Let's assume that in some critical area there are now 1000 people flying dangerous-looking drones. It's impossible to know whether any particular drone is being flown by someone dangerously ignorant or downright malicious
After the regulation becomes well known, maybe 10 people will be flying drones, and it's a much better bet that all those drones are flown by someone ignorant or malicious. Downing drones under the new conditions becomes easier for the police, safer for the general public, and more likely to catch the malicious actor.
There have already been drones brought down around the Capitol building. Were they flown by fools, or were they dry runs by Islamists?
The potential for human death caused by turtle-plane collisions is low, much lower than the potential for human death caused by human-drone collisions. Unless perhaps there are airplanes in those regions where turtles fly.
They may obey it because police will assume, with good reason, that anybody violating the ban has a drone full of explosives headed for the Oval Office. The police will respond accordingly, and the violator will be incapable of trying a second time.
Climatology cannot make valid testable predictions because it can neither control for nor measure all critical inputs. The particular variable most egregious in this regard is the heat released by the Earth's core.
New Hampshire has all proposed legislation visible on the internet. A couple of years ago, I spent 6 hours reading as many biils as I could as fast as I could in preparation for meeting with the local representative. I was able to read about 1/4 of the bills currently up for consideration, and I wasn't able to consider any of them carefully. This is going to be worse for a bigger state, and far worse for the federal government. It is the job of legislators to know what's happening, and when they are denied the ability to read the bill before voting on it (Obamacare, among others) they should vote against it.
Read what you can, mail or email your representative. If a bill is particularly important, either beneficial or egregious, join or form an organization or campaign to deluge multiple legislators with your views. Few if any people have the ability to follow all legislative activity (not to mention the even more voluminous [and unconstitutional] regulatory activity.) Voting on it all is foolish, although if every action and expenditure required a majority of eligible voters, there might be some advantage.
You have an inability to understand what you read. "The US system is designed to provide a modified democratic system with protections..." That the system has not been entirely successful in achieving purpose of its design, does not mean that the design purpose wasn't as stated.
inability of the people to protest through any means except the occasional ballot box offering where they don't even have a real choices.
United States Constitution, Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Alternative: get the government out of it. Airlines assume full responsibility for a safe flight, with no limit on liability. Plane goes down by terrorist action, airline executives are stripped of all possessions.
Part of the issue is "Where's the dividing line?" In the US in the days of film cameras, in the absence of other agreements the owner of the film owned the images. How intrusive and intimate do the images have to be before the subject can demand possession or destruction of the images? If there's more than one subject, does each subject have veto power over preservation of the images? Were the images taken indoors? In a public place? Video of sex acts is far more intrusive than nude stills, should they be treated differently under the law? If there's a video or a series of images of a striptease, at what point does the subject gain control?
In my opinion, in this case if the law rules that the subject controls the content forever, then the subject demanding destruction should pay the photographer a reasonable fee (determined by the court) for the loss of personal (not commercial) value to the photographer, not to exceed the cost of materials and labor involved in creating the images.
The control group is the other 5 billion people. "Peer reviewed journals or conferences" is not science.
There's more to science than just controlled experiments. Observing the survival (or death) of the bacteria in the blood or other parts of the body would have scientific value, as would before-and-after comparisons of cells that might be affected.
This is a classic argument against change: "Proposed change is not perfect, so let's rather do nothing"
Wrong. His argument is that the change makes things worse.
The argument that I should buy insurance because something might go wrong can be based on a number of falsehoods: misuse of statistics, failure to understand how insurance companies make money, ignorance of morality, and others. The morality issue is particularly galling: you assume that I am too cowardly to accept the risk for my own actions; you assume that an industry pandering to cowardice (the insurance industry) can be moral.
The recession is due mostly to Democrat-passed bills that Bush Jr. was unable to get repealed. We have not recovered from the recession; the statistics used to make the claim of recovery (e.g. unemployment rate) are not relevant to the actual end of a recession.
Bush Jr. did do things that made a bad economy worse, e.g. the bailouts and near-zero interest rates. Obama continued those policies.
There is a significant difference between a merely incompetent president and one who is actively evil. Obama stands out as being almost purely evil in his role as President; his goal of destroying America is limited only by his laziness.
The Old Man of the Mountain is now a part of the scree in the Franconia Notch. Nobody is interested in that pile of rocks, nobody considers the rubble to be cultural heritage.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's assume that in some critical area there are now 1000 people flying dangerous-looking drones. It's impossible to know whether any particular drone is being flown by someone dangerously ignorant or downright malicious
After the regulation becomes well known, maybe 10 people will be flying drones, and it's a much better bet that all those drones are flown by someone ignorant or malicious. Downing drones under the new conditions becomes easier for the police, safer for the general public, and more likely to catch the malicious actor.
There have already been drones brought down around the Capitol building. Were they flown by fools, or were they dry runs by Islamists?
Because that always solves problems. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "need"?
Of course not. They've spent all their money on $400 sneakers.
The potential for human death caused by turtle-plane collisions is low, much lower than the potential for human death caused by human-drone collisions. Unless perhaps there are airplanes in those regions where turtles fly.
They may obey it because police will assume, with good reason, that anybody violating the ban has a drone full of explosives headed for the Oval Office. The police will respond accordingly, and the violator will be incapable of trying a second time.
Although of negligible practical use, some vinyl reproduction systems are capable of playback to well beyond 30 kHz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph#Styluses_.28or_.22Styli.22.29
Climatology cannot make valid testable predictions because it can neither control for nor measure all critical inputs. The particular variable most egregious in this regard is the heat released by the Earth's core.
New Hampshire has all proposed legislation visible on the internet. A couple of years ago, I spent 6 hours reading as many biils as I could as fast as I could in preparation for meeting with the local representative. I was able to read about 1/4 of the bills currently up for consideration, and I wasn't able to consider any of them carefully. This is going to be worse for a bigger state, and far worse for the federal government. It is the job of legislators to know what's happening, and when they are denied the ability to read the bill before voting on it (Obamacare, among others) they should vote against it.
Read what you can, mail or email your representative. If a bill is particularly important, either beneficial or egregious, join or form an organization or campaign to deluge multiple legislators with your views. Few if any people have the ability to follow all legislative activity (not to mention the even more voluminous [and unconstitutional] regulatory activity.) Voting on it all is foolish, although if every action and expenditure required a majority of eligible voters, there might be some advantage.
"Big money pushing laws" would be more like a plutocracy.
You have an inability to understand what you read. "The US system is designed to provide a modified democratic system with protections..." That the system has not been entirely successful in achieving purpose of its design, does not mean that the design purpose wasn't as stated.
United States Constitution, Amendment 1:
Alternative: get the government out of it. Airlines assume full responsibility for a safe flight, with no limit on liability. Plane goes down by terrorist action, airline executives are stripped of all possessions.
"Three removes is as bad as one fire" comes from Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac". (Bartlett's Familiar Quotations).
This is why I own a calculator.
If, after a year, a live-in girlfriend is considered a common-law wife, she can get alimony. Consider the Lee Marvin case.
Part of the issue is "Where's the dividing line?" In the US in the days of film cameras, in the absence of other agreements the owner of the film owned the images. How intrusive and intimate do the images have to be before the subject can demand possession or destruction of the images? If there's more than one subject, does each subject have veto power over preservation of the images? Were the images taken indoors? In a public place? Video of sex acts is far more intrusive than nude stills, should they be treated differently under the law? If there's a video or a series of images of a striptease, at what point does the subject gain control?
In my opinion, in this case if the law rules that the subject controls the content forever, then the subject demanding destruction should pay the photographer a reasonable fee (determined by the court) for the loss of personal (not commercial) value to the photographer, not to exceed the cost of materials and labor involved in creating the images.
and others, including gradations between those possibilities.
The control group is the other 5 billion people. "Peer reviewed journals or conferences" is not science.
There's more to science than just controlled experiments. Observing the survival (or death) of the bacteria in the blood or other parts of the body would have scientific value, as would before-and-after comparisons of cells that might be affected.
Payment through the government of other people's medical expenses does not involve giving, it involves legalized theft.
Wrong. His argument is that the change makes things worse.
The argument that I should buy insurance because something might go wrong can be based on a number of falsehoods: misuse of statistics, failure to understand how insurance companies make money, ignorance of morality, and others. The morality issue is particularly galling: you assume that I am too cowardly to accept the risk for my own actions; you assume that an industry pandering to cowardice (the insurance industry) can be moral.
.
The recession is due mostly to Democrat-passed bills that Bush Jr. was unable to get repealed. We have not recovered from the recession; the statistics used to make the claim of recovery (e.g. unemployment rate) are not relevant to the actual end of a recession.
Bush Jr. did do things that made a bad economy worse, e.g. the bailouts and near-zero interest rates. Obama continued those policies.
There is a significant difference between a merely incompetent president and one who is actively evil. Obama stands out as being almost purely evil in his role as President; his goal of destroying America is limited only by his laziness.
That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.
You have failed the Agent K test.
The Old Man of the Mountain is now a part of the scree in the Franconia Notch. Nobody is interested in that pile of rocks, nobody considers the rubble to be cultural heritage.