There are IR remotes which automatically configure themselves with devices.
Hopefully this patent is a specific mechanism, and not just "+ on a touchscreen LCD." I want to strangle the patent officials who approve the latter type of patent for any company.
While I was thinking it, I didn't put in the bit about not hunting birds with small caliber weapons simply because you never know what they might have along even if they didn't plan to use it.
I would not be surprised if one of the hunters did have a small caliber rifle, or possibly a combination gun. However, absent any evidence the possession would be meaningless.
I would almost guarantee that they'll claim a conspiracy against them unless there turns out to be actual evidence of some sort. Given the circumstances, even if the helicopter was shot down the likelihood of finding enough evidence to charge anyone with anything is basically zero.
stack up the crimes of every government that has ever existed in all of human history, and it is but a tiny fraction of the lives ruined by addictive substances.
That's an interesting statement, but entirely unsupportable as a statement of fact. You might believe it to be true, but proving it is another matter entirely.
Wars and genocides, on the other hand, are much easier to document.
Keep at it. It's like pissing into the wind a lot of the time, but we need more people to be concerned with implications.:)
Note to sideslash: this isn't by any means an indictment of your position, I simply wanted to point out a small particular which I believe needs commendation. I just know something like this can be taken as an attempt to cast aspersions indirectly, which is not my intent.
My concern is a bit more practical. Depending on the method by which it blocks the "high," it might conceivably render all opiates ineffective at pain control. Someone who gets this vaccine and then later needs major invasive medical treatment might be completely screwed. Sure, you can turn the pain off with anesthetics, but once the person wakes up from surgery the real fun begins.
Then there's cancer-related pain. Mine is (relatively) minor and I could probably do without pain killers without wanting to off myself most days, but I know people who would be perfectly justified in choosing suicide to "living" without the ability to use pain killers for something like aggressive pancreatic or bone cancer.
Part of your description is akin to something I put together experimentally, and gets around the limitation of no current encryption software having the capability to alter the contents of an encrypted container based on the password used. And yes, I believe you can get into trouble for not preserving evidence after legal action is "reasonably anticipated." I know it's required of counsel and defendant in civil cases, but I'm not sure what the standard is in criminal law.
---------- Write a script which produces a strong password (or key file) from a weaker password. You can now truthfully claim you have no knowledge of what the actual unlocking password is. Use the script from a remote server (something not under your direct control or ownership). Set up a cron job to delete the script absent regular manual intervention. For added security, make sure the server is in a country which would make it difficult or impossible to compel production of backups.
I don't believe automatic destruction of the script would constitute failure to preserve evidence (as in no way could the script be construed as evidence), but then I am not a lawyer and I've not (yet) heard of the issue having arisen in criminal court. Even if it is punishable, it's not punishable with an open-ended jail term such as a contempt of court ruling intended to force compliance.
Did you even read my comment, or are you just trolling?
Those are not minor details. The video itself is strong evidence that the machine was not shot at all. If you actually wanted to argue the points I raised, you might have a leg to stand on claiming it was shot down. You didn't.
Feel free to post something that attempts to explain how the story adds up to the helicopter being shot, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the video. Until then, you've added zero to the discussion aside from a completely unsupportable rant.
I didn't comment on the events preceding, pro or con. They are irrelevant. In point of fact, I think canned bird hunts are moronic. I also believe that if one of the hunters shot the helicopter, they should be prosecuted for what is almost certainly a crime (I'm not going to bother researching to determine whether it is or not). None of these things have any bearing on looking at the video and pointing out inconsistencies between the assumptions therein and actual, real-world considerations regarding the probability they actually happened as described.
I agree it would be a "dumbshit tantrum," if it actually happened as described. My comment was not written to "defend" the hunters; they either need no defense or their actions are indefensible. It was written because the video does not bear out the assumptions made by the SHARK spokesman, period.
The logic implies no such thing whatsoever. If only two possibilities present themselves, there is little point in attempting to use your vote in such a manner. Even if you did, it would not necessarily cause the effect you use as an example, because there is nothing which says your preference for a party is at the extreme rather than toward the middle. If there were only two options, there would be no way for the party closer to your preference to gauge your actual position by how you voted. The logic only works if there are more than two options, and one of those is closer to your position than either lead party.
If you have an election between two major parties that each have a significant chance of winning, voting for a third party is still voting against the major party most like them.
Exactly why doing so is important. It says to that party, "You've displeased me. Do so again at the peril of your political career."
Voting 3rd party is more important in years where the race is close, because it sends a much louder message to the party who expected that vote.
Ah, I was going by the video attached to the story, which doesn't show the last half. However, it's even more damning than showing no evidence at all.
First, the guy in the animal rights group claimed it was small caliber fire. You don't have to know firearms to hear a difference in sound between a small caliber firearm being discharged and any sort of shotgun being discharged. If you're going to make a claim as to caliber, you're already claiming knowledge enough to believe you can make the distinction.
If it was a rifled bullet that was fired it would have required two shots to damage both sides of the single rotor. The odds of someone hitting a moving aerial target so precisely to hit both sides of a single spinning blade are so astronomically high as to make that claim laughable.
It would be easier to hit both sides with birdshot, but there are problems with that. If the pellet grouping was tight enough to hit that single rotor twice, it is almost certain that it would've hit more than that. At the distances implied, you'd be looking at a pattern somewhere around 50" across, so the person shooting would have to be practically blind to be off-target so far that the edge of the pattern barely clipped the helicopter. Additionally, none of this takes into account the effect of firing through the canopy of the forest, which, while it may seem contrary to common sense, actually makes this even more improbable that no more than two pellets hit the craft.
The SHARK spokesman is either dishonest or just outrageously ignorant. The other options are just far to unlikely to be taken seriously without other evidence.
And afterwards would still have to guess, since the article doesn't say either way and the video is not large enough to determine what it is constructed out of.
It doesn't apply because someone operating machinery on your property can, at best, only be classified as trespassing absent provable criminal intent or representing a clear and present threat. You do not have the legal authority to destroy another's property during an incident of trespass unless there is a direct threat to your (or another's) life, safety, or property.
In fact, in most jurisdictions, there is a process which must be followed to claim and destroy items abandoned on your property. Of course, if the owner has truly abandoned them or has no knowledge of their presence the likelihood of repercussions for not following the process are slim to none. The above does not change the fact that laws in most places deal very specifically with how property not belonging to you must be treated.
Now, perhaps you're only familiar with a very specific case in one particular jurisdiction about which your comment stems from and applies to, but to apply the concept generally is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional proof.
Reminds me of the story about how an uncle of mine stopped being a vegetarian.
Deer gets into garden. Family builds fence. Deer gets into garden again. Fence is made higher. Deer gets into garden again. Uncle grabs rifle, shoots deer from his kitchen window.
His theory is: If you're going to eat my food source, I'm going to eat you.
Gene sequencing for plants is still pretty much in its infancy. Species differentiation is still done visually, by-and-large.
Unless and until they do gene sequencing and find significant enough variance between the two, they will be classified as the same species (at least judging from the meager details in the article). The likelihood of there being enough variances for that to be the case is small, though still possible. The changes (or lack thereof) are worth studying, but jumping to the conclusion it is a separate species requires substantive proof when none currently exists.
Something a lot of people seem to be missing: this is not an extinct species. These are seeds from a plant that is still alive and growing wild in Siberia to this very day.
Slashdot Mirror
There are IR remotes which automatically configure themselves with devices.
Hopefully this patent is a specific mechanism, and not just "+ on a touchscreen LCD." I want to strangle the patent officials who approve the latter type of patent for any company.
Latency might be high, but you can't beat the bandwidth. :)
While I was thinking it, I didn't put in the bit about not hunting birds with small caliber weapons simply because you never know what they might have along even if they didn't plan to use it.
I would not be surprised if one of the hunters did have a small caliber rifle, or possibly a combination gun. However, absent any evidence the possession would be meaningless.
I would almost guarantee that they'll claim a conspiracy against them unless there turns out to be actual evidence of some sort. Given the circumstances, even if the helicopter was shot down the likelihood of finding enough evidence to charge anyone with anything is basically zero.
stack up the crimes of every government that has ever existed in all of human history, and it is but a tiny fraction of the lives ruined by addictive substances.
That's an interesting statement, but entirely unsupportable as a statement of fact. You might believe it to be true, but proving it is another matter entirely.
Wars and genocides, on the other hand, are much easier to document.
I am worried about implications
Keep at it. It's like pissing into the wind a lot of the time, but we need more people to be concerned with implications. :)
Note to sideslash: this isn't by any means an indictment of your position, I simply wanted to point out a small particular which I believe needs commendation. I just know something like this can be taken as an attempt to cast aspersions indirectly, which is not my intent.
My concern is a bit more practical. Depending on the method by which it blocks the "high," it might conceivably render all opiates ineffective at pain control. Someone who gets this vaccine and then later needs major invasive medical treatment might be completely screwed. Sure, you can turn the pain off with anesthetics, but once the person wakes up from surgery the real fun begins.
Then there's cancer-related pain. Mine is (relatively) minor and I could probably do without pain killers without wanting to off myself most days, but I know people who would be perfectly justified in choosing suicide to "living" without the ability to use pain killers for something like aggressive pancreatic or bone cancer.
Part of your description is akin to something I put together experimentally, and gets around the limitation of no current encryption software having the capability to alter the contents of an encrypted container based on the password used. And yes, I believe you can get into trouble for not preserving evidence after legal action is "reasonably anticipated." I know it's required of counsel and defendant in civil cases, but I'm not sure what the standard is in criminal law.
----------
Write a script which produces a strong password (or key file) from a weaker password. You can now truthfully claim you have no knowledge of what the actual unlocking password is. Use the script from a remote server (something not under your direct control or ownership). Set up a cron job to delete the script absent regular manual intervention. For added security, make sure the server is in a country which would make it difficult or impossible to compel production of backups.
I don't believe automatic destruction of the script would constitute failure to preserve evidence (as in no way could the script be construed as evidence), but then I am not a lawyer and I've not (yet) heard of the issue having arisen in criminal court. Even if it is punishable, it's not punishable with an open-ended jail term such as a contempt of court ruling intended to force compliance.
Did you even read my comment, or are you just trolling?
Those are not minor details. The video itself is strong evidence that the machine was not shot at all. If you actually wanted to argue the points I raised, you might have a leg to stand on claiming it was shot down. You didn't.
Feel free to post something that attempts to explain how the story adds up to the helicopter being shot, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the video. Until then, you've added zero to the discussion aside from a completely unsupportable rant.
I didn't comment on the events preceding, pro or con. They are irrelevant. In point of fact, I think canned bird hunts are moronic. I also believe that if one of the hunters shot the helicopter, they should be prosecuted for what is almost certainly a crime (I'm not going to bother researching to determine whether it is or not). None of these things have any bearing on looking at the video and pointing out inconsistencies between the assumptions therein and actual, real-world considerations regarding the probability they actually happened as described.
I agree it would be a "dumbshit tantrum," if it actually happened as described. My comment was not written to "defend" the hunters; they either need no defense or their actions are indefensible. It was written because the video does not bear out the assumptions made by the SHARK spokesman, period.
The logic implies no such thing whatsoever. If only two possibilities present themselves, there is little point in attempting to use your vote in such a manner. Even if you did, it would not necessarily cause the effect you use as an example, because there is nothing which says your preference for a party is at the extreme rather than toward the middle. If there were only two options, there would be no way for the party closer to your preference to gauge your actual position by how you voted. The logic only works if there are more than two options, and one of those is closer to your position than either lead party.
*points at California*
Ha ha.
If you have an election between two major parties that each have a significant chance of winning, voting for a third party is still voting against the major party most like them.
Exactly why doing so is important. It says to that party, "You've displeased me. Do so again at the peril of your political career."
Voting 3rd party is more important in years where the race is close, because it sends a much louder message to the party who expected that vote.
The only wasted vote is one you don't actually believe in.
Ah, I was going by the video attached to the story, which doesn't show the last half. However, it's even more damning than showing no evidence at all.
First, the guy in the animal rights group claimed it was small caliber fire. You don't have to know firearms to hear a difference in sound between a small caliber firearm being discharged and any sort of shotgun being discharged. If you're going to make a claim as to caliber, you're already claiming knowledge enough to believe you can make the distinction.
If it was a rifled bullet that was fired it would have required two shots to damage both sides of the single rotor. The odds of someone hitting a moving aerial target so precisely to hit both sides of a single spinning blade are so astronomically high as to make that claim laughable.
It would be easier to hit both sides with birdshot, but there are problems with that. If the pellet grouping was tight enough to hit that single rotor twice, it is almost certain that it would've hit more than that. At the distances implied, you'd be looking at a pattern somewhere around 50" across, so the person shooting would have to be practically blind to be off-target so far that the edge of the pattern barely clipped the helicopter. Additionally, none of this takes into account the effect of firing through the canopy of the forest, which, while it may seem contrary to common sense, actually makes this even more improbable that no more than two pellets hit the craft.
The SHARK spokesman is either dishonest or just outrageously ignorant. The other options are just far to unlikely to be taken seriously without other evidence.
In fact, having seen the video, the hunters did not break any of the standard rules of gun safety and caused no hazard at all.
That's the thing I don't get about a ton of the knee-jerk comments here.
There's no evidence of gunshot damage, no visual identification of a shooter or the direction they were shooting in, nothing.
There is absolutely nothing to support the claims made.
It's too bad they don't teach critical thinking in schools.
Maybe the video I saw was different, but there was no close-up at all of the machine in the one attached to the story.
or you can RTFA
And afterwards would still have to guess, since the article doesn't say either way and the video is not large enough to determine what it is constructed out of.
It doesn't apply because someone operating machinery on your property can, at best, only be classified as trespassing absent provable criminal intent or representing a clear and present threat. You do not have the legal authority to destroy another's property during an incident of trespass unless there is a direct threat to your (or another's) life, safety, or property.
In fact, in most jurisdictions, there is a process which must be followed to claim and destroy items abandoned on your property. Of course, if the owner has truly abandoned them or has no knowledge of their presence the likelihood of repercussions for not following the process are slim to none. The above does not change the fact that laws in most places deal very specifically with how property not belonging to you must be treated.
Now, perhaps you're only familiar with a very specific case in one particular jurisdiction about which your comment stems from and applies to, but to apply the concept generally is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional proof.
or it eats their garden
Reminds me of the story about how an uncle of mine stopped being a vegetarian.
Deer gets into garden. Family builds fence. Deer gets into garden again. Fence is made higher. Deer gets into garden again. Uncle grabs rifle, shoots deer from his kitchen window.
His theory is: If you're going to eat my food source, I'm going to eat you.
There is no overlap between the people I know who are hunters and the people I know who have CC permits.
Caveat: Personal anecdote and all that...
No, it's ne(rd|ws)-worthy because it's a remote control helicopter, regardless of what it's called. :)
Gene sequencing for plants is still pretty much in its infancy. Species differentiation is still done visually, by-and-large.
Unless and until they do gene sequencing and find significant enough variance between the two, they will be classified as the same species (at least judging from the meager details in the article). The likelihood of there being enough variances for that to be the case is small, though still possible. The changes (or lack thereof) are worth studying, but jumping to the conclusion it is a separate species requires substantive proof when none currently exists.
Something a lot of people seem to be missing: this is not an extinct species. These are seeds from a plant that is still alive and growing wild in Siberia to this very day.
Actually, the particular species in question is still alive today. It didn't "fail" anything...
I can't for the life of me recall why at the moment, but I do remember that wasn't an option for some reason or another.
You know, I'm not sure when they were originally produced. It was a DL380 G4, so I'm guessing it was somewhere around 5 years old at the time.