Let me guess, that's a vague, hand-waving reference to the states that are disinclined to take on the new medicare mandates? Yeah, maybe they weren't charmed by the bald-faced lies that Obama told about that piece of legislation and his counter-constitutional, politically-driven, capricious execution of it? I know, how could anyone not like it, right? After all, if we want to keep our doctors and our previous insurance, we can, period. And our rates are going to go down an average of $2500 per family, right? Yeah. Lies. Exactly the sort of state-in-the-camera-and-lie stuff that DOES make people blame the government for mishandling their trust, their money, and their well being.
Because when you buy a television and are forced to pay a tax that finances, under penalty of winding up in court, someone else's programming choices... that's different than buying a television and NOT being subject to that tax. How is this not clear?
Other than the part where it's the government that runs the court system that enforces your having been forced to give the BBC money whether you want to patronize them or not.
It's freer from government influence than other funding mechanisms
What? It can't even work without the direct involvement in the government running the courts that are necessary for the BBC to collect their unavoidable TV tax.
Here's a way that the government could be even less involved: don't DO that. Let people who want to show programs to a large audience find their own way to fund the production and dissemination of that material. Say, by selling ads or attracting sponsors, etc. Remove the court system and penalties under law for not wanting to fund everything that's broadcast from the equation entirely. Why should someone who doesn't want to fund a given program be forced to, under penalty of being dragged through court? I have zero interest in watching our many all-sports programming options (ESPN, etc). You think the "best system we have" is for the government to be the enforcer in an arrangement where I'm forced to give them money anyway?
The BBC is funded by a tax on the UK citizens, enforced by the criminal code. Your assertion is completely wrong.
Ah, so in Britain the government isn't involved in tax collection and enforcement. They don't do the collecting, they don't penalize people who don't pay, and they don't get involved in picking and choosing who receives those funds, or have any say, whatsoever, over how that money is allocated. That is an interesting system indeed! Who handles all of that, if not the government?
In the US, yes. It makes no difference if it's a 50-pound Octo carrying a Red Epic shooting a Mercedes commercial, or a 15-gram kid's toy. In places like all of the US's national parkland, rivers, and coasts administered by the Park Service, they are all 100% banned. Likewise for 30 miles around Washington DC, without any regard to size or range. And no, it's not about "drones," it's about all RC (or autonomous) flying contraptions of any type or size, period. And they're just getting started.
Right. Trained and licensed just like the millions of car drivers around you, who area also in their cars, with license plates that can be identified. That explains why we have so many more drone injuries and deaths than we do car-related injuries and deaths. Well, actually, it doesn't. Manufacturers are selling hundreds of thousands of small multirotors every month, and the number of deaths is... zero. As opposed to thousands killed by licensed, tagged, trained, on-board car drivers. Now that you're re-thinking this, I'm sure you're going to be looking for ways to ban cars from driving past your property... because any one of those cars could hop the curb and smash right into your house. This MUST be banned.
Sure, other than the part where that's pure fantasy on your part, and it's nothing like that at all in real life. And if someone IS behaving that badly in a real and public way, there are already a jillion statutes in place to make them stop, or make them pay for being jerks to other people. And yet, untold thousands of these devices are being sold every month - how many ACTUAL cases of anything even approaching what you're describing actually occur? Especially compared to the typical street harassment you're describing, which is as old as time? Some perspective here, please.
I don't care about your excuses. I think you should be banned from flying over a property if the property owner deems he doesn't want you flying over his property
Of course you also think that a person flying a Cessna at a 1000 feet should have to check with every landowner below his flight path, too, right? No?
So you're also in favor of banning park tourists from using bicycles, right? Because far more people are injured and even killed in bike/pedestrian collisions every year than by 3-pound plastic toy multirotors. And you're probably also in favor of banning the noisy, smelly, routinely lethal motor vehicles that people use to get to and from those public spaces, right? Because those things - unlike drones - actually are involved in thousands of deaths every year.
Absolutely. Nothing better than sightseeing through a swarm of drones, relaxing in the peaceful atmosphere of buzzing electric motors, marvelling in the sight of your fellow tourists getting smashed in the head.
Yeah, those tourists getting smashed in the head by drones - that's been a real problem. Other than the fact that I'll bet you can't cite actual cases of such things happening that come even CLOSE to the number of people who are killed in motor vehicle accidents going to, moving within, and leaving public spaces.
You don't like the noise? How about you make arrangements to make sure that my trip to a public space is in no way interrupted by screaming kids, barking dogs, music being played from rolled-down car windows, and the like? Thanks.
That's awesome. I think it would also be great to never have to worry about you sneezing, or having a stroke, or being momentarily distracted, or having a mechanical failure as you drive your car to wherever you fly your non-crap drones. Because unlike the countless deaths we're seeing by drones (let's see... essentially none whatsoever despite untold hundreds of thousands, even millions in use), people are actually killed for real dead in car accidents every single day.
Cars ARE DANGEROUS when they are large enough to carry self righteous operators of non-crap drones. A pedestrian collision at even 5mph could be LETHAL.
See how this works? The Nanny State pendulum can swing in several directions.
But you do have an expectation of a drone not falling on your head or flying in your face.
You also have an expectation of not being bitten by a dog, hit by a car, run into by a person on a bicycle or using rollerblades. New Zealand should definitely make sure that nobody be allowed to drive a car to a public space, just in case. Or ride a bicycle - think of what might happen! And kids running around - total tripping hazards, so definitely no children allowed out of the house, anywhere.
Except, of course, at 1000 light years away... there are no EM radiations from us which would have reached there.
You obviously haven't been watching enough hard science documentaries on The Learning Channel, and don't understand the important role that our ancient pyramids have played in transmitting psycho-electrical immortality radiation towards the stars. Please try to keep up.
The study actually shows that the Americas and Australia each have inhabitants with DNA in common... because both places were wandered to from elsewhere in Asia. It's not Aussie DNA in the Americans, it's the same Asian DNA in Australia and the Americas.
What happens to first determining if there was any criminal intent...
You can't really have criminal intent to eat a piece of toast at your breakfast table, but you can have criminal intent to kill someone. What's the difference? Killing someone is a crime. So you have to know if something is a crime before you can determine if the plan to do it is reflective of criminal intent.
...or adverse consequences?
If you plan to murder someone, and even attempt the act, but the intended victim is unaware that you took a shot at them with your silienced movie-quality assassin's rifle and missed... what are the adverse consequence? None (as far as the intended victim is concerned), right? But the act is very much illegal because of the intended (but unrealized) consequences.
You have your basic information wrong. The airspace above your property up to the 500 (1000 in dense areas) feet above which airplanes must fly is NOT under your control. Here's a googling hint for you: 1946.
Slashdot Mirror
the editors will welcome they're new
Hopefully the new platform will still support irony.
And where would the colder place be to vent that heat?
Just pop up a little lead umbrella so there's a shady spot.
Let me guess, that's a vague, hand-waving reference to the states that are disinclined to take on the new medicare mandates? Yeah, maybe they weren't charmed by the bald-faced lies that Obama told about that piece of legislation and his counter-constitutional, politically-driven, capricious execution of it? I know, how could anyone not like it, right? After all, if we want to keep our doctors and our previous insurance, we can, period. And our rates are going to go down an average of $2500 per family, right? Yeah. Lies. Exactly the sort of state-in-the-camera-and-lie stuff that DOES make people blame the government for mishandling their trust, their money, and their well being.
Because when you buy a television and are forced to pay a tax that finances, under penalty of winding up in court, someone else's programming choices ... that's different than buying a television and NOT being subject to that tax. How is this not clear?
The BBC is independent from the government.
Other than the part where it's the government that runs the court system that enforces your having been forced to give the BBC money whether you want to patronize them or not.
It's freer from government influence than other funding mechanisms
What? It can't even work without the direct involvement in the government running the courts that are necessary for the BBC to collect their unavoidable TV tax.
Here's a way that the government could be even less involved: don't DO that. Let people who want to show programs to a large audience find their own way to fund the production and dissemination of that material. Say, by selling ads or attracting sponsors, etc. Remove the court system and penalties under law for not wanting to fund everything that's broadcast from the equation entirely. Why should someone who doesn't want to fund a given program be forced to, under penalty of being dragged through court? I have zero interest in watching our many all-sports programming options (ESPN, etc). You think the "best system we have" is for the government to be the enforcer in an arrangement where I'm forced to give them money anyway?
The BBC is funded by a tax on the UK citizens, enforced by the criminal code. Your assertion is completely wrong.
Ah, so in Britain the government isn't involved in tax collection and enforcement. They don't do the collecting, they don't penalize people who don't pay, and they don't get involved in picking and choosing who receives those funds, or have any say, whatsoever, over how that money is allocated. That is an interesting system indeed! Who handles all of that, if not the government?
Have you actually watched Italian television?
Wouldn't it just be easier to get the British government out of the news and entertainment businesses?
In the US, yes. It makes no difference if it's a 50-pound Octo carrying a Red Epic shooting a Mercedes commercial, or a 15-gram kid's toy. In places like all of the US's national parkland, rivers, and coasts administered by the Park Service, they are all 100% banned. Likewise for 30 miles around Washington DC, without any regard to size or range. And no, it's not about "drones," it's about all RC (or autonomous) flying contraptions of any type or size, period. And they're just getting started.
Not just the open source ones, either.
Right. Trained and licensed just like the millions of car drivers around you, who area also in their cars, with license plates that can be identified. That explains why we have so many more drone injuries and deaths than we do car-related injuries and deaths. Well, actually, it doesn't. Manufacturers are selling hundreds of thousands of small multirotors every month, and the number of deaths is ... zero. As opposed to thousands killed by licensed, tagged, trained, on-board car drivers. Now that you're re-thinking this, I'm sure you're going to be looking for ways to ban cars from driving past your property ... because any one of those cars could hop the curb and smash right into your house. This MUST be banned.
And that changes your privacy rights how, exactly? The FAA has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Regardless: are you comfortable that none of the millions of trained, state-certified car drivers all around you will hurt you? Why not?
Sure, other than the part where that's pure fantasy on your part, and it's nothing like that at all in real life. And if someone IS behaving that badly in a real and public way, there are already a jillion statutes in place to make them stop, or make them pay for being jerks to other people. And yet, untold thousands of these devices are being sold every month - how many ACTUAL cases of anything even approaching what you're describing actually occur? Especially compared to the typical street harassment you're describing, which is as old as time? Some perspective here, please.
If you fly a drone over my property, we get to find out how effective the various loads of 12 gauge shot shells are.
Sure, other than the fact that shooting at any aircraft - manned or otherwise - is a federal felony.
I don't care about your excuses. I think you should be banned from flying over a property if the property owner deems he doesn't want you flying over his property
Of course you also think that a person flying a Cessna at a 1000 feet should have to check with every landowner below his flight path, too, right? No?
Why? Be very, very specific.
I find this a perfectly reasonable law.
So you're also in favor of banning park tourists from using bicycles, right? Because far more people are injured and even killed in bike/pedestrian collisions every year than by 3-pound plastic toy multirotors. And you're probably also in favor of banning the noisy, smelly, routinely lethal motor vehicles that people use to get to and from those public spaces, right? Because those things - unlike drones - actually are involved in thousands of deaths every year.
Absolutely. Nothing better than sightseeing through a swarm of drones, relaxing in the peaceful atmosphere of buzzing electric motors, marvelling in the sight of your fellow tourists getting smashed in the head.
Yeah, those tourists getting smashed in the head by drones - that's been a real problem. Other than the fact that I'll bet you can't cite actual cases of such things happening that come even CLOSE to the number of people who are killed in motor vehicle accidents going to, moving within, and leaving public spaces.
You don't like the noise? How about you make arrangements to make sure that my trip to a public space is in no way interrupted by screaming kids, barking dogs, music being played from rolled-down car windows, and the like? Thanks.
I think this is GREAT.
That's awesome. I think it would also be great to never have to worry about you sneezing, or having a stroke, or being momentarily distracted, or having a mechanical failure as you drive your car to wherever you fly your non-crap drones. Because unlike the countless deaths we're seeing by drones (let's see... essentially none whatsoever despite untold hundreds of thousands, even millions in use), people are actually killed for real dead in car accidents every single day.
Cars ARE DANGEROUS when they are large enough to carry self righteous operators of non-crap drones. A pedestrian collision at even 5mph could be LETHAL.
See how this works? The Nanny State pendulum can swing in several directions.
But you do have an expectation of a drone not falling on your head or flying in your face.
You also have an expectation of not being bitten by a dog, hit by a car, run into by a person on a bicycle or using rollerblades. New Zealand should definitely make sure that nobody be allowed to drive a car to a public space, just in case. Or ride a bicycle - think of what might happen! And kids running around - total tripping hazards, so definitely no children allowed out of the house, anywhere.
There, feeling more rational now? No? Ah.
Except, of course, at 1000 light years away ... there are no EM radiations from us which would have reached there.
You obviously haven't been watching enough hard science documentaries on The Learning Channel, and don't understand the important role that our ancient pyramids have played in transmitting psycho-electrical immortality radiation towards the stars. Please try to keep up.
The study actually shows that the Americas and Australia each have inhabitants with DNA in common ... because both places were wandered to from elsewhere in Asia. It's not Aussie DNA in the Americans, it's the same Asian DNA in Australia and the Americas.
What happens to first determining if there was any criminal intent...
You can't really have criminal intent to eat a piece of toast at your breakfast table, but you can have criminal intent to kill someone. What's the difference? Killing someone is a crime. So you have to know if something is a crime before you can determine if the plan to do it is reflective of criminal intent.
...or adverse consequences?
If you plan to murder someone, and even attempt the act, but the intended victim is unaware that you took a shot at them with your silienced movie-quality assassin's rifle and missed ... what are the adverse consequence? None (as far as the intended victim is concerned), right? But the act is very much illegal because of the intended (but unrealized) consequences.
You have your basic information wrong. The airspace above your property up to the 500 (1000 in dense areas) feet above which airplanes must fly is NOT under your control. Here's a googling hint for you: 1946.
I do think many of them are peeping Toms who need to have their remote control aircraft shot out of the sky on a regular basis.
Based on? Specifically.