Social media and email and for that matter group-texting are great for organizing pop-up/short-notice real-world street protests.
Local (to me) groups have used Facebook and other tools to arrange last-minute events at least twice in the last few months.
And? Those don't do anything either. They just demonstrate that the people chanting and ranting are well off enough that they can afford to not hold down a job, and instead spend their time looking for media coverage to impress their friends. They sway no opinions, they only annoy the people who already find them to be shrill or annoying. When was the last time that you fundamentally changed your value system because someone yelled at you in the street? On the other hand, I know lots of people who might have been at least somewhat sympathetic so some of the random and muddled messages in the "occupy" social clubs, but who - after a couple of weeks of having to put up with them - became actively hostile to their cause(s) because they were basically carrying on in the streets like entitled, incoherent jerks.
All these consumer-grade drones are going to use one or a short list of control signal types, should be easy to jam, and only a little more difficult to override with a stronger signal and flat-out take control of the drone in question
That's not how these work. That not how any of this works. Not any more.
That's like saying you could take over someone's Amazon account by using a stronger WiFi signal.
Sandra Bland was pulled over for a trivial traffic offense
Right. But then she didn't act anything like a person being cited for a traffic violation. And when she ended up being brought in she (as she'd tried multiple times before) killed herself. That is the reality. You're saying that, through some sort of time travel, her mental inability to act normally and her existing suicidal tendencies caused her detainment, which in turn rippled back through time and caused her to be arrested? Do you even listen to yourself?
Courts are siding with shooters who were on their private property in cases of privacy violation.
"Courts?"
You mean one judge in Kentucky who couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand the telemetry and video from the quad that showed it not only wasn't "hovering" over the property in question, but it was actually moving past at 200' up. There was no invasion of privacy, no more than there is when someone drives past on the street. The case will likely be appealed, as the guy not only illegally discharged his firearm, he shot at an aircraft (which the FAA says you cannot do under any circumstances, ever).
Should you be able to shoot at a kid who climbs over your fence to cut through to the next yard? Because that's actual trespassing, unlike flying at a couple hundred feet in the public airspace. Glad I'm not your neighbor.
No, it was not. It was an X-configuration octocopter. Eight motors in four positions. Generally very well behaved in flight. This looks like either a shut-down command in flight (that can be done, it's operator error), or a catastrophic LiPo failure/shutdown in flight (not unheard of in cold weather, when the power curve drops abruptly if the batteries aren't heated).
If he did, he certainly would not want to be involved in the introduction of a new technology that has so much potential to kill people and destroy their property.
You mean like multi-ton delivery trucks? Like 747's full of freight flying over populated cities?
Woops, silly me. Trucks are never involved in deaths and the destruction of property.
I agree, they way it crashed, it wasn't flying low when the propellors stopped, it was more like someone just dropped the whole drone from a height without even having it on..
More likely a LiPo battery failure in the cold weather (not uncommon). But it could also be as simple as operator error, since it's perfectly possible - through pilot action - to kill the motors while in flight. Just like a professional camera crane operator might accidentally dip the camera down to lobotomy height while shooting at a marathon. Or like the Segway-mounted camera platform that plowed into a world champion sprinter a few months ago. Shit happens, both mechanical and human.
And people wonder why the FAA wants to register drones.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The FAA has already banned all commercial use (as seen in the event in question). They then are willing to hand out some waivers, provided the person operating the RC aircraft is an actual certified pilot (as in, legally allowed to climb in a Cessna and fly it around), and many other very severe restrictions.
The "registration" program is aimed solely at hobby users. As in, people who've just bought their 13 year old daughter a 9-ounce pink plastic toy copter from a mall kiosk. As in those old guys who build balsa-wood scale model airplanes and fly them around in circles at their model airplane club. That's what the FAA you're praising is now requiring. If grandpa doesn't register his 50-year-old balsa wood model, he faces a $20,000 civil fine, an even larger criminal fine, and years in prison.
If a sports company operating (what is likely) a professional drone almost mames someone at the world cup, what do you Jim Bob will do at the county fair.
If a professional baker runs into a pedestrian while operating his delivery truck, just THINK what you personally might do with your own truck at the county fair, right? Yeah.
Regardless, the Obama administration's new toy RC registration scheme is being implemented directly in conflict with the 2012 FMRA law which forbids the FAA from placing any regulatory burden on hobbyists. The administration is getting around this by doing it under the auspices of the Department Of Transportation, instead. You know, because 13 year old Suzy's 9-ounce plastic toy copter is definitely a form of transportation.
And man, those pro drones are really expensive.
Yeah, and so is a BMW motorcycle and the $25,000 broadcast camera it's rear-facing passenger is using when getting video of the Tour de France when
that
camera platform crashes in and around competitors. No different than the skiing example in the OP.
A $100 UPS will prevent a $200 visit to replace a $100 part in a TV power supply. How is that a bad idea?
How? $600 worth of replacement UPS batteries over the life of a $500 TV that will actually be more like obsolete in two years anyway?
Never had a UPS on a TV. Have never had a TV fail due to any of our many power flickers, sags, spikes, or outages. Sure, it'll happen eventually. In the meantime, I'm many hundreds of dollars ahead of the game (thousands, probably, looking at the period of time I'm talking about) and also not paying for the extra electricity it takes to keep those UPSes awake and happy.
As much as you don't want to admit it, putting people in prison *causes* crime.
So let me get this straight. You go into a liquor store and threaten to kill someone if they don't give you their money. You get caught, and are put into prison for being a violent douche. Being put into prison is what, through time travel, causes you to have committed the crime in the first place.
You would prefer the scenario where: You go into a liquor store and threaten to kill someone if they don't give you their money. You get caught. You are given a pat on the head, and the lack of consequence for being a violent douche magically causes you to change your ways and never do such a thing again.
The CIA has spied on Congress, and blatantly broken domestic spying laws.
Let's see, you're referring to the CIA under the supervision of Obama's appointed director, right?
If you don't like the Obama people in charge of places like DHS and IRS plainly lying to Congress when asked questions, why aren't you calling for a special prosecutor, knowing that Obama's DoJ is willfully avoiding holding them accountable for demonstrably criminal behavior?
how about we either A- have better alternatives to a for-profit prison system
So you'd rather have a prison run by volunteers? By people who don't make a living while dealing with criminals?
public humiliation
So, if someone wrecks your business, or steals from you, or rapes your daughter, or kills your friend... public humiliation! There, everything's better now.
Why do you think that people who don't have the integrity to hold off on committing crimes are going to care about your idea of humiliation? Or are you advocating for something really, really atrocious and cruel? Ever read that part of the constitution? You know, the part that makes that totally off limits?
actually make something useful out of these people?
OK, so you've got one of "these people" in custody because they just used a machete to lop the hands off of a rival gang member from MS-13. What did you have in mind - chain gang landscaping crews? Forced factory work? Be specific instead of dishing out meaningless, contradictory platitudes.
Because they didn't spend the amount of time in jail that their sentence called for.
Why as a taxpayer am I being forced to re-incarcerate anyone?
The cost of collecting the people who were mistakenly released is probably very small in most cases compared to the cost of their actual incarceration. So what you're really asking is, "Why should taxpayers foot the bill for putting criminals in jail?" Are you suggesting that we bill their families, instead? Who else did you think was going to pay for maintaining a convicted criminal's time in prison?
It's bad enough that we have this many people in jail to begin with.
That is definitely true. Fewer people should commit crimes.
Who exactly does re-incarcerating people benefit?
It's finishing the incarceration we're talking about, here. So what you're really asking is, "Who exactly does incarcerating a criminal benefit?" Let me guess, you don't think criminals should ever be locked up, right? Otherwise you'd be able to answer your own phony question.
we want to put more people in?
No, we want to keep the people who are still supposed to be in, in.
Software issue or not, this is stupid.
Making convicted criminals complete their prison sentences is stupid?
What liberal administration? Obama? He is no liberal.
I'm always amused by liberals who go out of their way to disassociate themselves from liberals who successfully make it into prominent public positions. Being a liberal is only fun if nobody is paying attention to what you actually DO (because then you have to explain why it doesn't work in the real world).
The rules and procedures that the DHS operates under was created 100% by the Bush administration.
So you think that an agency's charter, written a decade ago, is forcing current political appointees and their staff to do bad math on the cost of running a particular program? Please point out where in the DHS charter you can spot Bush's influence over the current administration's choice of DHS leadership as they incorrectly estimate the running cost of an airborne border observation system. Please, be specific. Or admit that you've got nothing in the way of defending the current administration's incompetence, and so you're resorting to "it's all Bush's fault!" like the mindless useful idiot you are.
Right, you get a gold star for that one part. But it's strange that you don't understand that the DHS is controlled by the executive branch of the government. Their procurement process, the day-to-day decision making that covers policy and procedure matters (as it relates to things like how to actually go about putting drones to work along the border and how the details of that program are actually handled) are under the supervision of Obama's political appointees. Period.
It's funny that you blame a "republican administration" for being present when the DHS was established (such POWER the administration has, right?), but now that a different administration has been in charge of it for 7 years, you consider the executive branch to have no such power.
You don't understand what the militia was at the time of writing was , do you? Based on that alone, you should re-think your argument.
It doesn't MATTER what a militia was at the time. Because the amendment isn't ABOUT the militia, other than indirectly. What the amendment does is recognize that there's likely always going to BE something like a militia (a standing army of some scale), but that fact doesn't give the government the authority to deny individuals their own keeping and bearing of arms. It's that simple. Essentially, "Just because we'll have an army doesn't mean that the government has a monopoly on the ownership of arms." Period.
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
It says no such thing. Your reading comprehension and understanding of the constitution is completely childish.
Those are the terms that must be met according to the documents.
No, they're not. The point is that THERE ARE NO TERMS. The government shall not infringe - as in, not place conditions on, not interfere with, not limit - on that basic right. The Second Amendment is saying that despite the inevitable need for a standing military (even at the militia level), the existence of such is not an excuse for the government to prevent individual citizens from keeping and bearing their own arms.
I guess I am the only sane person capable of correctly parsing the english language?
No, you're just making stuff up. You are parsing it exactly 100% backwards.
More literally it says we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. ie guns to shoot at an overzealous government/military.
No IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
The founders used the Second Amendment to say that despite their grudging recognition that a standing army (at least at the militia level) was going to be necessary, nobody should use the fact of the existence of that standing military to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms. They just went through that with the British, and they didn't want to see it happen again.
They knew that some people would say, "Why should the local inn keeper or livery owner or farmer need to keep or bear arms if we're going to have a well regulated militia anyway?" It was EXACTLY to head off those people that they put the Second Amendment in place, just like they put the First Amendment in place to prevent the inevitable attempt to use the power of government to influence the dominance of a particular religion, prevent people from assembling into like-minded groups, etc.
Those amendments don't establish ANYTHING. They prevent the government from interfering with things.
Yes, they were concerned about tyranny. But they weren't proposing a "well regulated militia" as a counter to tyrrany. They were concerned that the well-regulated militia might end up being part OF tyranny, and insisted that the existence of such had no bearing on an individual's right to their own arms.
Please cite your source for that definition. Once you get done with that, please point out anywhere in the new DoT rule that the words "drone" or "camera" are even being used anyway. You have no idea what you're talking about.
A short while ago a drone backed out a few city blocks in California after touching power lines. Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
People have been flying RC airplane-like toy-things for decades. Many of those have no resemblance to any full-scale aircraft ever flown. Are you really suggesting that the law was meant to distinguish between perfectly scaled imitations of "real" aircraft, but to leave out those that are made of hot pink sheets of foam and have a wire tail drag? Congress (just ask the people who wrote the law) had no intention of distinguishing between one form of flying contraption and the next under - the only distinction they made was between recreational, commercial, and government (a la law enforcement) use. Recreation uses are off limits from further FAA action, per the 2012 FMRA. That's the law. The Obama administration is flouting that law because they don't like it. It's that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Social media and email and for that matter group-texting are great for organizing pop-up/short-notice real-world street protests.
Local (to me) groups have used Facebook and other tools to arrange last-minute events at least twice in the last few months.
And? Those don't do anything either. They just demonstrate that the people chanting and ranting are well off enough that they can afford to not hold down a job, and instead spend their time looking for media coverage to impress their friends. They sway no opinions, they only annoy the people who already find them to be shrill or annoying. When was the last time that you fundamentally changed your value system because someone yelled at you in the street? On the other hand, I know lots of people who might have been at least somewhat sympathetic so some of the random and muddled messages in the "occupy" social clubs, but who - after a couple of weeks of having to put up with them - became actively hostile to their cause(s) because they were basically carrying on in the streets like entitled, incoherent jerks.
All these consumer-grade drones are going to use one or a short list of control signal types, should be easy to jam, and only a little more difficult to override with a stronger signal and flat-out take control of the drone in question
That's not how these work. That not how any of this works. Not any more.
That's like saying you could take over someone's Amazon account by using a stronger WiFi signal.
Sandra Bland was pulled over for a trivial traffic offense
Right. But then she didn't act anything like a person being cited for a traffic violation. And when she ended up being brought in she (as she'd tried multiple times before) killed herself. That is the reality. You're saying that, through some sort of time travel, her mental inability to act normally and her existing suicidal tendencies caused her detainment, which in turn rippled back through time and caused her to be arrested? Do you even listen to yourself?
My point is that there should be a special design of cameras to make them airworthy
This already exists. You're not paying attention.
As it happens, technology has dramatically changed.
Courts are siding with shooters who were on their private property in cases of privacy violation.
"Courts?"
You mean one judge in Kentucky who couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand the telemetry and video from the quad that showed it not only wasn't "hovering" over the property in question, but it was actually moving past at 200' up. There was no invasion of privacy, no more than there is when someone drives past on the street. The case will likely be appealed, as the guy not only illegally discharged his firearm, he shot at an aircraft (which the FAA says you cannot do under any circumstances, ever).
Should you be able to shoot at a kid who climbs over your fence to cut through to the next yard? Because that's actual trespassing, unlike flying at a couple hundred feet in the public airspace. Glad I'm not your neighbor.
It was a quad not a hexacopter.
No, it was not. It was an X-configuration octocopter. Eight motors in four positions. Generally very well behaved in flight. This looks like either a shut-down command in flight (that can be done, it's operator error), or a catastrophic LiPo failure/shutdown in flight (not unheard of in cold weather, when the power curve drops abruptly if the batteries aren't heated).
If he did, he certainly would not want to be involved in the introduction of a new technology that has so much potential to kill people and destroy their property.
You mean like multi-ton delivery trucks? Like 747's full of freight flying over populated cities?
Woops, silly me. Trucks are never involved in deaths and the destruction of property.
I agree, they way it crashed, it wasn't flying low when the propellors stopped, it was more like someone just dropped the whole drone from a height without even having it on..
More likely a LiPo battery failure in the cold weather (not uncommon). But it could also be as simple as operator error, since it's perfectly possible - through pilot action - to kill the motors while in flight. Just like a professional camera crane operator might accidentally dip the camera down to lobotomy height while shooting at a marathon. Or like the Segway-mounted camera platform that plowed into a world champion sprinter a few months ago. Shit happens, both mechanical and human.
And people wonder why the FAA wants to register drones.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The FAA has already banned all commercial use (as seen in the event in question). They then are willing to hand out some waivers, provided the person operating the RC aircraft is an actual certified pilot (as in, legally allowed to climb in a Cessna and fly it around), and many other very severe restrictions.
The "registration" program is aimed solely at hobby users. As in, people who've just bought their 13 year old daughter a 9-ounce pink plastic toy copter from a mall kiosk. As in those old guys who build balsa-wood scale model airplanes and fly them around in circles at their model airplane club. That's what the FAA you're praising is now requiring. If grandpa doesn't register his 50-year-old balsa wood model, he faces a $20,000 civil fine, an even larger criminal fine, and years in prison.
If a sports company operating (what is likely) a professional drone almost mames someone at the world cup, what do you Jim Bob will do at the county fair.
If a professional baker runs into a pedestrian while operating his delivery truck, just THINK what you personally might do with your own truck at the county fair, right? Yeah.
Regardless, the Obama administration's new toy RC registration scheme is being implemented directly in conflict with the 2012 FMRA law which forbids the FAA from placing any regulatory burden on hobbyists. The administration is getting around this by doing it under the auspices of the Department Of Transportation, instead. You know, because 13 year old Suzy's 9-ounce plastic toy copter is definitely a form of transportation.
And man, those pro drones are really expensive.
Yeah, and so is a BMW motorcycle and the $25,000 broadcast camera it's rear-facing passenger is using when getting video of the Tour de France when
that
camera platform crashes in and around competitors. No different than the skiing example in the OP.
A $100 UPS will prevent a $200 visit to replace a $100 part in a TV power supply. How is that a bad idea?
How? $600 worth of replacement UPS batteries over the life of a $500 TV that will actually be more like obsolete in two years anyway?
Never had a UPS on a TV. Have never had a TV fail due to any of our many power flickers, sags, spikes, or outages. Sure, it'll happen eventually. In the meantime, I'm many hundreds of dollars ahead of the game (thousands, probably, looking at the period of time I'm talking about) and also not paying for the extra electricity it takes to keep those UPSes awake and happy.
As much as you don't want to admit it, putting people in prison *causes* crime.
So let me get this straight. You go into a liquor store and threaten to kill someone if they don't give you their money. You get caught, and are put into prison for being a violent douche. Being put into prison is what, through time travel, causes you to have committed the crime in the first place.
You would prefer the scenario where: You go into a liquor store and threaten to kill someone if they don't give you their money. You get caught. You are given a pat on the head, and the lack of consequence for being a violent douche magically causes you to change your ways and never do such a thing again.
The CIA has spied on Congress, and blatantly broken domestic spying laws.
Let's see, you're referring to the CIA under the supervision of Obama's appointed director, right?
If you don't like the Obama people in charge of places like DHS and IRS plainly lying to Congress when asked questions, why aren't you calling for a special prosecutor, knowing that Obama's DoJ is willfully avoiding holding them accountable for demonstrably criminal behavior?
how about we either A- have better alternatives to a for-profit prison system
So you'd rather have a prison run by volunteers? By people who don't make a living while dealing with criminals?
public humiliation
So, if someone wrecks your business, or steals from you, or rapes your daughter, or kills your friend ... public humiliation! There, everything's better now.
Why do you think that people who don't have the integrity to hold off on committing crimes are going to care about your idea of humiliation? Or are you advocating for something really, really atrocious and cruel? Ever read that part of the constitution? You know, the part that makes that totally off limits?
actually make something useful out of these people?
OK, so you've got one of "these people" in custody because they just used a machete to lop the hands off of a rival gang member from MS-13. What did you have in mind - chain gang landscaping crews? Forced factory work? Be specific instead of dishing out meaningless, contradictory platitudes.
Why not just leave these people alone?
Because they didn't spend the amount of time in jail that their sentence called for.
Why as a taxpayer am I being forced to re-incarcerate anyone?
The cost of collecting the people who were mistakenly released is probably very small in most cases compared to the cost of their actual incarceration. So what you're really asking is, "Why should taxpayers foot the bill for putting criminals in jail?" Are you suggesting that we bill their families, instead? Who else did you think was going to pay for maintaining a convicted criminal's time in prison?
It's bad enough that we have this many people in jail to begin with.
That is definitely true. Fewer people should commit crimes.
Who exactly does re-incarcerating people benefit?
It's finishing the incarceration we're talking about, here. So what you're really asking is, "Who exactly does incarcerating a criminal benefit?" Let me guess, you don't think criminals should ever be locked up, right? Otherwise you'd be able to answer your own phony question.
we want to put more people in?
No, we want to keep the people who are still supposed to be in, in.
Software issue or not, this is stupid.
Making convicted criminals complete their prison sentences is stupid?
What liberal administration? Obama? He is no liberal.
I'm always amused by liberals who go out of their way to disassociate themselves from liberals who successfully make it into prominent public positions. Being a liberal is only fun if nobody is paying attention to what you actually DO (because then you have to explain why it doesn't work in the real world).
The rules and procedures that the DHS operates under was created 100% by the Bush administration.
So you think that an agency's charter, written a decade ago, is forcing current political appointees and their staff to do bad math on the cost of running a particular program? Please point out where in the DHS charter you can spot Bush's influence over the current administration's choice of DHS leadership as they incorrectly estimate the running cost of an airborne border observation system. Please, be specific. Or admit that you've got nothing in the way of defending the current administration's incompetence, and so you're resorting to "it's all Bush's fault!" like the mindless useful idiot you are.
Congress is controlled by the republicans
Right, you get a gold star for that one part. But it's strange that you don't understand that the DHS is controlled by the executive branch of the government. Their procurement process, the day-to-day decision making that covers policy and procedure matters (as it relates to things like how to actually go about putting drones to work along the border and how the details of that program are actually handled) are under the supervision of Obama's political appointees. Period.
It's funny that you blame a "republican administration" for being present when the DHS was established (such POWER the administration has, right?), but now that a different administration has been in charge of it for 7 years, you consider the executive branch to have no such power.
Oh, I get it. You're trolling. Never mind.
Conservatism + Xenophobia is more expensive to the American taxpayer than outright socialism.
How are you measuring that - by the actions of the liberal administration that's actually running the programs in question?
You don't understand what the militia was at the time of writing was , do you? Based on that alone, you should re-think your argument.
It doesn't MATTER what a militia was at the time. Because the amendment isn't ABOUT the militia, other than indirectly. What the amendment does is recognize that there's likely always going to BE something like a militia (a standing army of some scale), but that fact doesn't give the government the authority to deny individuals their own keeping and bearing of arms. It's that simple. Essentially, "Just because we'll have an army doesn't mean that the government has a monopoly on the ownership of arms." Period.
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
It says no such thing. Your reading comprehension and understanding of the constitution is completely childish.
Those are the terms that must be met according to the documents.
No, they're not. The point is that THERE ARE NO TERMS. The government shall not infringe - as in, not place conditions on, not interfere with, not limit - on that basic right. The Second Amendment is saying that despite the inevitable need for a standing military (even at the militia level), the existence of such is not an excuse for the government to prevent individual citizens from keeping and bearing their own arms.
I guess I am the only sane person capable of correctly parsing the english language?
No, you're just making stuff up. You are parsing it exactly 100% backwards.
More literally it says we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. ie guns to shoot at an overzealous government/military.
No IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
The founders used the Second Amendment to say that despite their grudging recognition that a standing army (at least at the militia level) was going to be necessary, nobody should use the fact of the existence of that standing military to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms. They just went through that with the British, and they didn't want to see it happen again.
They knew that some people would say, "Why should the local inn keeper or livery owner or farmer need to keep or bear arms if we're going to have a well regulated militia anyway?" It was EXACTLY to head off those people that they put the Second Amendment in place, just like they put the First Amendment in place to prevent the inevitable attempt to use the power of government to influence the dominance of a particular religion, prevent people from assembling into like-minded groups, etc.
Those amendments don't establish ANYTHING. They prevent the government from interfering with things.
Yes, they were concerned about tyranny. But they weren't proposing a "well regulated militia" as a counter to tyrrany. They were concerned that the well-regulated militia might end up being part OF tyranny, and insisted that the existence of such had no bearing on an individual's right to their own arms.
Drones have cameras, models do not.
Please cite your source for that definition. Once you get done with that, please point out anywhere in the new DoT rule that the words "drone" or "camera" are even being used anyway. You have no idea what you're talking about.
A short while ago a drone backed out a few city blocks in California after touching power lines. Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
https://youtu.be/S3Ho3qE9Tys
People have been flying RC airplane-like toy-things for decades. Many of those have no resemblance to any full-scale aircraft ever flown. Are you really suggesting that the law was meant to distinguish between perfectly scaled imitations of "real" aircraft, but to leave out those that are made of hot pink sheets of foam and have a wire tail drag? Congress (just ask the people who wrote the law) had no intention of distinguishing between one form of flying contraption and the next under - the only distinction they made was between recreational, commercial, and government (a la law enforcement) use. Recreation uses are off limits from further FAA action, per the 2012 FMRA. That's the law. The Obama administration is flouting that law because they don't like it. It's that simple.