Anyhow, I do not know if the FCC has an 800 number to call and check for flight restrictions. They should. I kind of assumed they did, actually.
If they do, I don't know about it.
Most of the fun for me was making the replica. It's like building models except they work like the real things. My stuff is a lot smaller but I've seen the larger ones in real life. They have them now with Jet engines and speeds that are unreal for a remote controlled unit. Or if anything, they are way beyond my skill levels. When I was into it enough to spend money, the jets were a pipe dream or electric motor with a prop enclosed in a housing to simulate a jet engine. Now they are a reality and actually burn fuel.
As for mounting a gun, of course that wouldn't be legal but we had some mount flour bombs, open bomb bays and drop bugs (beneficial bugs for pest controls in agriculture). I've heard stories of people mounting home made paintball guns. You could do it but I do not know if the air frame would survive the recoil. You could likely get a POV camera mounted to aim it too with all the new fangled electronics they have now. It sounds like it would be fun to try.
Even still, do you think it prudent to fly your UAV over a forest fire and add the mayhem?
I wouldn't just because of the chance of losing the plane let along any mayhem it might add to the situation.
here is no such thing as, well they are already at risk and the additional risk is trivial.
I would never say anything like that, my comment was how does someone know. It's a communication thing and despite you thinking it should be obvious, at least three people we know of didn't. Maybe what is needed is an 800 number or website someone can check and possible reminders to check packed into different items with the drone or drone parts.
As for a 4 foot wingspan, I don't have any but I do remember RC planes that large and larger being flown. But these were RC planes and line of sight. I havn't kept up with them and most of my experience was in recreating original planes at scale models that actually fly. I never got into the jet engines though and the larger ones were completely out of my budget. But there is one of the largest planes being flown.
Yes, the old testament where the bible says do something this way which is repeated in the new testament where the same occurs. The bible recognizes outsiders and unfaithful so the fact of it happening outside of religious demands is meaningless when checking to see if the bible allows polygamous marriages. It says to have one man and one women and the two become one.
That defeats the comment that if someone reads a bible, polygamous marriage would have been legal from the beginning. It clearly instructs the Jews and Christians to not participate in it and that it is wrong to do. The fact that it happened is a bit like ignoring what it says.
No, not really. And besides, if it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, then any additional legislation should not be a barrier to it. If it was, then it would have been a barrier to gay marriage just the same.
Here we are in a unique circumstance where because of an argument about constitutionality, laws have to be changed and the argument for not changing them to cover the same argument over a different set of people is you would have to change laws. It's like logic is thrown out the window or something.
Its used in genesis way before Corinthians. It's mentioned in the new testament several times too. In fact, The new testament mentions that god made woman from man therefore when a man takes a wife the two become one.
It has enough meaning that at least two books were clear in this interpreting.
Not all fires are fought with air support. Not all fires have 24/7 air support. To say this one at this time would have it because there is a fire is a bit misleading.
Agreed, education is needed and warranted, but I have never- ever- called any civil or military aviation board or the nearest airport or anything when launching model rockets or flying remote controlled airplanes (not the drone type). I have asked people permission to fly on or over their land, but for the most part, it's either my own land or public property. I would have no idea there is a no fly zone that pertained to my small model aircraft or where it might have been. And yes, a 4 foot wingspan is a larger but still small model aircraft. When we get a forest fire in my neck of the woods, they send men in with shovels and heavy equipment and we have firetrucks with four, six and ten wheel drive sending water in. Of course we don't have huge swaths of inaccessible lands in my area as roads are pretty well established.
lol.. They did not give us a living document that can change with society. That is completely absurd. They gave us a document that society can change as enough of it deems necessary.
If the document was living and changed with society, then the first amendment would have lost it's power a long time ago. Society at one time in numbers larger than those who want gay marriage, wanted to ban Muslims but couldn't even try because of the freedom of religion. In the 1960's, society wanted to bar black Americans from all sorts of things and if the constitution was a living document that changed with society, the amendment passed just 100 years before would have changed to not allow the challenges that eventually gave us the civil rights act. To think, 9 justices with the ability to declare the civil rights act unconstitutional despite the 14th amendment specifically giving congress the power to create law covering it- just because the constitution is a living document and can change with society.
No, it can be amended, but until such time, it's meaning and interpretations are pretty static.
But, if you change, "spouse and spouse" to "a group of spouses", then how do you change "upon death of a spouse, the remaining spouse shall inherit 100% of communal property before probate"? As in, you die, and your three widows each inherit 100%? That's 300%. Where do you get two more identical houses?
Well, first, the spouse is generally only entitled to 1/3 of the assets and in some cases, up to a certain dollar amount in an intestate death. Wills and contracts normally supersede all that unless the widow(er) receives less than that amount in which they can contest the will (though usually not the contract).
But to answer the question, it would be the unit "spouse" that receives the inheritance. If there was three spouses, they would all have to act as one unit for the transfer then figure out what to do after that. It's no different than a company being owned by 20 people that dissolves or is somehow transferred. In fact, I have two minor stakes in partnerships that one says upon my death the companies will be sold and 30% of the value will go to the first heir in the estate of the deceased and the other says my stake is to be transferred upon death to the partners. Both of those will happen before any inheritance or probate takes place.
How so? While polygamous marriage happened, the bible starts off saying man will leave his father and mother to be with his wife and the two will become one flesh.
Gay couples could always enter into the same contracts that straight couples could. They could all get married to someone of the opposite sex. But they didn't want to do that, they wanted to marry someone of the same sex.
Now here is the problem with that. A legal contract that requires a license from a state. Concealed carry is the same thing, a legal contract that requires a license from the state. Many states already have reciprocal agreements with other states but under this same principle, the 14th now allows concealed carry permit holders in Ohio to conceal carry in New York City, Maryland, or anywhere else that makes it inconceivably impossible if not outright bans the act. Furthermore, it means they cannot ban it now either- because it is entering a legal contract that others can enter into the same as marriage.
and before it is somehow claimed it is different, you actually have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the same for marriages. There is the problem with this wording.
Before the New Deal and expansion of the interstate commerce clause into some umbrella concept that grants the federal government powers unlimited jurisdiction, the US seemed to be a small constitutional government that acted as if the constitution mattered. Then with Roosevelt's fight over the New Deal legislation and the courts opening the commerce clause, its now the federal jurisdiction on about anything they can casually connect to any other power they constitutionally have. This is what big government does for you.
It's not. You have it backwards in thinking. The federal government used to believe it never had the power to regulate drugs, that in order to prohibit them, it would take a constitutional amendment to grant them the power to do so. This is most obvious with prohibition, they had to create a constitutional amendment in order to ban alcohol and another in order to allow it again. But now it seems that anyone claims 14th amendment or interstate commerce clause and all the sudden the US government has the power to do anything it wants.
I've seen idiots with guns. They are the type that will purchase a hand cannon like a.357 or.44mag for home defense. The ones who choose a shotgun likely did so for reasons that put them out of the range of stupid. And even if they are the type who asked the clerk some advice, they are at least asking which makes it much more likely they wouldn't be stupid idiots.
You do not need to belong to some gun club or have some associates degree in firepower in order to be knowledgeable about guns. I learned most of what I know from my grandfather before I was 10. I suppose there will be idiots who inherit a gun and decide to keep it for home defense but I doubt the majority of them are in that league.
Actually, explosives might be right for this situation.
Anti aircraft weapons since WWII had altitude and proximity fused which causes them to explode more near an aircraft than when striking one. It then causes the aircraft to fly through shrapnel and be damaged by the percussion of the explosion.
A small air to air or surface to air missile and radar could likely be employed to take these drones out without much danger to anything below or other aircraft.
Alternatively, a laser of some sort mounted on another plane flying lead of the tankers or from the ground stationed along the flight path could possible render the drones unusable.
This brings me to another question. Lasers. It seems that the intense heat of lasers could flash burn combustible materials in the fire's path so I'm wondering why several couldn't be used to either back burn or create a fire break along the fire's path. Is it a matter of power consumption or would it just not burn the material fast enough to not create other out of control fires?
One of the problems here is information- dissemination.
First, how did the drone operator know he was in the path of the flights. It could very well be that the flight path changed because the winds shifted a bit and they needed to approach differently to hit the intended targets. You also have the problem of the targets changing. These planes were dropping retardant which means they would want to drop on different spots with each flight. Finally, why not- if you have to abort and I assume drop the retardants anyways due to duel considerations, why not drop it on the drone which was at least near the intended target. The drone would likely have been taken out and the next run could fill in the gap and the only lost value would be dropping out of order in the runs.
But seriously, where does a drone operator get the information from or more importantly, how does the fire crew disseminate it so the drone operator would have known?
Most people who use a shot gun for home defense are either smart enough to understand how a bullet or shot penetrates (because a shot gun will go through walls but often not be deadly a few feet away from the wall on the other side where a bullet can go through multiple walls and remain deadly depending on the gun) or they picked it because they have other things to be concerned about besides humans invading. Wild animals and rodents are around a lot of places and just as viable of a concern in home defense as an intruding human might be.
I keep several loaded shotguns around. My favorite, a bolt action savage, I keep one round of 000 buck and two rounds of #8 or #6 shot loaded at all times and I have a stock wrap which 8 more of the same ammo is present if needed. I have coyotes, a certain type of vulture, and rodents like rabbits (that eat my garden) and groundhogs (that destroy beans and create holes for the cattle to step in and break a leg) to deal with. The vultures I only have to worry about right after a birth until it is weaned. Black vultures will attack young calves, piglets, chicks, and so on. And yes, I know it is illegal to kill them, but just like speeding, you got to be caught first.
But if you think someone with a shotgun for home defense is stupid, you are going to be really surprised when you meet them. You have either been watching too many movies or hanging out with the wrong people.
Its not just three years, Its three years regardless of the outcome of the ISP lawsuit over the FCC's move. That means if the lawsuit gets the rules tossed out next month, they are still going to give it a go for the three years. If the lawsuit fails, they should already be there and positioned to be compliant.
That - i can agree with. The example you gave or that was given didn't follow though. Perhaps semantics got in the way of the point.
BTW, lack of action - refusing to grant certiorari is not addressing the question outside of saying it is either not important enough for their time of more pressing issues occupied their time. Sometimes issues of standings block it but that is still not addressing the question.
The problem with TOR is that it would route others traffic through your connection too. This leaves the same problem of others on your network.
There was a couple stories a while back where people were getting their internet shut off on the three strikes rules (somewhere in Europe ) for copyright infringement and it was claimed it was because they ran TOR.
The courts cannot and normally do not arbitrarily reinterpret law. The best they can do is declare something unconstitutional or that a law is ambiguous enough that it cannot be reasonably enforced. If any court decided that your insistence that the cannabis be called by it's street name therefore not covered by the law being enforced was correct, they would promptly be overturned by a higher court and possibly removed from the bench. It just doesn't work that way in the U.S.
I was thinking the same thing. I bet the cops do not initially buy the story about open WiFi when they kick your door in, put you in bracelets, and proceed to notify the news channel that they just busted a pedo looking at kiddie porn just before perpwalking you to the squad car. It would probably take weeks before some lab informed them that your harddrive is clean
Slashdot Mirror
If they do, I don't know about it.
Most of the fun for me was making the replica. It's like building models except they work like the real things. My stuff is a lot smaller but I've seen the larger ones in real life. They have them now with Jet engines and speeds that are unreal for a remote controlled unit. Or if anything, they are way beyond my skill levels. When I was into it enough to spend money, the jets were a pipe dream or electric motor with a prop enclosed in a housing to simulate a jet engine. Now they are a reality and actually burn fuel.
As for mounting a gun, of course that wouldn't be legal but we had some mount flour bombs, open bomb bays and drop bugs (beneficial bugs for pest controls in agriculture). I've heard stories of people mounting home made paintball guns. You could do it but I do not know if the air frame would survive the recoil. You could likely get a POV camera mounted to aim it too with all the new fangled electronics they have now. It sounds like it would be fun to try.
I wouldn't just because of the chance of losing the plane let along any mayhem it might add to the situation.
I would never say anything like that, my comment was how does someone know. It's a communication thing and despite you thinking it should be obvious, at least three people we know of didn't. Maybe what is needed is an 800 number or website someone can check and possible reminders to check packed into different items with the drone or drone parts.
As for a 4 foot wingspan, I don't have any but I do remember RC planes that large and larger being flown. But these were RC planes and line of sight. I havn't kept up with them and most of my experience was in recreating original planes at scale models that actually fly. I never got into the jet engines though and the larger ones were completely out of my budget. But there is one of the largest planes being flown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Can you imagine the electronics that could fit into one of these..
Yes, the old testament where the bible says do something this way which is repeated in the new testament where the same occurs. The bible recognizes outsiders and unfaithful so the fact of it happening outside of religious demands is meaningless when checking to see if the bible allows polygamous marriages. It says to have one man and one women and the two become one.
That defeats the comment that if someone reads a bible, polygamous marriage would have been legal from the beginning. It clearly instructs the Jews and Christians to not participate in it and that it is wrong to do. The fact that it happened is a bit like ignoring what it says.
No, not really. And besides, if it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, then any additional legislation should not be a barrier to it. If it was, then it would have been a barrier to gay marriage just the same.
Here we are in a unique circumstance where because of an argument about constitutionality, laws have to be changed and the argument for not changing them to cover the same argument over a different set of people is you would have to change laws. It's like logic is thrown out the window or something.
Its used in genesis way before Corinthians. It's mentioned in the new testament several times too. In fact, The new testament mentions that god made woman from man therefore when a man takes a wife the two become one.
It has enough meaning that at least two books were clear in this interpreting.
Not all fires are fought with air support. Not all fires have 24/7 air support. To say this one at this time would have it because there is a fire is a bit misleading.
Agreed, education is needed and warranted, but I have never- ever- called any civil or military aviation board or the nearest airport or anything when launching model rockets or flying remote controlled airplanes (not the drone type). I have asked people permission to fly on or over their land, but for the most part, it's either my own land or public property. I would have no idea there is a no fly zone that pertained to my small model aircraft or where it might have been. And yes, a 4 foot wingspan is a larger but still small model aircraft. When we get a forest fire in my neck of the woods, they send men in with shovels and heavy equipment and we have firetrucks with four, six and ten wheel drive sending water in. Of course we don't have huge swaths of inaccessible lands in my area as roads are pretty well established.
lol.. They did not give us a living document that can change with society. That is completely absurd. They gave us a document that society can change as enough of it deems necessary.
If the document was living and changed with society, then the first amendment would have lost it's power a long time ago. Society at one time in numbers larger than those who want gay marriage, wanted to ban Muslims but couldn't even try because of the freedom of religion. In the 1960's, society wanted to bar black Americans from all sorts of things and if the constitution was a living document that changed with society, the amendment passed just 100 years before would have changed to not allow the challenges that eventually gave us the civil rights act. To think, 9 justices with the ability to declare the civil rights act unconstitutional despite the 14th amendment specifically giving congress the power to create law covering it- just because the constitution is a living document and can change with society.
No, it can be amended, but until such time, it's meaning and interpretations are pretty static.
Well, first, the spouse is generally only entitled to 1/3 of the assets and in some cases, up to a certain dollar amount in an intestate death. Wills and contracts normally supersede all that unless the widow(er) receives less than that amount in which they can contest the will (though usually not the contract).
But to answer the question, it would be the unit "spouse" that receives the inheritance. If there was three spouses, they would all have to act as one unit for the transfer then figure out what to do after that. It's no different than a company being owned by 20 people that dissolves or is somehow transferred. In fact, I have two minor stakes in partnerships that one says upon my death the companies will be sold and 30% of the value will go to the first heir in the estate of the deceased and the other says my stake is to be transferred upon death to the partners. Both of those will happen before any inheritance or probate takes place.
How so? While polygamous marriage happened, the bible starts off saying man will leave his father and mother to be with his wife and the two will become one flesh.
Seems pretty clear to me, two into one.
Gay couples could always enter into the same contracts that straight couples could. They could all get married to someone of the opposite sex. But they didn't want to do that, they wanted to marry someone of the same sex.
Now here is the problem with that. A legal contract that requires a license from a state. Concealed carry is the same thing, a legal contract that requires a license from the state. Many states already have reciprocal agreements with other states but under this same principle, the 14th now allows concealed carry permit holders in Ohio to conceal carry in New York City, Maryland, or anywhere else that makes it inconceivably impossible if not outright bans the act. Furthermore, it means they cannot ban it now either- because it is entering a legal contract that others can enter into the same as marriage.
and before it is somehow claimed it is different, you actually have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the same for marriages. There is the problem with this wording.
It's rather simply. Roosevelt is what happened.
Before the New Deal and expansion of the interstate commerce clause into some umbrella concept that grants the federal government powers unlimited jurisdiction, the US seemed to be a small constitutional government that acted as if the constitution mattered. Then with Roosevelt's fight over the New Deal legislation and the courts opening the commerce clause, its now the federal jurisdiction on about anything they can casually connect to any other power they constitutionally have. This is what big government does for you.
It's not. You have it backwards in thinking. The federal government used to believe it never had the power to regulate drugs, that in order to prohibit them, it would take a constitutional amendment to grant them the power to do so. This is most obvious with prohibition, they had to create a constitutional amendment in order to ban alcohol and another in order to allow it again. But now it seems that anyone claims 14th amendment or interstate commerce clause and all the sudden the US government has the power to do anything it wants.
Prove me wrong. You cannot.
Your reply is so vague and meaningless that I don't even know where to start. Because you said so doesn't carry any weight either.
I've seen idiots with guns. They are the type that will purchase a hand cannon like a .357 or .44mag for home defense. The ones who choose a shotgun likely did so for reasons that put them out of the range of stupid. And even if they are the type who asked the clerk some advice, they are at least asking which makes it much more likely they wouldn't be stupid idiots.
You do not need to belong to some gun club or have some associates degree in firepower in order to be knowledgeable about guns. I learned most of what I know from my grandfather before I was 10. I suppose there will be idiots who inherit a gun and decide to keep it for home defense but I doubt the majority of them are in that league.
Actually, explosives might be right for this situation.
Anti aircraft weapons since WWII had altitude and proximity fused which causes them to explode more near an aircraft than when striking one. It then causes the aircraft to fly through shrapnel and be damaged by the percussion of the explosion.
A small air to air or surface to air missile and radar could likely be employed to take these drones out without much danger to anything below or other aircraft.
Alternatively, a laser of some sort mounted on another plane flying lead of the tankers or from the ground stationed along the flight path could possible render the drones unusable.
This brings me to another question. Lasers. It seems that the intense heat of lasers could flash burn combustible materials in the fire's path so I'm wondering why several couldn't be used to either back burn or create a fire break along the fire's path. Is it a matter of power consumption or would it just not burn the material fast enough to not create other out of control fires?
One of the problems here is information- dissemination.
First, how did the drone operator know he was in the path of the flights. It could very well be that the flight path changed because the winds shifted a bit and they needed to approach differently to hit the intended targets. You also have the problem of the targets changing. These planes were dropping retardant which means they would want to drop on different spots with each flight. Finally, why not- if you have to abort and I assume drop the retardants anyways due to duel considerations, why not drop it on the drone which was at least near the intended target. The drone would likely have been taken out and the next run could fill in the gap and the only lost value would be dropping out of order in the runs.
But seriously, where does a drone operator get the information from or more importantly, how does the fire crew disseminate it so the drone operator would have known?
Why wouldn't they be dumb?
Most people who use a shot gun for home defense are either smart enough to understand how a bullet or shot penetrates (because a shot gun will go through walls but often not be deadly a few feet away from the wall on the other side where a bullet can go through multiple walls and remain deadly depending on the gun) or they picked it because they have other things to be concerned about besides humans invading. Wild animals and rodents are around a lot of places and just as viable of a concern in home defense as an intruding human might be.
I keep several loaded shotguns around. My favorite, a bolt action savage, I keep one round of 000 buck and two rounds of #8 or #6 shot loaded at all times and I have a stock wrap which 8 more of the same ammo is present if needed. I have coyotes, a certain type of vulture, and rodents like rabbits
(that eat my garden) and groundhogs
(that destroy beans and create holes for the cattle to step in and break a leg) to deal with. The vultures I only have to worry about right after a birth until it is weaned. Black vultures will attack young calves, piglets, chicks, and so on. And yes, I know it is illegal to kill them, but just like speeding, you got to be caught first.
But if you think someone with a shotgun for home defense is stupid, you are going to be really surprised when you meet them. You have either been watching too many movies or hanging out with the wrong people.
Where do you find them?
Its not just three years, Its three years regardless of the outcome of the ISP lawsuit over the FCC's move. That means if the lawsuit gets the rules tossed out next month, they are still going to give it a go for the three years. If the lawsuit fails, they should already be there and positioned to be compliant.
That - i can agree with. The example you gave or that was given didn't follow though. Perhaps semantics got in the way of the point.
BTW, lack of action - refusing to grant certiorari is not addressing the question outside of saying it is either not important enough for their time of more pressing issues occupied their time. Sometimes issues of standings block it but that is still not addressing the question.
Nah; i like it this way more. Can you imagine - you think you might have gotten an STD and someone hands you a condum and says go get fucked.
Hmmm. Was not aware that you could turn the exit node off. Maybe i should look into it again. Been a long time.
Maybe.
The problem with TOR is that it would route others traffic through your connection too. This leaves the same problem of others on your network.
There was a couple stories a while back where people were getting their internet shut off on the three strikes rules (somewhere in Europe ) for copyright infringement and it was claimed it was because they ran TOR.
The courts cannot and normally do not arbitrarily reinterpret law. The best they can do is declare something unconstitutional or that a law is ambiguous enough that it cannot be reasonably enforced. If any court decided that your insistence that the cannabis be called by it's street name therefore not covered by the law being enforced was correct, they would promptly be overturned by a higher court and possibly removed from the bench. It just doesn't work that way in the U.S.
I was thinking the same thing. I bet the cops do not initially buy the story about open WiFi when they kick your door in, put you in bracelets, and proceed to notify the news channel that they just busted a pedo looking at kiddie porn just before perpwalking you to the squad car. It would probably take weeks before some lab informed them that your harddrive is clean