They can all fly (provided they make it through TSA screening)
Ever tried getting a country the size of England into checked baggage much less carry-on?
And Russia? Forgettaboutit.
Turkey on the other hand can fly in checked baggage with cat and dog. Or maybe outside plane with Moose and Squirrel but only at low altitude. But I digress.
[imagine this as a captcha graphic] Spell last month.
Or this: [image] Type the one that flies: England Turkey Russia
Or this: [image] Type the word for 2 + number of days in a week
Or just to confuse things, split the "challenge" into code + html: [image] 2 + number of days in a week [html] What is the number above minus 4, as a word: ___
One way around the "no commerce" rule would be to get a court to declare that your particular proposed use does not involve a "federal interest" and is therefore exempt from all federal regulation under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This would require, among other things, that there be no interstate commerce and that there be no interference with interstate commerce. While this legal technique would not be useful to journalists whose employer is out-of-state or to those wishing to use UAVs close to an airport that had inter-state flights, it would be potentially useful for the few remaining local news outlets covering events not close to flight paths or airports.
It would be particularly useful to local specialty photographers who work with local businesses like real-estate agents, provided there truly was no interstate commerce involved.
The/. article said you had 10 ways, now you have 503 ways.
Now where is the "next" button? I'm only seeing method #1, "guru meditation."
In case anyone doesn't notice, these sentences (at least most of them) are presented tongue-in-cheek; a meditation of a guru, though, is another story.
Regulating the parts of the airspace routinely used in interstate commerce is the job of the Federal government.
I don't know what the actual "airspace" that the feds claim jurisdiction over, but common sense would say it's anything at or within the safety margin of the lowest altitude a commercial aircraft flying from one state to another or flying in or out of the United States would routinely use over that spot, or the lowest altitude a military or other federal-government-owned aircraft would routinely use over that spot. In most areas the "FAA floor" should be a few thousand feet at the lowest (I suspect it's much lower, but I digress). For areas within a few hundred feet of runways, helipads, etc. this may be all the way to the ground (sorry kiddies, no radio-controlled toy airplanes for you without FCC approval).
However, FAA regulations should be safety-oriented, not use-oriented.
States should and do have the right to impose safety regulations below that height.
Now, when it comes to radio transmissions, the FCC gets involved. They can and for all I know do impose rules that would prevent a ground-based kiddie-toy remote-control aircraft transmitter from interfering with other, higher-priority, licensed radio users including radios used by commercial aircraft.
For aircraft which emit pollutants into the atmosphere, the feds also have the right to impose pollution controls.
One other thing that can come under regulation is the actual purpose of the drone's use and the harm to society by allowing the drone to fly at all. I'm thinking noise pollution from low-flying drones and invasion-of-privacy issues from drones with cameras aimed at your backyard swimming pool or aimed at your windows. Most of this should come under state regulation, but things like flying near one state's border and photographing inside someone's window who lives across the border would reasonably come under Congress's purview, as would photographing into the backyard of a home located on a military base even if the drone were flying over private property with that landowner's consent.
Now, would I favor my state banning camera-less or camera-turned-off drones flying over private property with the owner's consent, or flying so high and so quiet that they are not a nuisance but not so high that they interfere with interstate commerce? No, but I would expect my state to ensure the safety of such craft. Would I favor my state banning photography from a drone if the subjects of the photograph and/or their owners consented, and the photography wasn't creating a nuisance, safety, or other issue for anyone else? No.
By publishing at all, they've basically told the world - good guys and bad guys - "If you want to find the DNA of a supertoxin, research in this area."
If well-funded bad guys want the DNA code for this, they will get it on their own within a few years if not a lot sooner.
In the meantime, the clock is ticking and the researchers working on an antidote know it.
The moral equivalent in software security would be for security researchers to quickly publish enough details that a well-funded adversary could find and exploit the hole within a matter of months, while giving the publisher and White Hat security vendors enough details to improve their products before the bad guys find and use the exploit.
I'm waiting for a big-name, trusted bank, insurance company, or sovereign state to print "Bitcoin Certificates" that are designed to be used as spending money (i.e. not just as a stuff-in-the-mattress currency) backed by BC, similar to the Gold and Silver certificates of days gone by.
Speaking of which, it would be nice to have Gold and Silver Certificates redeemable for a specific quantity of gold as well.
Listen here sonny, when I was just starting out "object oriented development" was anything but orthodox!
Mark my words, when you get to be as old as I am now people will be talking about newfangled things like "disks that hold data instead of putting it in The Cloud" and "getting that computer out of your brain and wearing it instead."
But "walk up" service with a clone of the Lavabit server running on a private LAN would be better.
If I were Lavabit and wasn't prohibited by court order or economic reality, I would offer this service over a several-month period, but I would ask (not require) that the customers donate a "reasonable" amount to the EFF or another freedom-supporting organization, where "reasonable" is the amount of money I'm losing by providing this service.
If I (as Lavabit) had the funds, I would "take this on the road" to major cities and major events to raise public awareness.
Well, if you didn't deliberately throttle TOR usage I can see that as an issue.
Memo to anyone with a consumer-grade ISP that doesn't explicitly allow you a specified bandwidth:
Call your ISP and get them to "name a bandwidth" below which you are guaranteed not to be called out for "excessive usage" and/or buy a business-grade service that has specified bandwidth limits.
Don't go over these limits.
Also, if your grade of service doesn't explicitly allow servers, buy one that does. You don't want to give the ISP an excuse to shut you down.
Sitting down for an extended period of time is probably more dangerous for men than women from a harm-to-gonad perspective.
But for most men,* the overall risk of harm gets lost in the noise of random chance and other small risks men's family jewels face every day.
*Not counting those whose wives catch them hopping into a car to visit their mistress: For them the risk of harm to the space between the legs approaches 100%
Don't get HIM a phone. If you must, get a phone that you hand off to his teachers/day-care/babysitters when you aren't around, so you can call in an emergency and so they can call you from a number you recognize in an emergency.
Once you've established that it will be adults in control of the phone, just get any old phone that can do video chat and which is on your network.
But a 4 year old with a phone in his possession, for him to be responsible for? Unless you have very unique requirements and a very responsible almost-4-year-old kid, this is probably not a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
This is Slashdot, after all.
Type the one that flies:
England Turkey Russia
They can all fly (provided they make it through TSA screening)
Ever tried getting a country the size of England into checked baggage much less carry-on?
And Russia? Forgettaboutit.
Turkey on the other hand can fly in checked baggage with cat and dog. Or maybe outside plane with Moose and Squirrel but only at low altitude. But I digress.
[imagine this as a captcha graphic]
Spell last month.
Or this:
[image]
Type the one that flies:
England Turkey Russia
Or this:
[image]
Type the word for
2 + number of days in a week
Or just to confuse things, split the "challenge" into code + html:
[image]
2 + number of days in a week
[html] What is the number above minus 4, as a word: ___
Well, at least now the French have a good reason to call us arrogant.
Sigh.
One way around the "no commerce" rule would be to get a court to declare that your particular proposed use does not involve a "federal interest" and is therefore exempt from all federal regulation under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This would require, among other things, that there be no interstate commerce and that there be no interference with interstate commerce. While this legal technique would not be useful to journalists whose employer is out-of-state or to those wishing to use UAVs close to an airport that had inter-state flights, it would be potentially useful for the few remaining local news outlets covering events not close to flight paths or airports.
It would be particularly useful to local specialty photographers who work with local businesses like real-estate agents, provided there truly was no interstate commerce involved.
The /. article said you had 10 ways, now you have 503 ways.
Now where is the "next" button? I'm only seeing method #1, "guru meditation."
In case anyone doesn't notice, these sentences (at least most of them) are presented tongue-in-cheek; a meditation of a guru, though, is another story.
Regulating the parts of the airspace routinely used in interstate commerce is the job of the Federal government.
I don't know what the actual "airspace" that the feds claim jurisdiction over, but common sense would say it's anything at or within the safety margin of the lowest altitude a commercial aircraft flying from one state to another or flying in or out of the United States would routinely use over that spot, or the lowest altitude a military or other federal-government-owned aircraft would routinely use over that spot. In most areas the "FAA floor" should be a few thousand feet at the lowest (I suspect it's much lower, but I digress). For areas within a few hundred feet of runways, helipads, etc. this may be all the way to the ground (sorry kiddies, no radio-controlled toy airplanes for you without FCC approval).
However, FAA regulations should be safety-oriented, not use-oriented.
States should and do have the right to impose safety regulations below that height.
Now, when it comes to radio transmissions, the FCC gets involved. They can and for all I know do impose rules that would prevent a ground-based kiddie-toy remote-control aircraft transmitter from interfering with other, higher-priority, licensed radio users including radios used by commercial aircraft.
For aircraft which emit pollutants into the atmosphere, the feds also have the right to impose pollution controls.
One other thing that can come under regulation is the actual purpose of the drone's use and the harm to society by allowing the drone to fly at all. I'm thinking noise pollution from low-flying drones and invasion-of-privacy issues from drones with cameras aimed at your backyard swimming pool or aimed at your windows. Most of this should come under state regulation, but things like flying near one state's border and photographing inside someone's window who lives across the border would reasonably come under Congress's purview, as would photographing into the backyard of a home located on a military base even if the drone were flying over private property with that landowner's consent.
Now, would I favor my state banning camera-less or camera-turned-off drones flying over private property with the owner's consent, or flying so high and so quiet that they are not a nuisance but not so high that they interfere with interstate commerce? No, but I would expect my state to ensure the safety of such craft. Would I favor my state banning photography from a drone if the subjects of the photograph and/or their owners consented, and the photography wasn't creating a nuisance, safety, or other issue for anyone else? No.
Wiki-PR conducting "a concerted attack" on Wikipedia, October 16, 2013.
Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed, October 9, 2013.
Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia, September 25, 2013.
Automatic detection of "infiltrating" Wikipedia admins; Wiki, or 'pedia?, September 25, 2013.
Get the MPAA/RIAA/etc. mad at you, that's how.
Sigh.
By publishing at all, they've basically told the world - good guys and bad guys - "If you want to find the DNA of a supertoxin, research in this area."
If well-funded bad guys want the DNA code for this, they will get it on their own within a few years if not a lot sooner.
In the meantime, the clock is ticking and the researchers working on an antidote know it.
The moral equivalent in software security would be for security researchers to quickly publish enough details that a well-funded adversary could find and exploit the hole within a matter of months, while giving the publisher and White Hat security vendors enough details to improve their products before the bad guys find and use the exploit.
... rather than shorter copyright terms.
I'm waiting for a big-name, trusted bank, insurance company, or sovereign state to print "Bitcoin Certificates" that are designed to be used as spending money (i.e. not just as a stuff-in-the-mattress currency) backed by BC, similar to the Gold and Silver certificates of days gone by.
Speaking of which, it would be nice to have Gold and Silver Certificates redeemable for a specific quantity of gold as well.
Listen here sonny, when I was just starting out "object oriented development" was anything but orthodox!
Mark my words, when you get to be as old as I am now people will be talking about newfangled things like "disks that hold data instead of putting it in The Cloud" and "getting that computer out of your brain and wearing it instead."
Mark my words.
Pink pony ... fully audited Truecrypt ... Pink pony ... fully audited Truecrypt ... choices, choices, choices.
400 GB per small* unit of time on the other hand ...
* "small unit of time" being 1 second or less
But "walk up" service with a clone of the Lavabit server running on a private LAN would be better.
If I were Lavabit and wasn't prohibited by court order or economic reality, I would offer this service over a several-month period, but I would ask (not require) that the customers donate a "reasonable" amount to the EFF or another freedom-supporting organization, where "reasonable" is the amount of money I'm losing by providing this service.
If I (as Lavabit) had the funds, I would "take this on the road" to major cities and major events to raise public awareness.
I wonder if this can be adapted to carrier pigeon-based networks?
Sound travels in space? Who knew???
I blame underwater latency.
Moderating /. posts takes longer under water.
Tor, originally sponsored by the United States Navy.
Any questions?
Well, if you didn't deliberately throttle TOR usage I can see that as an issue.
Memo to anyone with a consumer-grade ISP that doesn't explicitly allow you a specified bandwidth:
Call your ISP and get them to "name a bandwidth" below which you are guaranteed not to be called out for "excessive usage" and/or buy a business-grade service that has specified bandwidth limits.
Don't go over these limits.
Also, if your grade of service doesn't explicitly allow servers, buy one that does. You don't want to give the ISP an excuse to shut you down.
Who knew? I mean besides Ted Stevens of course.
Sitting down for an extended period of time is probably more dangerous for men than women from a harm-to-gonad perspective.
But for most men,* the overall risk of harm gets lost in the noise of random chance and other small risks men's family jewels face every day.
*Not counting those whose wives catch them hopping into a car to visit their mistress: For them the risk of harm to the space between the legs approaches 100%
Don't get HIM a phone. If you must, get a phone that you hand off to his teachers/day-care/babysitters when you aren't around, so you can call in an emergency and so they can call you from a number you recognize in an emergency.
Once you've established that it will be adults in control of the phone, just get any old phone that can do video chat and which is on your network.
But a 4 year old with a phone in his possession, for him to be responsible for? Unless you have very unique requirements and a very responsible almost-4-year-old kid, this is probably not a good idea.