If someone broke into your house, barges into your bathroom and pulls up a chair to watch your daughter take a shower, snapping photos as he's doing it, would you think that throwing him out would be a form of defense?
Harm was being caused to his daughters, and he used the minimum amount of force possible to stop the harm. I call that self defense (as "self defense" is the proper term for defending others).
Rarely do they invent new law and policy to do something when an existing law covers it. Why declare you don't own the air when they can just as easily say you do? As you note, it's not like you can do anything about it, and if you claim a $0.10 toll per craft, the government can claim it's an easement just like the power lines above and below my property right now. Calling my ownership core to sky, with easements on both is quicker, easier, and consistent with all current laws. So why invent a new legal status for airspace?
You are confusing "own" with "control". He is right, you are wrong. The standard land deal in the US has mineral rights and air rights. You own core of the earth to space. But, like the power lines under your property that you don't control, you don't get to dictate the rules for commercial flights over your property.
The drones that Amazon is talking about will be big enough and heavy enough to bring down some helicopters.
Unlikely. I'd expect that 99.9% of helicopters "brought down" by a drone will be from boom strike (or other "pilot error") from the pilot's reaction to seeing one, not the impact itself. How would a dron differ significantly from a bird strike? A larger bird would be similar in weight to a drone, and with similar speeds. Does every hawk strike kill the helicopter?
I've yet to see a definition of "drone" that didn't include model rocketry or RC model airplanes. Like RC, the military drones are primarily flown by humans remotely using RF to control them. So most definitions that catch one catch both.
Perhaps you should define "drone" before launching into problems with "drones", as that includes model rockets, and the RC models.
If you don't have a reasonably fixed address, then no - you can't vote.
That only applies to the poor. Trump has (or used to have, no idea what he uses now) a hotel room as his "permanent" address. Many other politicians have had the same. And they were allowed to vote for themselves. It's only the poor and minorities that the system targets.
I did. You suggested UK, and I accepted that. My complaint about the UK was your lies that I was somehow personally vested in that system, as yet another of you ad hominem attacks.
I don't know why you bother to lie. I can look it up in the replies and see your lies. Plain as day.
If you note, it also indicated that nationwide Black vote was up sharply in 2008 for Obama's first election. From what I could tell from the AJC story, Black vote in Georgia was under-represented in GA, compared to the national increase in turnout that year. And it fell in 2010. About 1600 votes were discarded due to the inability of the voter to provide acceptable ID. So much for one man one vote.
Voter IDs are supposed to be free unless you mean the state's that require a state ID to vote? Those are usually just a few dollars and required for many other tasks which minimizes the expense. I agree with you in theory but in practicality?
Many also require a home address and additional government paperwork. For someone who doesn't have a birth certificate on them, the cost for a "free" ID can be quite expensive. For someone who doesn't have a home address, you have to commit perjury and find a co-conspirator to your crime (now a felony) to be able to get the ID. So a homeless person must commit a felony to get an ID. Plus the cost.
Plus, it doesn't solve any known problem. Fraud didn't go down in the places that required IDs. There were just fewer Blacks voting.
I know you were making a joke, but 4200 RPM laptop drives are great. You'll have trouble finding a lower power usage spinner, and the read speed will be roughly interface speed for most practical implementations of multi-drive arrays.
None of the things you state are related to "communism". Communism doesn't mean lower personal rights, political rights, or anything like that.
In practice, China is a capitalistic democracy with high taxes. They have as much choice for political office as we do, the difference is that in the US, we still put on a show. The government doesn't decide what's made and where, but requires that it be "owner" of it. This is functionally a tax system, not a communistic central planning system.
But we have to have a declared enemy, and some reason why we hate them, so we make up lies about them.
The store does deliveries. Taxis go there as well. The government should be doing more to reduce the need for a specific appliance, or consider that appliance a right, like they do with phones.
You are lying again. I never conceeded, and I gave multiple contrasting refernece points. You just lie about them, reject anything that proves reality to not match your wrong opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
If the guy flying the quad knows he isn't doing anything wrong, then he's really not under any obligation to go door to door telling people that,
Then he shouldn't be surprised when he gets his shit shot down.
If someone broke into your house, barges into your bathroom and pulls up a chair to watch your daughter take a shower, snapping photos as he's doing it, would you think that throwing him out would be a form of defense?
Harm was being caused to his daughters, and he used the minimum amount of force possible to stop the harm. I call that self defense (as "self defense" is the proper term for defending others).
Rarely do they invent new law and policy to do something when an existing law covers it. Why declare you don't own the air when they can just as easily say you do? As you note, it's not like you can do anything about it, and if you claim a $0.10 toll per craft, the government can claim it's an easement just like the power lines above and below my property right now. Calling my ownership core to sky, with easements on both is quicker, easier, and consistent with all current laws. So why invent a new legal status for airspace?
So, what weight bird would need to approximate a drone? 2x? 10x?
By 'Drone' Amazon means the equipment they hope to use to deliver product to their customers.
So the definition of "drone" is "Amazon delivery drone". Aside from being meaninglessly recursive, it's also a definition I expect the FAA to ignore.
You are confusing "own" with "control". He is right, you are wrong. The standard land deal in the US has mineral rights and air rights. You own core of the earth to space. But, like the power lines under your property that you don't control, you don't get to dictate the rules for commercial flights over your property.
The drones that Amazon is talking about will be big enough and heavy enough to bring down some helicopters.
Unlikely. I'd expect that 99.9% of helicopters "brought down" by a drone will be from boom strike (or other "pilot error") from the pilot's reaction to seeing one, not the impact itself. How would a dron differ significantly from a bird strike? A larger bird would be similar in weight to a drone, and with similar speeds. Does every hawk strike kill the helicopter?
Define "drone". Now, read your first definition, and tell me if it includes amateur RC aircraft. How about unguided model rockets?
You aren't acting like a pilot. Define the class before defining the rules around it.
I've yet to see a definition of "drone" that didn't include model rocketry or RC model airplanes. Like RC, the military drones are primarily flown by humans remotely using RF to control them. So most definitions that catch one catch both.
Perhaps you should define "drone" before launching into problems with "drones", as that includes model rockets, and the RC models.
Except solar panels lose power over time.
Not nearly as much as the haters assert.
Plus if you're moving away from the very star powering your craft, well then "forever" is not as long as you'd like.
If you are moving directly away, a solar sail would be more efficient.
If you don't have a reasonably fixed address, then no - you can't vote.
That only applies to the poor. Trump has (or used to have, no idea what he uses now) a hotel room as his "permanent" address. Many other politicians have had the same. And they were allowed to vote for themselves. It's only the poor and minorities that the system targets.
I did. You suggested UK, and I accepted that. My complaint about the UK was your lies that I was somehow personally vested in that system, as yet another of you ad hominem attacks.
I don't know why you bother to lie. I can look it up in the replies and see your lies. Plain as day.
What was the minimum number of votes to swing the 2000 election? It was about 270 votes (depending on how you count them).
If you note, it also indicated that nationwide Black vote was up sharply in 2008 for Obama's first election. From what I could tell from the AJC story, Black vote in Georgia was under-represented in GA, compared to the national increase in turnout that year. And it fell in 2010. About 1600 votes were discarded due to the inability of the voter to provide acceptable ID. So much for one man one vote.
Voter IDs are supposed to be free unless you mean the state's that require a state ID to vote? Those are usually just a few dollars and required for many other tasks which minimizes the expense. I agree with you in theory but in practicality?
Many also require a home address and additional government paperwork. For someone who doesn't have a birth certificate on them, the cost for a "free" ID can be quite expensive. For someone who doesn't have a home address, you have to commit perjury and find a co-conspirator to your crime (now a felony) to be able to get the ID. So a homeless person must commit a felony to get an ID. Plus the cost.
Plus, it doesn't solve any known problem. Fraud didn't go down in the places that required IDs. There were just fewer Blacks voting.
I know you were making a joke, but 4200 RPM laptop drives are great. You'll have trouble finding a lower power usage spinner, and the read speed will be roughly interface speed for most practical implementations of multi-drive arrays.
He wasn't very clear about his complaint, but talking to professional sales people about what you need will never get you an optimal solution.
None of the things you state are related to "communism". Communism doesn't mean lower personal rights, political rights, or anything like that.
In practice, China is a capitalistic democracy with high taxes. They have as much choice for political office as we do, the difference is that in the US, we still put on a show. The government doesn't decide what's made and where, but requires that it be "owner" of it. This is functionally a tax system, not a communistic central planning system.
But we have to have a declared enemy, and some reason why we hate them, so we make up lies about them.
Take your bigotry elsewhere. "Poor people are irresponsible" Yes, and I'm sure they deserve to be poor because they are lazy, or are ugly.
In a common law system, the annotations are as much law as the text of the law passed by the legislature.
Copyright law is not ridiculous.
Stating it will not make it true. The law is ridiculous.
The store does deliveries. Taxis go there as well. The government should be doing more to reduce the need for a specific appliance, or consider that appliance a right, like they do with phones.
Blame the confederacy. They fought a war to remove states rights, and though they lost the war, they won that issue.
Restrictions that are effectively poll taxes. Costly IDs, and restricted poll times make for good barriers.
Your concession stands.
You are lying again. I never conceeded, and I gave multiple contrasting refernece points. You just lie about them, reject anything that proves reality to not match your wrong opinion.
Keep lying about your win.