADIZ, or 3) you are crossing into the US and need to deal with ICE. And even for (1) you can file an abbreviated plan at the time you need a pop-up clearance, such as when you've realized the airport you are going to has gone IMC and you need an IFR clearance to get in.
No, "aircraft" is defined by its intended use, from here: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." Note that this is not specific to lighter or heavier than air flight, so balloons are also aircraft.
What if instead he had something somewhat like Spiderman's web shooters---CO2 powered instead of gunpowder,
I suspect that a lot of cities have copied the same ordinance that ours did. In our city, it is illegal to discharge any projectile weapon within city limits. Doesn't matter if it's gunpowder, CO2, air, or a big rubber band.
511.070 Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly
enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice
against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure.
"He" didn't enter until after the drone was shot down.
Would you claim it was criminal trespass if your neighbor's child kicked his soccer ball into your yard and didn't come get it right away? That's "knowingly enters" (kick a ball that hard in that direction, guess where it will land) and "remains" (he didn't come get it right away). The only thing that would keep that from being a crime is... the ball is not a "he". I suppose you could argue the ball is guilty, but it is hard to prove the guilty intent on the part of the ball -- or of the drone.
Air rights, unless previously given away, are up to 500' above your land or structure.
Given the amount of airspace in the US that is controlled from surface to some specified altitude, I think I need a citation for that claim. You can't seriously claim that the US government got waivers from all the people who live under such airspace before they could create it.
It's as much trespass as the 5 year old who runs across your front lawn to get home for dinner after playing in the park.
Is the correct solution to that trespass to shoot the five year old? That would certainly send a message to all the other neighborhood kids.
It obviously depends on local laws, however: generally speaking you have full rights and control over the airspace immediately above your property.
Generally speaking, in the US, that's false.
Just to name a few "rights" you do not have:
1. You cannot tell the FAA to move the final approach course for an instrument approach from over your house. You cannot tell them not to vector aircraft over your house.
2. If you build an antenna greater than a certain height in "your" airspace, you must install anti-collision lights.
Two examples.
From it's actions, and from the prompt arrival of the owners, it is also entirely clear that the drone had a camera.
From the fact that the drone was being used to take photographs of a friend's house, I think we can assume it had a camera.
I'd have shot it too.
Do you shoot at all aircraft that pass over your private property, or just those that you think you can get away with because it amuses you to destroy other people's stuff?
According to TFA it was flying well below any level ever though of as "airspace"
"Surface" is pretty low, and there are lots of places that controlled airspace extends that low. Somebody thought of that, and lots of other people know it.
Only if you think Chickens and Humans share enough commonality in our immune systems and the viruses that infect us will act the same in a human host as in a chicken.
If humans and chickens didn't share the biological basis for virus and antibody action, then testing vaccines on chickens would be a waste of time. As animals that evolved on planet Earth, we both have the same mechanisms for mutations, virus replication, and antibody systems, even if the biology isn't identical and not every virus that will infect a chicken will have the same effect on a human. If humans and chickens do NOT share enough commonality, then why do they call it "chicken pox"?
It's ridiculous to claim that an issue observed in testing a virus on chickens cannot apply to human viruses and their immune systems because one is a chicken and one is not.
I don't think the strains that survive an incomplete round of antibiotics have mutated.
You then proceed to describe exactly the process through which the antibiotic sensitive bacteria die so the mutations that have resistance become dominant. Where do you think those antibiotic resistant bacteria got their immunity to that specific antibiotic? They didn't order it from Amazon Prime, just sayin.
I don't see this as a big problem. Most people will use whatever's installed on their machines, because setting up a new client is too much hassle.
At work I use, let's see,... three different clients depending on where I am. Or is it four? Should I count different versions of Evolution as one or two? Or three?
The fact is, such a system will not work if only "most people" do it.
To deal with the other issue, we do need extra utility - clients that will automatically sign, and automatically reject and return unsigned emails from addresses with known keys.
oooh, cool. A new DDOS attack vector -- send a flood of emails pretending to be from someone with a "known key" but unsigned, to a group of people who have known keys. If the "return" function doesn't sign the return (and if it is automatic, there is probably a security issue if it does sign them) then the mail system will be brought to its knees as everyone returns every unsigned message. At a minimum, you bring down the victim's email.
Of course in a non-corporate/general-email environment, all of those things won't happen (or at least, not all at the same time),
They won't happen at all in any environment where there is no authority to mandate the use of PGP or anything similar. You can't order Mom to sign all her messages any more than you can order a phisher to sign his.
I don't think it is necessary to rely on an unauthenticated message being invalid.
That's the goal. You want to know that the phishing email is invalid. Simply knowing it is neither valid nor invalid is useless, because if it is valid you should act upon it.
You wouldn't ignore it, you'd call the boss (or email him) and ask him if he really send the message you received.
Imagine a work environment where you called the boss every time he sent you an email asking him if he sent it. Imagine the boss is in a meeting and told you to do something important right now.
Yes, if you work in a company where there is a mandate to sign email, and you get an email from your "boss" that isn't signed, the correct action is to ignore it, because that's the reason for the policy in the first place.
And hopefully the boss would almost never "forget" to sign an email,
An email system where we rely on "hope" that everyone does the right thing is why we have spam and phishing problems today.
But you can at least make it easier for people to see a difference between a known-authentic email and an email of unproven origin.
It is trivial to determine an email is "of unproven origin", and yet phishing attacks are reasonably successful. My local admin has to keep reminding people every time a stream of phishing emails comes through, and every time someone does what the phisher asks.
The Technican Element 3 test wasn't more difficult than the Novice Element 1 and 2 together, so Technican became the lowest license class when they stopped having to take Element 1.
First, that is not true. Novice still exists. You cannot become one, but you can renew as one. Second, so what? You said that prior to 2007 the code test was required for "all but" the lowest license class. That's also not true. Novice, which still exists and is still the lowest license class, required a code test.
The change to 13 WPM was in 1936,
So you're acting as if the code speeds were going up and up and up at the request of the ARRL and you needed to stop the nonsense, when in fact it was 80 years ago that they went up and stopped. Like I said, a LONG time ago.
The Indianapolis cop episode was back in 2009.
I say, you're using an issue from 80 years ago to complain about the ARRL getting code speeds raised, and yet you don't think one example of a government agency drooling over amateur frequencies from just 7 years ago is relevant? One example of an ongoing problem, whereas this radical idea of having people who wanted access to radio spectrum be able to use a mode that was very very very common back then is unacceptable to you.
In 1936 CW was a major mode, and it was important to know. You act as if it was a sin to be made to know something to get access to valuable radio spectrum IN 1936. That awful ARRL asked for increased code ability as part of an incentive licensing system. IN 1936, when ships at sea were required to have CW operators in case of emergency, and before SSB was in heavy use.
A satphone is less expensive than a trained HF operator.
But much more expensive than a VHF operator. Much more expensive. You think the only spectrum that government agencies are drooling over is the HF band? You show your ignorance again.
Iridium costs $30 per month and $0.89 per minute
My latest VHF handheld cost $40 and I pay nothing per month or minute.
You think it's a big deal to lobby against paid operators because there will be objections?
No, Bruce, like I said, I think it will be a big deal because THAT BATTLE HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST, and it was lost a long time ago by the actions of our own ARRL.
And you don't care about young people getting into Amateur Radio.
Oh, fuck you Bruce. I run regular classes and exam sessions specifically to bring in new hams. There are about 100 people who have licenses because I took my time to teach them and then run the exam sessions for them. Some of them I've lost track of, but many of them are active and using ham radio to actually save lives. My youngest licensee so far was 13 or 14. So don't tell me what I don't care about, because you are once again ignorant of the truth.
Fortunately, when the real hams go to get something done, folks like you aren't hard to fight,
More ignorance and arrogance and insult. "Real hams"? "folks like me"? You mean the ones who oppose the intrusion of outside agencies into ham bandwidth? The ones who point out that YOUR actions to make it almost trivial to get a ham license opened the door to more of this? The ones who think that it is arrogant to claim some star status because you "lobbied" to get rid of code by not using it? Well, Bruce, that same "star status" applies to a very large number of folks, and I'll point out once again that you didn't need to pass any tests to be able to use 20 wpm code, and the FCC didn't give a rat's ass that you weren't. They truly could not have cared less.
Right, "folks like us" aren't hard to fight. You don't know who "folks like us" are because you've got a persecution complex and think anyone who disagrees with you on anything you say must be arguing for those 20wpm code tests to come back.
How about just rendering everything as text? Avoid rendering URL's or HTML and you'll solve most of the problems.
There are too many broken email clients that send HTML documents without the correct headers saying it is HTML, so too many broken email clients automatically render messages that LOOK like HTML because that's probably what they ought to do.
And then you get idiots who think they need to send 50k of HTML for a one-sentence email, and get pissy when you tell them that you don't read HTML and to resend whatever the hell it was in text if they want you to get the message.
I'm pretty sure that none of the clients I use can be told to completely ignore HTML, not even a text-based client like pine. I used to have procmail strip every "Mime-Version" and "Content-Type" header in incoming email just to force the client to show it as text, but I got tired of dealing with the pissy folks from above.
Many mail clients have provisions for PGP signing of messages. It is one of the options I have set up on my tablet for K9 mail.
For it to work in a corporate environment, it must be mandated by the company so that everyone does it, everyone must have a client that supports it, keys must exist and be distributed, and only then can everyone rely on an unsigned message being invalid. If your boss forgets to sign a message telling you to do something and you ignore it, you better have a company policy backing you up.
That puts it in the realm of a social problem, not a technical one. And it does not solve the problem of external sources of email that don't sign anything being the alleged source of the email asking you to "click here" because your train reservation has changed and you need to pay a bit extra.
The Novice license stopped being the path to entry
"Path to entry" is not the same as the lowest level license class.
Similarly, FCC actually raised code speed requirements at the behest of ARRL.
You're talking about the original move to incentive licensing where higher class licenses had access to a bit more spectrum and earned that through both more advanced testing and faster code requirements. That was a VERY long time ago. That was the system in place when I was first licensed more than 40 years ago. You make it sound like the speeds were going up up up until you came along to lobby for them to go away by simply not using code.
And that "20 wpm test" you passed? You didn't need to pass that test to use, or not use, CW at 20wpm. You needed to pass that test to get a more advanced class of license which had access to more spectrum. Please tell me that you never used any of the additional privileges that came with that license as your way of "lobbying" against that class of license, because "20 wpm CW" is not a privilege that came with passing that test or the license.
There was only a token continuing monitoring of Morse ship transmissions, now entirely gone.
Yes, as I said, the dependence on CW for maritime emergency traffic went away, and thus also the requirement in the international treaty that required it for HF frequency access.
Now there are more hams than ever, and Amateur Radio is healthy.
Yes, and many of them are government or NGO employees who are getting licenses because they are being paid to do so. Congratulations on winning.
There isn't really any reason for government agencies and NGOs to use Amateur Radio. They have satellite phones, etc.
Now you're just showing your ignorance. Do you realize how much it costs to keep a satphone account active? Do you not realize how many ham radios you can buy for that money? And do you not realize the hassle and expense involved in coordinating and building out another land mobile frequency when the ones you already have are getting close to capacity? That's if you can get another frequency at all.
Perhaps you just aren't paying attention to the FCC enforcement bureau actions regarding intruding users, such as the Indianapolis city police. They aren't the only ones who were and are picking up cheap ham radios and using them without bothering with licenses.
And perhaps you just don't realize how much money governments and NGOs can save by underbuilding their communications systems and relying on amateur radio to save them when the ice storm hits the fan.
No, they SHOULD have no reason to use amateur radio, but that's not reality. "Save money" is. "Easy to access" is. "Use free existing infrastructure" is. "Lots of open spectrum" is. All are reasons for governments and NGO to use amateur radio, so your claim that they have no reason is patent nonsense.
But if it really bothers you, why not lobby against allowing compensation for operators?
Because that battle has been lost, and it was lost when our own ARRL got their employees a special exemption. 47CFR97.113(iv) is written to such an extent that nobody but ARRL/W1AW could meet the requirements. That section is there only so ARRL can have paid employees running the W1AW code practice transmissions.
Today any attempt to get the governmental/NGO exemption removed would be met with a hailstorm of opposing comments from all those governmental and NGO that you say have no need for amateur radio, but who were very effective in presenting the case that "amateur radio saves lives" and "when all else fails
Until 2007, the U.S. Federal Government required it before they would license all but the lowest grade of Amateur Radio hobbyists.
1. The novice class license had a Morse code requirement. That was the lowest grade of amateur radio license. Five WPM.
2. The Morse code requirement was mandated by the ITU treaty (International Telecommunications Union) that required anyone who had access to HF bands (that included Novice class amateur radio licensees) to know Morse code. That requirement was based on maritime safety, as an ability to read CW could help during emergencies. Satellite and other systems have replaced the old radio op sending the weak SOS signal from a sinking vessel, so that requirement went away.
As part of my lobbying effort, I successfully passed a test for receiving code at 20 words per minute, and then subsequently refused to use the code on the air.
As if the FCC cared that you passed the test and then never used code on the air. I dare say, there were many many people who lobbied the same way -- without any effect, and without even knowing it. Does it count that I passed the test and used CW exactly once, forty years ago?
We won.
There are a lot of people who lost, or at least have a good argument that they did. If nothing else, CW was a good way of holding back the push for government agencies and NGO to get access to amateur frequencies.
With the loss of CW and the changes to the rules, all it takes for a government agency to get essentially free access to the ham bands is having their employees pass a 34 question test. At that point, paid employees can use the ham bands for
exercises and drills:
(i) A station licensee or station control operator may participate on behalf of an employer in an emergency preparedness or disaster readiness test or drill, limited to the duration and scope of such test or drill, and operational testing immediately prior to such test or drill. Tests or drills that are not government-sponsored are limited to a total time of one hour per week; except that no more than twice in any calendar year, they may be conducted for a period not to exceed 72 hours.
NGO are limited to one hour per week but for two weeks they can be 3 days long. There is no time limit on government-sponsored "drills".
I know that government agencies are doing exactly this, because I've VEd exam sessions where they had employees getting their licenses.
You don't need autonomous vehicles or v2v communication for them to be hack able and cause major disasters.
I think the point is not that you need to have v2v/autonomous stuff, but that the problem becomes much more serious when you do. When there's a driver behind the wheel you have some backup; when the passenger is asleep and/or the car has no controls you don't.
They didn't even bother to point the yagi antenna towards the ground, for that matter.
Why would they point it towards the ground? You want to point it towards the distance radio. In the hackaday picture, it was pointed slightly above the horizon, which will put a lot more the radiation towards the distant station than pointing it at the ground would.
The antenna was attached to something that would normally be mounted somewhere, but while it was sitting on the table it was pointed a few degrees up.
The radiation pattern of a yagi isn't narrow enough that you'd need to worry about being off by a few degrees, either left/right or up/down. It's not a dish.
So.... don't use debit cards? But credit cards are ok?
People sometimes say that debit and credit cards are protected the same way because the limits are the same, but that's not true.
If someone scams your debit card your money is gone until the bank decides you were scammed and puts it back, if they do. If someone scams your credit card your bank account still has money in it and the card issuer sends you a bill that you don't have to pay while the debt is being contested.
I.e., under one system the money you need to feed your family is gone gone gone; in the other you may eventually have to pay it off over time or not. Think of the children, man!
With a fiat currency they can do this anyway whether the money is kept in a bank or in cash on hand.
No, they can't. The government can't just say "Joe Smith's dollar bills aren't worth a dollar" as a way of taxing or confiscating his hard money, but they can have the bank hand over the electronic money it is holding on his behalf, or tax him on the balance.
The only thing that a "fiat" can do is devalue everyone's money, which isn't what the OP was talking about.
As soon as they start charging people. He said he doesn't want people paying for inferior quality.
Is he going to refund the money of everyone who bought an 8-track tape of his stuff? Or is he claiming that 8-tracks aren't low quality so he can avoid having to do that?
Would you say the same thing about a print artist who didn't want black an white prints of his colour works sold?
If an artist had always allowed (and still allows) black and white versions of his full color works to be sold, I would question his motives if he then claimed that monochrome versions weren't good enough representations of the same works.
You seem to miss the point that he is specifically talking about selling or renting the music he created.
The same music that he happily allows to be sold on 8-track or cassette or cheap vinyl. Or on AM radio. You do realize, I hope, that when Neil Young was relevant to anything AM radio was monaural only. That means that the precious stereo sound of his recording was totally lost. And I hope you realize that even the precious stereo of FM radio goes through a horrific pre-emphasis/de-emphasis process to try to reduce noise (which modifies his careful equalization) but it is never completely eliminated. And that stereo is a poor representation of live ambiance.
Let's talk about media not being good enough to allow distribution of a precious "life's work", but let's talk about it before it has gone on for forty years, ok? Especially when some of those media have been the equivalent of tin cans and string compared to today's digital systems that are suddenly "not good enough".
Slashdot Mirror
If someone puts stuff in your yard, it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. This covers trash like drink cups and what not. Anything mailed to you becomes yours, even if it was mailed by accident. I think this pattern implies that owner of the drone flew it to the shooters yard, and then the drone becomes the property of the shooter.
Unfortunately, your pattern doesn't exist. Inconsequential things like drink cups may perhaps become yours to do with as you please (because there is a valid assumption that it is abandoned property), but if someone drops a bag of money while walking past your house and it falls on your lawn, it doesn't suddenly become your money. I came home one night to find a box of stuff next to my garage. It was a UPS delivery that was stolen from a neighbor's front step, left behind by the thief when he found out it was cheap Specialty Merchandise Corporation gimcracks. That box didn't become mine.
Nor does anything mailed to you become yours even if it was sent by accident. There is a requirement (at least in all the laws I know) that you make a good-faith attempt at returning the object. That good-faith attempt requires you to notify the sender and make the thing available for return (at their expense), and only if they fail to take advantage of that does it become yours.
And your pattern falls completely apart when you talk about things flying through what you think is your personal airspace. Try arguing that the police helicopter that was assisting in an arrest in your neighborhood becomes your property if it hovers over your house and see how far you get.
I'm not sure about firing a weapon in city limits, but shooting your own stuff seems legal.
The laws against discharge of projectile weapons in city limits do not differentiate based on ownership of target. You can't "shoot your own stuff" legally if you can't "shoot" legally.
The only reason manned flight works is air traffic lanes, it's a real highway system up there for the manned guys.
That is simply untrue. The reason manned flight works, and the basis for the system, is the concept of "see and avoid". The only time that "see and avoid" is not rule number 1 is if you are flying in the clouds. If you are doing that, then it has become ATC responsibility for "separation" -- i.e. keeping other people flying in the clouds from running into you and vice versa. If you aren't operating on an IFR clearance, then there are rules about how close to the clouds you can go which are based on giving you and the guy who pops out of a cloud time to see and avoid each other.
Otherwise, "see and avoid", wherever you happen to be.
Now, there are "airways" that are defined routes, but there is no requirement to actually fly on them (unless you've received an ATC instruction to do so), and even large airliners don't need to fly on them. They'll often get instructions like "direct XYZ direct ABC" which bypass those airways. And the FAA Next-Gen concept is to do away with such airways and operate mostly direct. That's because there will be better tracking of aircraft enroute.
And the guys that fly "off-road" (some manned Cessna and tv copter pilots fly over my house! And I found is a big no-no & should be fined) are penalized if caught and yes do create potential dangers.
It is not a danger nor is it illegal to fly "off-road". You are quite incorrect in your belief that it is a "big no-no". It IS a no-no to fly closer than a certain distance from people or structures, or below certain altitudes (1000' over a populated area, unless in the process of landing or taking off), but "off-road" is quite common and quite safe. And that 1000' restriction doesn't apply to helicopters. Their rule says they have to fly at or above a level from which a safe landing can be made in an emergency.
5miles of an airport? I live 3.5 miles from one & can't fly in my own back yard?
Life sucks, but yes. Many airports have controlled airspace from ground to 3000' AGL in a 5 mile radius, specifically to protect aircraft operations into, out of, and in the vicinity of the airport. That's the general boundary of control of ATC at a towered airport, and it is mirrored in uncontrolled fields.
manned operations? really no one (even the ATC in some ways) has good ADB-S yet.
ADS-B has nothing to do with a prohibition on interfering with manned flights. If you can see your toy, then you really ought to be able to see that much larger manned aircraft that is passing by. You don't need radar or transponders.
I wouldn't think so, since as far as I know "aircraft" need to do things like file flight plans and such.
You know wrong. Aircraft don't file flight plans, pilots (or their dispatchers) do. And there is no blanket requirement to file one. The only three requirements I ca think of right now are 1) if you are going to ask for or need an IFR clearance, 2) you are going to cross or enter an ADIZ, or 3) you are crossing into the US and need to deal with ICE. And even for (1) you can file an abbreviated plan at the time you need a pop-up clearance, such as when you've realized the airport you are going to has gone IMC and you need an IFR clearance to get in.
No, "aircraft" is defined by its intended use, from here: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." Note that this is not specific to lighter or heavier than air flight, so balloons are also aircraft.
What if instead he had something somewhat like Spiderman's web shooters---CO2 powered instead of gunpowder,
I suspect that a lot of cities have copied the same ordinance that ours did. In our city, it is illegal to discharge any projectile weapon within city limits. Doesn't matter if it's gunpowder, CO2, air, or a big rubber band.
511.070 Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure.
"He" didn't enter until after the drone was shot down. Would you claim it was criminal trespass if your neighbor's child kicked his soccer ball into your yard and didn't come get it right away? That's "knowingly enters" (kick a ball that hard in that direction, guess where it will land) and "remains" (he didn't come get it right away). The only thing that would keep that from being a crime is ... the ball is not a "he". I suppose you could argue the ball is guilty, but it is hard to prove the guilty intent on the part of the ball -- or of the drone.
Air rights, unless previously given away, are up to 500' above your land or structure.
Given the amount of airspace in the US that is controlled from surface to some specified altitude, I think I need a citation for that claim. You can't seriously claim that the US government got waivers from all the people who live under such airspace before they could create it.
It's as much trespass as the 5 year old who runs across your front lawn to get home for dinner after playing in the park.
Is the correct solution to that trespass to shoot the five year old? That would certainly send a message to all the other neighborhood kids.
It obviously depends on local laws, however: generally speaking you have full rights and control over the airspace immediately above your property.
Generally speaking, in the US, that's false.
Just to name a few "rights" you do not have:
1. You cannot tell the FAA to move the final approach course for an instrument approach from over your house. You cannot tell them not to vector aircraft over your house.
2. If you build an antenna greater than a certain height in "your" airspace, you must install anti-collision lights.
Two examples.
From it's actions, and from the prompt arrival of the owners, it is also entirely clear that the drone had a camera.
From the fact that the drone was being used to take photographs of a friend's house, I think we can assume it had a camera.
I'd have shot it too.
Do you shoot at all aircraft that pass over your private property, or just those that you think you can get away with because it amuses you to destroy other people's stuff?
According to TFA it was flying well below any level ever though of as "airspace"
"Surface" is pretty low, and there are lots of places that controlled airspace extends that low. Somebody thought of that, and lots of other people know it.
It's just as ridiculous to claim that a study on chickens means the same thing happens in humans....
"Can happen" is not "does happen".
Only if you think Chickens and Humans share enough commonality in our immune systems and the viruses that infect us will act the same in a human host as in a chicken.
If humans and chickens didn't share the biological basis for virus and antibody action, then testing vaccines on chickens would be a waste of time. As animals that evolved on planet Earth, we both have the same mechanisms for mutations, virus replication, and antibody systems, even if the biology isn't identical and not every virus that will infect a chicken will have the same effect on a human. If humans and chickens do NOT share enough commonality, then why do they call it "chicken pox"?
It's ridiculous to claim that an issue observed in testing a virus on chickens cannot apply to human viruses and their immune systems because one is a chicken and one is not.
I don't think the strains that survive an incomplete round of antibiotics have mutated.
You then proceed to describe exactly the process through which the antibiotic sensitive bacteria die so the mutations that have resistance become dominant. Where do you think those antibiotic resistant bacteria got their immunity to that specific antibiotic? They didn't order it from Amazon Prime, just sayin.
It's survival of the fittest only.
And those "fittest" become so because ...?
I don't see this as a big problem. Most people will use whatever's installed on their machines, because setting up a new client is too much hassle.
At work I use, let's see, ... three different clients depending on where I am. Or is it four? Should I count different versions of Evolution as one or two? Or three?
The fact is, such a system will not work if only "most people" do it.
To deal with the other issue, we do need extra utility - clients that will automatically sign, and automatically reject and return unsigned emails from addresses with known keys.
oooh, cool. A new DDOS attack vector -- send a flood of emails pretending to be from someone with a "known key" but unsigned, to a group of people who have known keys. If the "return" function doesn't sign the return (and if it is automatic, there is probably a security issue if it does sign them) then the mail system will be brought to its knees as everyone returns every unsigned message. At a minimum, you bring down the victim's email.
Of course in a non-corporate/general-email environment, all of those things won't happen (or at least, not all at the same time),
They won't happen at all in any environment where there is no authority to mandate the use of PGP or anything similar. You can't order Mom to sign all her messages any more than you can order a phisher to sign his.
I don't think it is necessary to rely on an unauthenticated message being invalid.
That's the goal. You want to know that the phishing email is invalid. Simply knowing it is neither valid nor invalid is useless, because if it is valid you should act upon it.
You wouldn't ignore it, you'd call the boss (or email him) and ask him if he really send the message you received.
Imagine a work environment where you called the boss every time he sent you an email asking him if he sent it. Imagine the boss is in a meeting and told you to do something important right now.
Yes, if you work in a company where there is a mandate to sign email, and you get an email from your "boss" that isn't signed, the correct action is to ignore it, because that's the reason for the policy in the first place.
And hopefully the boss would almost never "forget" to sign an email,
An email system where we rely on "hope" that everyone does the right thing is why we have spam and phishing problems today.
But you can at least make it easier for people to see a difference between a known-authentic email and an email of unproven origin.
It is trivial to determine an email is "of unproven origin", and yet phishing attacks are reasonably successful. My local admin has to keep reminding people every time a stream of phishing emails comes through, and every time someone does what the phisher asks.
The Technican Element 3 test wasn't more difficult than the Novice Element 1 and 2 together, so Technican became the lowest license class when they stopped having to take Element 1.
First, that is not true. Novice still exists. You cannot become one, but you can renew as one. Second, so what? You said that prior to 2007 the code test was required for "all but" the lowest license class. That's also not true. Novice, which still exists and is still the lowest license class, required a code test.
The change to 13 WPM was in 1936,
So you're acting as if the code speeds were going up and up and up at the request of the ARRL and you needed to stop the nonsense, when in fact it was 80 years ago that they went up and stopped. Like I said, a LONG time ago.
The Indianapolis cop episode was back in 2009.
I say, you're using an issue from 80 years ago to complain about the ARRL getting code speeds raised, and yet you don't think one example of a government agency drooling over amateur frequencies from just 7 years ago is relevant? One example of an ongoing problem, whereas this radical idea of having people who wanted access to radio spectrum be able to use a mode that was very very very common back then is unacceptable to you.
In 1936 CW was a major mode, and it was important to know. You act as if it was a sin to be made to know something to get access to valuable radio spectrum IN 1936. That awful ARRL asked for increased code ability as part of an incentive licensing system. IN 1936, when ships at sea were required to have CW operators in case of emergency, and before SSB was in heavy use.
A satphone is less expensive than a trained HF operator.
But much more expensive than a VHF operator. Much more expensive. You think the only spectrum that government agencies are drooling over is the HF band? You show your ignorance again.
Iridium costs $30 per month and $0.89 per minute
My latest VHF handheld cost $40 and I pay nothing per month or minute.
You think it's a big deal to lobby against paid operators because there will be objections?
No, Bruce, like I said, I think it will be a big deal because THAT BATTLE HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST, and it was lost a long time ago by the actions of our own ARRL.
And you don't care about young people getting into Amateur Radio.
Oh, fuck you Bruce. I run regular classes and exam sessions specifically to bring in new hams. There are about 100 people who have licenses because I took my time to teach them and then run the exam sessions for them. Some of them I've lost track of, but many of them are active and using ham radio to actually save lives. My youngest licensee so far was 13 or 14. So don't tell me what I don't care about, because you are once again ignorant of the truth.
Fortunately, when the real hams go to get something done, folks like you aren't hard to fight,
More ignorance and arrogance and insult. "Real hams"? "folks like me"? You mean the ones who oppose the intrusion of outside agencies into ham bandwidth? The ones who point out that YOUR actions to make it almost trivial to get a ham license opened the door to more of this? The ones who think that it is arrogant to claim some star status because you "lobbied" to get rid of code by not using it? Well, Bruce, that same "star status" applies to a very large number of folks, and I'll point out once again that you didn't need to pass any tests to be able to use 20 wpm code, and the FCC didn't give a rat's ass that you weren't. They truly could not have cared less.
Right, "folks like us" aren't hard to fight. You don't know who "folks like us" are because you've got a persecution complex and think anyone who disagrees with you on anything you say must be arguing for those 20wpm code tests to come back.
How about just rendering everything as text? Avoid rendering URL's or HTML and you'll solve most of the problems.
There are too many broken email clients that send HTML documents without the correct headers saying it is HTML, so too many broken email clients automatically render messages that LOOK like HTML because that's probably what they ought to do.
And then you get idiots who think they need to send 50k of HTML for a one-sentence email, and get pissy when you tell them that you don't read HTML and to resend whatever the hell it was in text if they want you to get the message.
I'm pretty sure that none of the clients I use can be told to completely ignore HTML, not even a text-based client like pine. I used to have procmail strip every "Mime-Version" and "Content-Type" header in incoming email just to force the client to show it as text, but I got tired of dealing with the pissy folks from above.
Does something like this exist?
Many mail clients have provisions for PGP signing of messages. It is one of the options I have set up on my tablet for K9 mail.
For it to work in a corporate environment, it must be mandated by the company so that everyone does it, everyone must have a client that supports it, keys must exist and be distributed, and only then can everyone rely on an unsigned message being invalid. If your boss forgets to sign a message telling you to do something and you ignore it, you better have a company policy backing you up.
That puts it in the realm of a social problem, not a technical one. And it does not solve the problem of external sources of email that don't sign anything being the alleged source of the email asking you to "click here" because your train reservation has changed and you need to pay a bit extra.
The Novice license stopped being the path to entry
"Path to entry" is not the same as the lowest level license class.
Similarly, FCC actually raised code speed requirements at the behest of ARRL.
You're talking about the original move to incentive licensing where higher class licenses had access to a bit more spectrum and earned that through both more advanced testing and faster code requirements. That was a VERY long time ago. That was the system in place when I was first licensed more than 40 years ago. You make it sound like the speeds were going up up up until you came along to lobby for them to go away by simply not using code.
And that "20 wpm test" you passed? You didn't need to pass that test to use, or not use, CW at 20wpm. You needed to pass that test to get a more advanced class of license which had access to more spectrum. Please tell me that you never used any of the additional privileges that came with that license as your way of "lobbying" against that class of license, because "20 wpm CW" is not a privilege that came with passing that test or the license.
There was only a token continuing monitoring of Morse ship transmissions, now entirely gone.
Yes, as I said, the dependence on CW for maritime emergency traffic went away, and thus also the requirement in the international treaty that required it for HF frequency access.
Now there are more hams than ever, and Amateur Radio is healthy.
Yes, and many of them are government or NGO employees who are getting licenses because they are being paid to do so. Congratulations on winning.
There isn't really any reason for government agencies and NGOs to use Amateur Radio. They have satellite phones, etc.
Now you're just showing your ignorance. Do you realize how much it costs to keep a satphone account active? Do you not realize how many ham radios you can buy for that money? And do you not realize the hassle and expense involved in coordinating and building out another land mobile frequency when the ones you already have are getting close to capacity? That's if you can get another frequency at all.
Perhaps you just aren't paying attention to the FCC enforcement bureau actions regarding intruding users, such as the Indianapolis city police. They aren't the only ones who were and are picking up cheap ham radios and using them without bothering with licenses.
And perhaps you just don't realize how much money governments and NGOs can save by underbuilding their communications systems and relying on amateur radio to save them when the ice storm hits the fan.
No, they SHOULD have no reason to use amateur radio, but that's not reality. "Save money" is. "Easy to access" is. "Use free existing infrastructure" is. "Lots of open spectrum" is. All are reasons for governments and NGO to use amateur radio, so your claim that they have no reason is patent nonsense.
But if it really bothers you, why not lobby against allowing compensation for operators?
Because that battle has been lost, and it was lost when our own ARRL got their employees a special exemption. 47CFR97.113(iv) is written to such an extent that nobody but ARRL/W1AW could meet the requirements. That section is there only so ARRL can have paid employees running the W1AW code practice transmissions.
Today any attempt to get the governmental/NGO exemption removed would be met with a hailstorm of opposing comments from all those governmental and NGO that you say have no need for amateur radio, but who were very effective in presenting the case that "amateur radio saves lives" and "when all else fails
Until 2007, the U.S. Federal Government required it before they would license all but the lowest grade of Amateur Radio hobbyists.
1. The novice class license had a Morse code requirement. That was the lowest grade of amateur radio license. Five WPM.
2. The Morse code requirement was mandated by the ITU treaty (International Telecommunications Union) that required anyone who had access to HF bands (that included Novice class amateur radio licensees) to know Morse code. That requirement was based on maritime safety, as an ability to read CW could help during emergencies. Satellite and other systems have replaced the old radio op sending the weak SOS signal from a sinking vessel, so that requirement went away.
As part of my lobbying effort, I successfully passed a test for receiving code at 20 words per minute, and then subsequently refused to use the code on the air.
As if the FCC cared that you passed the test and then never used code on the air. I dare say, there were many many people who lobbied the same way -- without any effect, and without even knowing it. Does it count that I passed the test and used CW exactly once, forty years ago?
We won.
There are a lot of people who lost, or at least have a good argument that they did. If nothing else, CW was a good way of holding back the push for government agencies and NGO to get access to amateur frequencies.
With the loss of CW and the changes to the rules, all it takes for a government agency to get essentially free access to the ham bands is having their employees pass a 34 question test. At that point, paid employees can use the ham bands for exercises and drills:
NGO are limited to one hour per week but for two weeks they can be 3 days long. There is no time limit on government-sponsored "drills".
I know that government agencies are doing exactly this, because I've VEd exam sessions where they had employees getting their licenses.
You don't need autonomous vehicles or v2v communication for them to be hack able and cause major disasters.
I think the point is not that you need to have v2v/autonomous stuff, but that the problem becomes much more serious when you do. When there's a driver behind the wheel you have some backup; when the passenger is asleep and/or the car has no controls you don't.
They didn't even bother to point the yagi antenna towards the ground, for that matter.
Why would they point it towards the ground? You want to point it towards the distance radio. In the hackaday picture, it was pointed slightly above the horizon, which will put a lot more the radiation towards the distant station than pointing it at the ground would.
The antenna was attached to something that would normally be mounted somewhere, but while it was sitting on the table it was pointed a few degrees up. The radiation pattern of a yagi isn't narrow enough that you'd need to worry about being off by a few degrees, either left/right or up/down. It's not a dish.
So.... don't use debit cards? But credit cards are ok?
People sometimes say that debit and credit cards are protected the same way because the limits are the same, but that's not true.
If someone scams your debit card your money is gone until the bank decides you were scammed and puts it back, if they do. If someone scams your credit card your bank account still has money in it and the card issuer sends you a bill that you don't have to pay while the debt is being contested.
I.e., under one system the money you need to feed your family is gone gone gone; in the other you may eventually have to pay it off over time or not. Think of the children, man!
With a fiat currency they can do this anyway whether the money is kept in a bank or in cash on hand.
No, they can't. The government can't just say "Joe Smith's dollar bills aren't worth a dollar" as a way of taxing or confiscating his hard money, but they can have the bank hand over the electronic money it is holding on his behalf, or tax him on the balance.
The only thing that a "fiat" can do is devalue everyone's money, which isn't what the OP was talking about.
No reason they should, this is using either 2.4Ghz Wifi or a GSM connection, neither of which have the encryption restrictions the HAM bands use.
ProxyHam didn't have an encryption restriction, either, because it wasn't operating under amateur radio service rules. ISM 900MHz.
As soon as they start charging people. He said he doesn't want people paying for inferior quality.
Is he going to refund the money of everyone who bought an 8-track tape of his stuff? Or is he claiming that 8-tracks aren't low quality so he can avoid having to do that?
Would you say the same thing about a print artist who didn't want black an white prints of his colour works sold?
If an artist had always allowed (and still allows) black and white versions of his full color works to be sold, I would question his motives if he then claimed that monochrome versions weren't good enough representations of the same works.
You seem to miss the point that he is specifically talking about selling or renting the music he created.
The same music that he happily allows to be sold on 8-track or cassette or cheap vinyl. Or on AM radio. You do realize, I hope, that when Neil Young was relevant to anything AM radio was monaural only. That means that the precious stereo sound of his recording was totally lost. And I hope you realize that even the precious stereo of FM radio goes through a horrific pre-emphasis/de-emphasis process to try to reduce noise (which modifies his careful equalization) but it is never completely eliminated. And that stereo is a poor representation of live ambiance.
Let's talk about media not being good enough to allow distribution of a precious "life's work", but let's talk about it before it has gone on for forty years, ok? Especially when some of those media have been the equivalent of tin cans and string compared to today's digital systems that are suddenly "not good enough".