I don't disagree, but it sounds like your argument is that reality is wrong because that reality is undesirable. Reality is reality, and applying German laws and conventions to a US action doesn't work.
This incident is in the US, where the police do everything under threat of death. There are hundreds of videos of cops pulling guns on quiet, complying unarmed citizens, using threat of death to extract people from cars, order them to the ground for arrest, and all that. Calling the cops in this case, is a use of deadly force, as this happened in the US. So his use of "deadly force" was no greater than calling 911. Though, as you are not in the US, 999? 112? whatever it is, though 911 works almost universally, even when the official emergency number is something different.
Based on mention of 80M people, I'll assume 112 in Germany. But in Germany, would everyone be armed to shoot down drones?
The shot down one was fully tracked and followed and very public. There can be nothing suspect about it (from a plane/airline perspective). If "they" faked it, they'd have had to destroy both and killed everyone on both to cover it up, so just shooting down one real one would have had the exact same result. So "stealing" the first to use somehow for the second, makes no sense. Unless you want to argue that the first was used to violate airspace regularly to piss off the shooter until he shot down a "real" one, but then, you'd have gotten a 777 that wasn't from the same airline, as that would have been suspicious.
No, any conceivable way the first plane would help with the downing of the second is more complex and error prone than doing it a different way.
There was no need for high temperatures. The steel members are insulated because low temperatures (temperatures humans live at, even if a "hot day" for us) can "melt" steel. https://www.google.co.nz/searc... Warm days can bend thick and heavy steel. The airplane crash damaged the insulation on some steel members. And the length of the fire would have exceeded the insulation time for others. Insulation isn't a cooling system. Heat it long enough, and it will be as hot inside insulation as outside. A rise in temperature on one side more than another would have caused uneven expansion through heating that would have caused structural damage. And softening some, but not all, would have caused structural failure. The exact failure mode isn't known, because the exact conditions inside the fire isn't known. But the results of both are the same. Structural failure. All at "low temperatures", well below the supposedly cool temperatures jet fuel burns at in an open flame.
The heat from the fire is insufficient to make the molten piles of metal found. It's physically impossible. Idiots would take that as "proof" the fire was man-made. Non-idiots would mention that the potential energy stored by the building being tall would have had to be dissipated in some way, or it would have fallen to the core of the earth. Turns out the PE of the building was converted to KE as it fell, and that KE was converted to heat with the sudden stop at the end. It was the act of the falling of the building that melted the puddles of metal, not the fire. Human brains don't work well at extremes. We interpolate well, but extrapolate poorly. One of the tallest buildings on the planet falling is outside "common sense". So anyone who appeals to it as a reason for why or how has proven (to me) that they are wrong.
https://www.google.co.nz/searc... And as I mentioned elsewhere, a warm day can warp and bend steel to the point it "collapses" so "melt" is not required for structural failure. Anyone who claims that is lying.
It didn't and nobody ever said it did. https://www.google.co.nz/searc... A warm day can bend and warp steel, and you are claiming that a burning office building filled with jet fuel can't bend or warp steel? "melt" isn't necessary to structurally compromise something.
Sort of. If a manufacturer can move a design fault into a maintenance issue, why wouldn't they? The liability for it will sit with the operator, to inspect for the fault, rather than them proactively fixing many that may never exhibit the flaw.
Nope. Those failures are supposed to be detected by various evil detection programs. It still takes multiple failures to get an evil person behind the stick of a passenger airliner. Everything takes multiple failures, even your example.
Must be analysis done by conservative anti-immigrant groups.
The greatest indicator of first-time crime is SES. So any analysis that doesn't correct for SES is trying to prove that poor people are evil. And yes, most immigrants are poor.
So yes, you've seen statistics that prove the well known phenomenon that poor people are more likely to commit a crime. They also congregate in high-crime areas, because those are generally cheaper places to live. But just throwing a number on a group doesn't mean anything beyond the speaker hating the group being talked about.
And I disagree. Shooting down a drone is proportional. And your example agrees with me.
Your answer is 1) ask them. 2) have them forcebly removed under threat of death (the police).
The drone is unable to enter into conversation with you, so you skip straight to #2. Forcably removed under threat of death.
From what I've seen posted here, it was mentioned that it took multiple shots before the drone was damaged. I have no idea if that's true, or something someone made up. If true, then the first shots were warnings. The last shot was the minimum force possible that removes the "intruder", as the intruder was unwilling to move based on increasing force to remove it.
If Alice and Bob do have some "magic" method to communicate this scheme, then why should they bother with the encryption scheme in the first place?
Alice and Bob have a steganography system they believe to be unbeatable that can't be unbeatable if it is used for larger communications. But works for indicating which "pad" to use. One could presume that the steganography and pad selection was set up before the interception began. Such a system would not work well for a new communication path, but for paths that were secure when set up, than are later insecure.
In every house I've lived in, there was always a "blind spot" where if the fence was opaque (though it usually wasn't), there would be some place where the neighbors couldn't see. My sister used to play lots of outdoor sports, and would tan occasionally to lessen the tan lines. There was always a place to do so where nobody could ever see, unless they were flying or otherwise took extraordinary steps. My current house is the same. Larger lot on the corner leaves me with only one neighbor.
To me, someone flying a quatcopter seems very different from someone breaking into my house, barging into the bathroom, and pulling up a chair to watch one of my children take a shower, snapping photos as they're doing it.
Then what about a drone the size of an insect? Flying the drone into your house, rather than just over your land?
So now I also own a 2014 Ford Taurus that gets 29 MPH on the highway. It is still comfortable and filled with nice stuff, but it burns almost half the fuel of my big truck and I make a point to drive it instead of the truck when I don't need the truck.
You did the ROI on the LED. What's the ROI on the Taurus?
Nope. "Breaking" in the "breaking and entering" is about breaking the plane of ownership. It's a form of trespass, unrelated to any damage done to enter. Flying a drone into/over property is a form of trespass, and people have been convicted for less.
An erected privacy fence, with no pre-existing feature visible from inside it, is legally the same as installing an opaque dome. Someone would have to go to unusual lengths to see inside, and that level of unusual activity to breach the privacy is almost always a crime. Regardless of whether it's done with drone or binoculars.
If the shooter had gone and talked to the drone owner,
And how do you think the shooter could have found the drone owner? The only way to start that conversation is to shoot down the drone, so the drown owner would come out of hiding and make himself known.
Slashdot Mirror
He was barred from flight before flying. I guess you have a funny definition of "hindsight".
It is not how the things are supposed to be.
I don't disagree, but it sounds like your argument is that reality is wrong because that reality is undesirable. Reality is reality, and applying German laws and conventions to a US action doesn't work.
So you are asserting that there were no signs of Andreas' unfitness to fly until he killed them? You are the naive one.
Because the "data" contains medical information that's illegal to share in a raw form.
This incident is in the US, where the police do everything under threat of death. There are hundreds of videos of cops pulling guns on quiet, complying unarmed citizens, using threat of death to extract people from cars, order them to the ground for arrest, and all that. Calling the cops in this case, is a use of deadly force, as this happened in the US. So his use of "deadly force" was no greater than calling 911. Though, as you are not in the US, 999? 112? whatever it is, though 911 works almost universally, even when the official emergency number is something different.
Based on mention of 80M people, I'll assume 112 in Germany. But in Germany, would everyone be armed to shoot down drones?
That's why planes crash. If they just retired the flight number *before* the crashes, the crashes couldn't happen.
The shot down one was fully tracked and followed and very public. There can be nothing suspect about it (from a plane/airline perspective). If "they" faked it, they'd have had to destroy both and killed everyone on both to cover it up, so just shooting down one real one would have had the exact same result. So "stealing" the first to use somehow for the second, makes no sense. Unless you want to argue that the first was used to violate airspace regularly to piss off the shooter until he shot down a "real" one, but then, you'd have gotten a 777 that wasn't from the same airline, as that would have been suspicious.
No, any conceivable way the first plane would help with the downing of the second is more complex and error prone than doing it a different way.
There was no need for high temperatures. The steel members are insulated because low temperatures (temperatures humans live at, even if a "hot day" for us) can "melt" steel. https://www.google.co.nz/searc... Warm days can bend thick and heavy steel. The airplane crash damaged the insulation on some steel members. And the length of the fire would have exceeded the insulation time for others. Insulation isn't a cooling system. Heat it long enough, and it will be as hot inside insulation as outside. A rise in temperature on one side more than another would have caused uneven expansion through heating that would have caused structural damage. And softening some, but not all, would have caused structural failure. The exact failure mode isn't known, because the exact conditions inside the fire isn't known. But the results of both are the same. Structural failure. All at "low temperatures", well below the supposedly cool temperatures jet fuel burns at in an open flame.
The heat from the fire is insufficient to make the molten piles of metal found. It's physically impossible. Idiots would take that as "proof" the fire was man-made. Non-idiots would mention that the potential energy stored by the building being tall would have had to be dissipated in some way, or it would have fallen to the core of the earth. Turns out the PE of the building was converted to KE as it fell, and that KE was converted to heat with the sudden stop at the end. It was the act of the falling of the building that melted the puddles of metal, not the fire. Human brains don't work well at extremes. We interpolate well, but extrapolate poorly. One of the tallest buildings on the planet falling is outside "common sense". So anyone who appeals to it as a reason for why or how has proven (to me) that they are wrong.
https://www.google.co.nz/searc... And as I mentioned elsewhere, a warm day can warp and bend steel to the point it "collapses" so "melt" is not required for structural failure. Anyone who claims that is lying.
It didn't and nobody ever said it did. https://www.google.co.nz/searc... A warm day can bend and warp steel, and you are claiming that a burning office building filled with jet fuel can't bend or warp steel? "melt" isn't necessary to structurally compromise something.
Sort of. If a manufacturer can move a design fault into a maintenance issue, why wouldn't they? The liability for it will sit with the operator, to inspect for the fault, rather than them proactively fixing many that may never exhibit the flaw.
Nope. Those failures are supposed to be detected by various evil detection programs. It still takes multiple failures to get an evil person behind the stick of a passenger airliner. Everything takes multiple failures, even your example.
Must be analysis done by conservative anti-immigrant groups.
The greatest indicator of first-time crime is SES. So any analysis that doesn't correct for SES is trying to prove that poor people are evil. And yes, most immigrants are poor.
So yes, you've seen statistics that prove the well known phenomenon that poor people are more likely to commit a crime. They also congregate in high-crime areas, because those are generally cheaper places to live. But just throwing a number on a group doesn't mean anything beyond the speaker hating the group being talked about.
And I disagree. Shooting down a drone is proportional. And your example agrees with me.
Your answer is 1) ask them. 2) have them forcebly removed under threat of death (the police).
The drone is unable to enter into conversation with you, so you skip straight to #2. Forcably removed under threat of death.
From what I've seen posted here, it was mentioned that it took multiple shots before the drone was damaged. I have no idea if that's true, or something someone made up. If true, then the first shots were warnings. The last shot was the minimum force possible that removes the "intruder", as the intruder was unwilling to move based on increasing force to remove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How about 1637?
I thought everyone understood that after 1980. Trickle Down Voodoo Economics, baby.
If Alice and Bob do have some "magic" method to communicate this scheme, then why should they bother with the encryption scheme in the first place?
Alice and Bob have a steganography system they believe to be unbeatable that can't be unbeatable if it is used for larger communications. But works for indicating which "pad" to use. One could presume that the steganography and pad selection was set up before the interception began. Such a system would not work well for a new communication path, but for paths that were secure when set up, than are later insecure.
In Texas alone, illegals have been charged with over 177,000 serious crimes since 2008, including almost 3,000 homicides.
What percent of people in Texas are illegals? How many total serious crimes have been committed since 2008?
Despite the size of the numbers, for all we know, that rate could he half the rate of the US citizens.
That story indicates that there is no intention of using the current surplus to pay down the debt, so the debt will never be paid off.
To me, someone flying a quatcopter seems very different from someone breaking into my house, barging into the bathroom, and pulling up a chair to watch one of my children take a shower, snapping photos as they're doing it.
Then what about a drone the size of an insect? Flying the drone into your house, rather than just over your land?
So you agree and are arguing about where to draw the line?
So now I also own a 2014 Ford Taurus that gets 29 MPH on the highway. It is still comfortable and filled with nice stuff, but it burns almost half the fuel of my big truck and I make a point to drive it instead of the truck when I don't need the truck.
You did the ROI on the LED. What's the ROI on the Taurus?
Breaking into my house is damaging my property.
Nope. "Breaking" in the "breaking and entering" is about breaking the plane of ownership. It's a form of trespass, unrelated to any damage done to enter. Flying a drone into/over property is a form of trespass, and people have been convicted for less.
An erected privacy fence, with no pre-existing feature visible from inside it, is legally the same as installing an opaque dome. Someone would have to go to unusual lengths to see inside, and that level of unusual activity to breach the privacy is almost always a crime. Regardless of whether it's done with drone or binoculars.
Do your daughters usually play in the yard naked?
So your answer is "yes" and we are now just arguing over the shade of grey?
If the shooter had gone and talked to the drone owner,
And how do you think the shooter could have found the drone owner? The only way to start that conversation is to shoot down the drone, so the drown owner would come out of hiding and make himself known.