Warrants have nothing to do with this. Just because they are also part of the fourth amendment doesn't make any issue involving the other parts also an issue with warrants.
and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports
Who said that? You? It wasn't me.
You know that I'm talking about the many innocents who have their rights violated by the TSA.
I know you are substituting a different subjective word for the one really found in the fourth amendment and are now arguing based on your personal definition of that different word.
I'm not talking about *them*, I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search.
"Them" are told before they get in line they are subject to search if they go past that point. It's explicit.
TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.
I am neither a TSA apologist nor have I (incorrectly) argued that there is an implicit waiver. I was quite explicit in saying that there is an explicit waiver involved. "Go past this point and you are subject to search." You see that explicit statement and then choose to go past that point. That's an explicit waiver.
I can "want to get on a plane" all day long and I'll never be subject to a search
Man...
You claimed that people were waiving their rights just for wanting to get on a plane. Now you refuse to stand behind your own statement. I showed you were wrong. It is the act of passing the entry point of the security line that triggers the waiver, whether or not you want to get on a plane. Thousands of airport employees go through security every day without wanting to get on a plane, and I can want to get on a plane all day and never be subject to search. Man, yourself.
BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport.
So it is perfectly acceptable to you if a large corporation wants to search you and your effects prior to letting you buy their product (which you need to buy to be able to exercise other rights you have), but is not acceptable if a government does it for the very same reasons?
I pointed out the "need to buy" part because so much of the argument about TSA searches includes the idea that travel by air is an essential part of the freedom to travel and that taking other modes is not sufficient to provide "choice" in the matter. I.e., one needs to travel, and travel by other-than-air is not a reasonable mode to accomplish that.
Would you be comfortable with Comcast, e.g., assuming the right to search your computer to make sure you did not use or had not used their internet service for illegal activity? By the way, part of the contract you sign with them includes a section prohibiting use of their service for illegal activities.
No. The government absolutely does not have the power to force people to surrender their constitutional liberties (either implicitly or explicitly) just because someone wants to do something completely innocuous.
You've now substituted the word "innocuous" for the fourth's "unreasonable" and are applying your own subjective definition to it. Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.
If you feel the government should have unlimited power,
I don't believe any rational person could read what I wrote and come away with the idea I think the government should have unlimited power. I pointed out that the claim that rights were being waived "implicitly" was wrong, and even went so far as to specifically say I was not talking about "right or wrong".
The implicit part is because they technically haven't explicitly said that they want to.
It is quite explicit, if you can read simple English when you pass by the sign. They've said "they want to" search you before you ever reach a point where they actually search you.
Instead, it's said to be implicit in the fact that they want to get on a plane.
I can "want to get on a plane" all day long and I'll never be subject to a search, UNTIL I walk past that sign that says explicitly that by passing this point I am subject to search. There is no "implicit" involved. There may be "inherent" (i.e., "as a part of"), but "implicit" ("not specifically stated"), nope.
Because it is almost a certainty that were Netflix to manage to provide the fiber to send their data to their subs, it would be based on internet technologies and protocols. You know there is a small-i internet and large-I Internet, and you can have one that is limited in access while the other one is the worldwide interconnect of all the small-i versions, don't you? (And before you point out that ISP has a capital 'I', that's because it is an acronym, not necessarily because it is only talking about large-I internet services.)
The point is, anything that connects a million users together is not a "dedicated point-to-point link". It is more like an internet, and when one provides service over that internet, one is for all intents and purposes and ISP, or very much like one. Especially if one is doing all the last-mile connections and other companies want to get their data on your fiber. That is, after all, what people are trying to get cable companies to do -- open their pipes to other providers.
By your logic, a cable TV network (with no data services) is an ISP because they are running a backbone and providing content.
Yes, if a company is providing a service based on internet protocols and technology then they look very much like an ISP. You plug your internet connection into their hardware, access their servers, ditto.
Unfortunately for your argument here, cable TV networks are not distributing their standard video content using internet protocols, and one does not connect to a cable TV video server to get it. They use ATV standards to distribute their legacy products, which removes them from the ISP look-alike competition. Even for on-demand services where there may be an internet-based upstream connection to make the request for video, it is still delivered using ATV. At least that's how Comcast does it.
The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something.
It's not implicit, it is pretty explicit. There are signs in every security checkpoint line I've been through that clearly say that by entering this line your person and property are subject to search. I've also seen those signs at the exit of the checkpoint telling people that by being in the secured area they are subject to search. Right or wrong, it isn't implicit.
I don't know about you, but I am not upset that those who "wish to do something", when "something" means "enter a jail or prison to visit a prisoner", are forced to waive their fourth amendment rights in order to do so. Ditto those who want to enter a military facility.
Now, you might have a very strong argument when "something" means "mandatory appearance for jury duty" and you are instructed to put your bags and property through an x-ray machine while passing through a metal detector. You are being ordered under threat of force to appear and then searched when you do.
Direct point-to-point links have no demands for other content.
Netflix putting all subs on one fiber is not a "direct point to point link", any more than all of comcast's subs in a community being on one fiber is. If Netflix is running the backbone and doing the content they are, for all intents and purposes, acting as an ISP.
Hardcoded speed limits are stupid, since conditions change constantly. The only way I can see speed limit signs making sense is if they're electronic and change with the road conditions.
You don't understand what a speed limit sign means, then. It isn't "this is the safest speed" or "this is the required speed", it is "this is the maximum speed".
If conditions prevent you from going the posted speed limit it doesn't change the fact that the posted speed limit is a maximum. The conditions determine the safe speed and that's what you'll get ticketed for breaking, even if it is below the maximum posted.
Its not. And its highly unlikely to fall afoul of the law. That was my point.
Unfortunately, the exemption you quoted doesn't cover what I am doing, so it would run afoul of the law. That's MY point. It's a bad law that tries to outlaw stuff that isn't "douchebaggery", and calling it such doesn't forward the discussion in any way.
Nor are going out of your way to record them in any way;
Does the proposed law say you have to "go out of your way"?
and presumably you'll blur or edit them out before you post any video/stills online... so...
Yes, so? The criminal act is not posting them online, it is filming them in the first place. I can only "delete them after I learn of the law" to avoid legal trouble, so the second time I fly my drone I'm guilty -- for flying my own drone in my own backyard with the clear intent of videoing only my backyard. Oops, caught a bit of the neighbors again. Here come the cops....
How about we figure out exactly what it is you want to outlaw and then write the laws to make specifically that illegal, instead of simply adding "with a drone" to laws that already exist?
Or, pull a Google, and do one town at a time and watch the incumbents suddenly offer free peerage and lower rates.
"One town at a time" was pretty much how the incumbents got where they are. Yes, they bought out other companies to get to the size they are, but those companies did it one town at a time, for the most part. Nobody fell off the turnip truck with billions of dollars putting cable in a hundred cities at the same time. It's like nobody comes out of the womb weighing 600 pounds, it takes a lot of time to get there, and THEN you get your own TV show.
Anyone who thinks they'll get to be the next Comcast or TWC by a massive multi-city buildout is, well, I'd rather they not clutter up the neighborhood with their poorly planned systems. They'll only be in the way of, and muddy the waters for, the next real competitor.
Hastings says, "Consider this: A single fiber-optic strand the diameter of a human hair can carry 101.7 terabits of data per second, enough to support nearly every Netflix subscriber watching content in HD at the same time.
Now, if we could only get every Netflix sub to connect to the same human-hair sized fiber, the problem would be solved. Netflix could even own that fiber and control their own destiny.
Of course, there might be other content providers who are then clamoring for legislative assistance to force Netflix to carry their content on the Netflix fiber...
It doesn't appear the law would make that illegal. It proposes to make filming people unawares from a drone illegal. Catching a "bit of someone elses back yard" while flying in your own hardly sounds like you are filming other people.
Well, if it is "filming" that is illegal, great. I have no film camera on my drone. Otherwise, yes, if "people" happen to be in that bit of backyard and my camera is catching that same bit of backyard, the people will be "filmed" along with everything else.
I must have really missed something. Where did it say they may damage the drone in your own backyard based simply on a suspicion that it MIGHT have a camera?
That suggestion has come up in the discussion.
But perhaps, just perhaps, the proposed law doesn't specify it has to be "from a drone".
As is true for all discussions, we can only discuss what is in front of us and cannot discuss what is not.
"However, the proposal has many exceptions, which include permissible taping and photographing for mapping or artistic or journalistic purposes as long as the recording shows several residences and no individual is identifiable.
Well, if I'm taking video of me in my own backyard them I'm identifiable, and I'm going to hazard a guess that those people in my neighbor's yard that is in view will be identifiable, and I'm not doing artistic or journalistic operations...
So it seems pretty clear that unless you are being a douchebag,
Yeah, because using my own drone to video in my own backyard is SUCH a douchebaggy thing to do, because it might possibly see over the fence I PAID TO INSTALL and catch a bit of you in your yard while I'm using it.
are just hysterics.
Thanks for your reasoned discussion and lack of insult.
Censorship occurs when things are censored, government or not.
What an absolutely marvelous definition, and I bet you love it that way. It's no different than "I don't know the definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it!" It allows you to cry "censorship" every time someone stops you from saying something, even if they are only stopping you from saying it using their property.
The difference between "censor" and "racist" is, of course, that "censor" implies an official capacity to perform (and enforce) that action, and "racist" implies nothing of the sort.
Censorship is an action that anyone can do, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, in a multitude ways with a broad spectrum of severity.
And that overly-broad definition of the word changes it from something useful and with significant meaning into a word useful only for conveying the perjorative connotation that the limited definition has. It is dishonest to use a word in a newer, very broad sense to attempt to evoke the response based on the older, narrower meaning.
I mean, cries of "censorship!" because a website owner won't let you post babble on his site is exactly that: implying the website owner is an awful person who is squelching your freedoms when he is simply invoking his own. It is no different than trying to brand someone as a "rapist" when the truth was that he had sex with his wife and she wasn't the initiator.
If you think that it is only limited to a niche type of occurrence and doesn't apply to you then you're pretty damn closed-minded.
Nothing about trying to use the word in its true, limited, serious meaning says anything about a belief that censorship can never be applied to someone or that it cannot happen.
It's worthy of protection against censorship the same way that anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion sentiments are worthy of protection, despite how offensive they are to you and me.
I run several websites, and if you think you're going to get me to let you post your anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion sentiments on any of them out of some concern for protecting such speech, you have another think coming. It is not censorship if I keep your comments off, no more so than if I were an editor to a newspaper and I did not select one of your letters to the editor containing such babble for publication.
Non-sequitor. "Because the city council are doofuses" is not an answer to "why should the platform matter?"
So the rules and norms for already in place for photography are reasonably adequate.
I think the point I was trying to make was exactly that. This law is a waste of time. As for "the norms", I don't care what you think the norms are when the issue is legal or not.
But that's ultimately a circular argument, since the definition is going to be one that includes "taking low altitude shots of people otherwise unaware, from vantage points a photographer could not normally stand, such as from a drone" anyway;
It doesn't have to include such specificity IF THE PLATFORM DOESN'T MATTER. And why should it? If the goal is to make "doing X" illegal, then make that illegal and don't waste time adding "from a drone".
The law is an very imperfect expression of what society wants the rules to be,
The law is a very imperfect expression of what society wants the LAWS to be. The "rules", such as "rudeness", are very much different.
If your complaint is that you should be able to take photos of your neighbors yard from a drone, then we don't.
I think it should not be illegal for me to fly my drone in my backyard just because the focal length of the lens on the camera it carries means it will take images of my backyard and a bit of someone else's. Certainly the law should not allow someone to damage my drone while I am flying it in my backyard just because they are paranoid that it might have a camera and that the camera might be catching them in its view.
but maybe at a reduced speed to allow for the conditions.
They BETTER reduce speed for the conditions, because that's the law that the humans they are replacing are supposed to obey. That's one of the explicit exemptions to a sign that says the speed limit is 55, for example. If conditions don't support going 55, the speed limit isn't 55 anymore, and you can easily be cited for going "too fast for conditions", even if you're doing 20 in a 55.
If you can see it from your deck, then it should be obvious to you that have NOT taken steps to make their backyard private from you.
It may be obvious to you, but sadly, it is not obvious to me. The only thing that is obvious is that an argument that is based on being "obvious" is often not so.
They may or may not have taken steps to make their backyard private from me. They may not realize I can see into their yard from my deck, so they believe that the steps they have taken are sufficient, OR they may have taken no steps at all because they don't know of a problem (or they simply don't care).
I cannot infer their intent in this regard. They may have installed a fence which is insufficient at blocking my view. Did they install a 5 foot fence because they didn't care about me seeing them, or because they couldn't afford a six foot fence? And what if a six foot fence (the highest I could install in my neighborhood without a permit) isn't high enough to block my view?
Out of curiosity, even if it were legal, do you honestly think you should be
The issue is not "should be", it is a matter of legality.
My problem with this proposed legal solution to, as you put it, "rudeness", is that it makes it illegal to take a picture using a camera on a drone but does not make it illegal to take the same picture without the drone. Why should the platform matter, when the alleged goal is "privacy" and the taking of pictures? Should there be a law that makes it illegal to use a tripod with a camera to take pictures of people that violate their privacy? How about using a stedi-cam to do the same thing? Can I throw my camera up in the air to get over-the-fence shots? No drone involved in any of those.
This question was answered in the post to which you replied; "equipment tolerances" was the reason given.
Three mph for equipment. If you get a mechanical cite, you get the problem fixed and show the repair receipt to the court and they cancel the ticket. Or you use your GPS which has no mechanical error and calibrate your own speedometer and don't go faster than the plus 3 over the 110%.
So, the question remains, if the ACTUAL speed limit is 1.1 times X plus three, why not put that on the sign and let everyone know, instead of making people think X is the speed limit and have some people holding the others up by going below the real speed limit?
TARDIS racks are great! I can get 932U of equipment in the space of a normal 42U rack, and I get the results before I enter my data!
I don' t need a rack of equipment, I just use the spare cycles in my screwdriver and let it cogitate for 400 years on the problem. Sometimes linear programming works better than parallel.
but there is no ambiguity in the standard for which symbol stands for kilo.
However, there is considerable confusion over which symbol stands for "mega". I see people talking about mHz all the time, and when I point out that they are off by 9 orders of magnitude their eyes just glaze over.
I think you mean something like "unwittingly installed program" then.
No, I think I meant what I said. While Y and Z may also be "unwittingly installed", they are potentially unwanted because there is a good possibility that they were not wanted in the first place. Until the user is asked explicitly, you don't know if he wants them or not, so the potential exists.
You could knowingly install an application and still retain the potential for not-wanting it.
The act of knowingly installing it contradicts that. If you don't want it, don't make the choice to install it. Now, it may be that they are wanted just to be evaluated and then they are no longer wanted, or they are wanted because someone who has control over the person who installs them wants them, but the want at the time of the install is still in evidence.
Any program/application is *potentially* unwanted.
If you've clicked on a link that says "install program X", then program X is no longer potentially unwanted. That's the line. Potentially unwanted applies to the programs Y and Z that are bundled in with program X and install without you asking for them. You may want Y and Z or you may not, thus they are potentially unwanted.
Yes, the second article linked in the summary does not call the passport a fake, but neither does it call it real. The article talks about "passport fraud", which is using either a real or fake passport in a fraudulent way, or providing false data for a real passport.
It is a reasonable assumption that the passport was real based on the fact the government had a copy of it. Why the BBC would call it a fake, then, is a question.
Google says it will show a warning in Chrome whenever an attempt is made to trick you into downloading and installing such software.
That's... hilarious? I've always considered Chrome to be PUP or PUA considering how it always seemed to be downloaded with something else. I've had to remove Chrome from so many systems where someone has updated some other program and Chrome came along for the ride, sometimes even when I've installed other things and didn't pay extremely close attention. Now Chrome is going to rat out other programs that do the same thing!
Slashdot Mirror
General warrants are unconstitutional,
Warrants have nothing to do with this. Just because they are also part of the fourth amendment doesn't make any issue involving the other parts also an issue with warrants.
and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports
Who said that? You? It wasn't me.
You know that I'm talking about the many innocents who have their rights violated by the TSA.
I know you are substituting a different subjective word for the one really found in the fourth amendment and are now arguing based on your personal definition of that different word.
I'm not talking about *them*, I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search.
"Them" are told before they get in line they are subject to search if they go past that point. It's explicit.
TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.
I am neither a TSA apologist nor have I (incorrectly) argued that there is an implicit waiver. I was quite explicit in saying that there is an explicit waiver involved. "Go past this point and you are subject to search." You see that explicit statement and then choose to go past that point. That's an explicit waiver.
I can "want to get on a plane" all day long and I'll never be subject to a search
Man...
You claimed that people were waiving their rights just for wanting to get on a plane. Now you refuse to stand behind your own statement. I showed you were wrong. It is the act of passing the entry point of the security line that triggers the waiver, whether or not you want to get on a plane. Thousands of airport employees go through security every day without wanting to get on a plane, and I can want to get on a plane all day and never be subject to search. Man, yourself.
BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport.
So it is perfectly acceptable to you if a large corporation wants to search you and your effects prior to letting you buy their product (which you need to buy to be able to exercise other rights you have), but is not acceptable if a government does it for the very same reasons?
I pointed out the "need to buy" part because so much of the argument about TSA searches includes the idea that travel by air is an essential part of the freedom to travel and that taking other modes is not sufficient to provide "choice" in the matter. I.e., one needs to travel, and travel by other-than-air is not a reasonable mode to accomplish that.
Would you be comfortable with Comcast, e.g., assuming the right to search your computer to make sure you did not use or had not used their internet service for illegal activity? By the way, part of the contract you sign with them includes a section prohibiting use of their service for illegal activities.
No. The government absolutely does not have the power to force people to surrender their constitutional liberties (either implicitly or explicitly) just because someone wants to do something completely innocuous.
You've now substituted the word "innocuous" for the fourth's "unreasonable" and are applying your own subjective definition to it. Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.
If you feel the government should have unlimited power,
I don't believe any rational person could read what I wrote and come away with the idea I think the government should have unlimited power. I pointed out that the claim that rights were being waived "implicitly" was wrong, and even went so far as to specifically say I was not talking about "right or wrong".
The implicit part is because they technically haven't explicitly said that they want to.
It is quite explicit, if you can read simple English when you pass by the sign. They've said "they want to" search you before you ever reach a point where they actually search you.
Instead, it's said to be implicit in the fact that they want to get on a plane.
I can "want to get on a plane" all day long and I'll never be subject to a search, UNTIL I walk past that sign that says explicitly that by passing this point I am subject to search. There is no "implicit" involved. There may be "inherent" (i.e., "as a part of"), but "implicit" ("not specifically stated"), nope.
Why is the "I" in there?
Because it is almost a certainty that were Netflix to manage to provide the fiber to send their data to their subs, it would be based on internet technologies and protocols. You know there is a small-i internet and large-I Internet, and you can have one that is limited in access while the other one is the worldwide interconnect of all the small-i versions, don't you? (And before you point out that ISP has a capital 'I', that's because it is an acronym, not necessarily because it is only talking about large-I internet services.)
The point is, anything that connects a million users together is not a "dedicated point-to-point link". It is more like an internet, and when one provides service over that internet, one is for all intents and purposes and ISP, or very much like one. Especially if one is doing all the last-mile connections and other companies want to get their data on your fiber. That is, after all, what people are trying to get cable companies to do -- open their pipes to other providers.
By your logic, a cable TV network (with no data services) is an ISP because they are running a backbone and providing content.
Yes, if a company is providing a service based on internet protocols and technology then they look very much like an ISP. You plug your internet connection into their hardware, access their servers, ditto.
Unfortunately for your argument here, cable TV networks are not distributing their standard video content using internet protocols, and one does not connect to a cable TV video server to get it. They use ATV standards to distribute their legacy products, which removes them from the ISP look-alike competition. Even for on-demand services where there may be an internet-based upstream connection to make the request for video, it is still delivered using ATV. At least that's how Comcast does it.
The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something.
It's not implicit, it is pretty explicit. There are signs in every security checkpoint line I've been through that clearly say that by entering this line your person and property are subject to search. I've also seen those signs at the exit of the checkpoint telling people that by being in the secured area they are subject to search. Right or wrong, it isn't implicit.
I don't know about you, but I am not upset that those who "wish to do something", when "something" means "enter a jail or prison to visit a prisoner", are forced to waive their fourth amendment rights in order to do so. Ditto those who want to enter a military facility.
Now, you might have a very strong argument when "something" means "mandatory appearance for jury duty" and you are instructed to put your bags and property through an x-ray machine while passing through a metal detector. You are being ordered under threat of force to appear and then searched when you do.
Direct point-to-point links have no demands for other content.
Netflix putting all subs on one fiber is not a "direct point to point link", any more than all of comcast's subs in a community being on one fiber is. If Netflix is running the backbone and doing the content they are, for all intents and purposes, acting as an ISP.
Hardcoded speed limits are stupid, since conditions change constantly. The only way I can see speed limit signs making sense is if they're electronic and change with the road conditions.
You don't understand what a speed limit sign means, then. It isn't "this is the safest speed" or "this is the required speed", it is "this is the maximum speed".
If conditions prevent you from going the posted speed limit it doesn't change the fact that the posted speed limit is a maximum. The conditions determine the safe speed and that's what you'll get ticketed for breaking, even if it is below the maximum posted.
Its not. And its highly unlikely to fall afoul of the law. That was my point.
Unfortunately, the exemption you quoted doesn't cover what I am doing, so it would run afoul of the law. That's MY point. It's a bad law that tries to outlaw stuff that isn't "douchebaggery", and calling it such doesn't forward the discussion in any way.
Nor are going out of your way to record them in any way;
Does the proposed law say you have to "go out of your way"?
and presumably you'll blur or edit them out before you post any video/stills online... so...
Yes, so? The criminal act is not posting them online, it is filming them in the first place. I can only "delete them after I learn of the law" to avoid legal trouble, so the second time I fly my drone I'm guilty -- for flying my own drone in my own backyard with the clear intent of videoing only my backyard. Oops, caught a bit of the neighbors again. Here come the cops....
How about we figure out exactly what it is you want to outlaw and then write the laws to make specifically that illegal, instead of simply adding "with a drone" to laws that already exist?
Or, pull a Google, and do one town at a time and watch the incumbents suddenly offer free peerage and lower rates.
"One town at a time" was pretty much how the incumbents got where they are. Yes, they bought out other companies to get to the size they are, but those companies did it one town at a time, for the most part. Nobody fell off the turnip truck with billions of dollars putting cable in a hundred cities at the same time. It's like nobody comes out of the womb weighing 600 pounds, it takes a lot of time to get there, and THEN you get your own TV show.
Anyone who thinks they'll get to be the next Comcast or TWC by a massive multi-city buildout is, well, I'd rather they not clutter up the neighborhood with their poorly planned systems. They'll only be in the way of, and muddy the waters for, the next real competitor.
Hastings says, "Consider this: A single fiber-optic strand the diameter of a human hair can carry 101.7 terabits of data per second, enough to support nearly every Netflix subscriber watching content in HD at the same time.
Now, if we could only get every Netflix sub to connect to the same human-hair sized fiber, the problem would be solved. Netflix could even own that fiber and control their own destiny.
Of course, there might be other content providers who are then clamoring for legislative assistance to force Netflix to carry their content on the Netflix fiber...
It doesn't appear the law would make that illegal. It proposes to make filming people unawares from a drone illegal. Catching a "bit of someone elses back yard" while flying in your own hardly sounds like you are filming other people.
Well, if it is "filming" that is illegal, great. I have no film camera on my drone. Otherwise, yes, if "people" happen to be in that bit of backyard and my camera is catching that same bit of backyard, the people will be "filmed" along with everything else.
I must have really missed something. Where did it say they may damage the drone in your own backyard based simply on a suspicion that it MIGHT have a camera?
That suggestion has come up in the discussion.
But perhaps, just perhaps, the proposed law doesn't specify it has to be "from a drone".
As is true for all discussions, we can only discuss what is in front of us and cannot discuss what is not.
"However, the proposal has many exceptions, which include permissible taping and photographing for mapping or artistic or journalistic purposes as long as the recording shows several residences and no individual is identifiable.
Well, if I'm taking video of me in my own backyard them I'm identifiable, and I'm going to hazard a guess that those people in my neighbor's yard that is in view will be identifiable, and I'm not doing artistic or journalistic operations ...
So it seems pretty clear that unless you are being a douchebag,
Yeah, because using my own drone to video in my own backyard is SUCH a douchebaggy thing to do, because it might possibly see over the fence I PAID TO INSTALL and catch a bit of you in your yard while I'm using it.
are just hysterics.
Thanks for your reasoned discussion and lack of insult.
Censorship occurs when things are censored, government or not.
What an absolutely marvelous definition, and I bet you love it that way. It's no different than "I don't know the definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it!" It allows you to cry "censorship" every time someone stops you from saying something, even if they are only stopping you from saying it using their property.
The difference between "censor" and "racist" is, of course, that "censor" implies an official capacity to perform (and enforce) that action, and "racist" implies nothing of the sort.
Censorship is an action that anyone can do, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, in a multitude ways with a broad spectrum of severity.
And that overly-broad definition of the word changes it from something useful and with significant meaning into a word useful only for conveying the perjorative connotation that the limited definition has. It is dishonest to use a word in a newer, very broad sense to attempt to evoke the response based on the older, narrower meaning.
I mean, cries of "censorship!" because a website owner won't let you post babble on his site is exactly that: implying the website owner is an awful person who is squelching your freedoms when he is simply invoking his own. It is no different than trying to brand someone as a "rapist" when the truth was that he had sex with his wife and she wasn't the initiator.
If you think that it is only limited to a niche type of occurrence and doesn't apply to you then you're pretty damn closed-minded.
Nothing about trying to use the word in its true, limited, serious meaning says anything about a belief that censorship can never be applied to someone or that it cannot happen.
It's worthy of protection against censorship the same way that anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion sentiments are worthy of protection, despite how offensive they are to you and me.
I run several websites, and if you think you're going to get me to let you post your anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion sentiments on any of them out of some concern for protecting such speech, you have another think coming. It is not censorship if I keep your comments off, no more so than if I were an editor to a newspaper and I did not select one of your letters to the editor containing such babble for publication.
The law reacts to a perceived problem,
Non-sequitor. "Because the city council are doofuses" is not an answer to "why should the platform matter?"
So the rules and norms for already in place for photography are reasonably adequate.
I think the point I was trying to make was exactly that. This law is a waste of time. As for "the norms", I don't care what you think the norms are when the issue is legal or not.
But that's ultimately a circular argument, since the definition is going to be one that includes "taking low altitude shots of people otherwise unaware, from vantage points a photographer could not normally stand, such as from a drone" anyway;
It doesn't have to include such specificity IF THE PLATFORM DOESN'T MATTER. And why should it? If the goal is to make "doing X" illegal, then make that illegal and don't waste time adding "from a drone".
The law is an very imperfect expression of what society wants the rules to be,
The law is a very imperfect expression of what society wants the LAWS to be. The "rules", such as "rudeness", are very much different.
If your complaint is that you should be able to take photos of your neighbors yard from a drone, then we don't.
I think it should not be illegal for me to fly my drone in my backyard just because the focal length of the lens on the camera it carries means it will take images of my backyard and a bit of someone else's. Certainly the law should not allow someone to damage my drone while I am flying it in my backyard just because they are paranoid that it might have a camera and that the camera might be catching them in its view.
Yes, I guess we disagree.
but maybe at a reduced speed to allow for the conditions.
They BETTER reduce speed for the conditions, because that's the law that the humans they are replacing are supposed to obey. That's one of the explicit exemptions to a sign that says the speed limit is 55, for example. If conditions don't support going 55, the speed limit isn't 55 anymore, and you can easily be cited for going "too fast for conditions", even if you're doing 20 in a 55.
If you can see it from your deck, then it should be obvious to you that have NOT taken steps to make their backyard private from you.
It may be obvious to you, but sadly, it is not obvious to me. The only thing that is obvious is that an argument that is based on being "obvious" is often not so.
They may or may not have taken steps to make their backyard private from me. They may not realize I can see into their yard from my deck, so they believe that the steps they have taken are sufficient, OR they may have taken no steps at all because they don't know of a problem (or they simply don't care).
I cannot infer their intent in this regard. They may have installed a fence which is insufficient at blocking my view. Did they install a 5 foot fence because they didn't care about me seeing them, or because they couldn't afford a six foot fence? And what if a six foot fence (the highest I could install in my neighborhood without a permit) isn't high enough to block my view?
Out of curiosity, even if it were legal, do you honestly think you should be
The issue is not "should be", it is a matter of legality.
My problem with this proposed legal solution to, as you put it, "rudeness", is that it makes it illegal to take a picture using a camera on a drone but does not make it illegal to take the same picture without the drone. Why should the platform matter, when the alleged goal is "privacy" and the taking of pictures? Should there be a law that makes it illegal to use a tripod with a camera to take pictures of people that violate their privacy? How about using a stedi-cam to do the same thing? Can I throw my camera up in the air to get over-the-fence shots? No drone involved in any of those.
This question was answered in the post to which you replied; "equipment tolerances" was the reason given.
Three mph for equipment. If you get a mechanical cite, you get the problem fixed and show the repair receipt to the court and they cancel the ticket. Or you use your GPS which has no mechanical error and calibrate your own speedometer and don't go faster than the plus 3 over the 110%.
So, the question remains, if the ACTUAL speed limit is 1.1 times X plus three, why not put that on the sign and let everyone know, instead of making people think X is the speed limit and have some people holding the others up by going below the real speed limit?
TARDIS racks are great! I can get 932U of equipment in the space of a normal 42U rack, and I get the results before I enter my data!
I don' t need a rack of equipment, I just use the spare cycles in my screwdriver and let it cogitate for 400 years on the problem. Sometimes linear programming works better than parallel.
It's from the french ... you know, mille
I knew Millie. She was Irish.
(So I guess a billion would be MMM etc).
Except for Millie, who would call MMMM a billion (million million).
but there is no ambiguity in the standard for which symbol stands for kilo.
However, there is considerable confusion over which symbol stands for "mega". I see people talking about mHz all the time, and when I point out that they are off by 9 orders of magnitude their eyes just glaze over.
Also networking companies who advertise 12mbps.
I think you mean something like "unwittingly installed program" then.
No, I think I meant what I said. While Y and Z may also be "unwittingly installed", they are potentially unwanted because there is a good possibility that they were not wanted in the first place. Until the user is asked explicitly, you don't know if he wants them or not, so the potential exists.
You could knowingly install an application and still retain the potential for not-wanting it.
The act of knowingly installing it contradicts that. If you don't want it, don't make the choice to install it. Now, it may be that they are wanted just to be evaluated and then they are no longer wanted, or they are wanted because someone who has control over the person who installs them wants them, but the want at the time of the install is still in evidence.
Can you name an app that bundles Chrome?
No, it has been long enough ago that I don't remember which did.
I know they did because that was the only way it ever made its way onto one of my systems.
Any program/application is *potentially* unwanted.
If you've clicked on a link that says "install program X", then program X is no longer potentially unwanted. That's the line. Potentially unwanted applies to the programs Y and Z that are bundled in with program X and install without you asking for them. You may want Y and Z or you may not, thus they are potentially unwanted.
This article does not: http://www.fbi.gov/news/storie...
Yes, the second article linked in the summary does not call the passport a fake, but neither does it call it real. The article talks about "passport fraud", which is using either a real or fake passport in a fraudulent way, or providing false data for a real passport.
It is a reasonable assumption that the passport was real based on the fact the government had a copy of it. Why the BBC would call it a fake, then, is a question.
Google says it will show a warning in Chrome whenever an attempt is made to trick you into downloading and installing such software.
That's ... hilarious? I've always considered Chrome to be PUP or PUA considering how it always seemed to be downloaded with something else. I've had to remove Chrome from so many systems where someone has updated some other program and Chrome came along for the ride, sometimes even when I've installed other things and didn't pay extremely close attention. Now Chrome is going to rat out other programs that do the same thing!