Oh everyone knows it won't be, it will be copyrighted to hell and back and DMCA notices will fly everywhere the first time some tries to tinker with the electronic portions of these "smart guns". And any owner will have to take their weapons to authorized gunsmiths to have repairs done, even if the failing is in the mechanical portion of the gun. I firmly believe there will be a good amount of rent seeking in this new "smart gun" market, if it ever comes to pass.
I am not a lawyer, and obviously neither are you because your pie in the sky idea of liability does not even come close to reality.
I would not be surprised if, some day, liability for firearms had an attractive-nuisance provision associated with it, and that the legitimate owner of the firearm would have to maintain insurance on that firearm that covered the liability of that firearm's misuse until that firearm were legally transferred to a new owner or until that firearm were documented as destroyed.
An attractive nuisance is defined as anything that could be considered to attract children onto someones property, for example pools or fountains. Unless firearms owners are storing their weapons by strewing them about in the back yard or have a sign up saying "Guns are here" I doubt a case could be made that it is an attractive nuisance.
And worse for the firearm owner, if that firearm is stolen, unlike vehicles that are generally stolen to be disassembled for parts, the liability of the firearm would probably never go away and if they discontinued insurance then they would still have a degree of liability for what transpired for a firearm that they let get out of their possession.
What you think will happen here is tantamount to charging a car theft victim for a bank robbery committed by the thief, or a phone theft victim for a drug deal arranged with their stolen cell phone. That is not how liability works and unless the courts go pants on head retarded it will not work that way in the foreseeable future.
The biggest problem is the lack of personal responsibility at every stage of the process, right up to the legitimate owner. Absolutely there are owners that are quite responsible, but on the other hand we routinely hear of incidents where children have shot people, be it a young friend, young sibling, a parent, or in extreme cases a firearms instructor with an UZI, because firearms have been left out where people too young to understand their usage manage to get a hold of them.
Leaving weapons out where children can access them is actually already a crime and negligent owners are being prosecuted for it. Case in point is thiscase where a father left his weapon rolled up on top of the fridge and the child wanted to play cops and robbers. It is a tragic story but the father is responsible and should be charged. I am not sure how you think this shows a lack of responsibility.
We routinely hear of people's homes being broken into and their firearms stolen.
I am not what responsibility you are expecting burglary victims to hold for the theft of their belongings, do we hold big screen owners responsible when their house is robbed as well?
We routinely hear of spousal shootings.
Again we hold people responsible for that as well, shooting your spouse is against the law and people go to jail for that.
We routinely hear of gun-cleaning accidents where someone didn't clear the chamber after removing the magazine.
If a person injures someone while cleaning and is found to be negligent they can and have been charged. However if it is a true accident then there may be no charges because it was an accident, same as if a person accidentally hit a child with a car. Honestly it seems you want gun owners to be under a different standard under the law than is applicable to any other group. I would caution you that unequal treatment for groups was done in the past and it was as wrong then as it is now.
A toddler took a gun from his mother's purse and shot her in the head killing her. With smart gun technology that would might not have happened.
With proper gun safety that would of never happened. With "smart gun" technology it might not have happened, do not think this "smart gun" technology is the be all solution to weapon handling. Do not store weapons within reach of children, "Smart gun" or not. The mother's death was entirely her own fault, not the weapon's and not the toddler's.
Not really confused but was referring to the period in time where we had a portion of our elected leaders and population looking for the "red menace" everywhere including underneath our beds, most famously known for Senator McCarthy though the HUAC is also well known from there. The period gave rise to the term McCarthyism, which is what I was referring to.
How many more of our rights will our leaders call to sacrifice because of this boogy man ISIS? We already had our president call for the suspension of the second amendment based on some extrajudicial watch list. And now we have Eric Posner arguing to suspend the First amendment right of freedom of association and speech. The fourth has long since been ignored with the NSA blanket surveillance, so what is left for them to sacrifice?
Will we sacrifice the sixth and suspend trial by jury for those on the no fly list? After all they are on the list so they must be guilty. How about tossing the eighth and throwing those newly convicted terrorists into the Iron maiden, bring back a little old school punishment.
Perhaps we should toss the third and start placing NSA agents inside peoples homes, to make sure ISIS doesn't get in.
Or we could ignore the fifth and give the people on the watch list a nice round of waterboarding so they confess and forgo the bother of a trial.
I mean when will it stop for these people? Throw up ISIS or Al Queda and our leaders seem to climb all over each other to rip up our bill of rights. When did we elect a bunch of gutless cowards who would gladly sacrifice our constitution to help them sleep at night? This has to stop, we should face tragedies head on while holding on to our beliefs, not throw away our rights at the earliest convenience.
Osiris: "So apparently ISIS just bombed another hospital and the boys asked me if it was your time of the month."
Isis: "You know it wasn't me honey, I was busy playing fallout."
Osiris:"yes I know, but this is getting embarrassing. I keep on telling everyone it wasn't you but the rumors keep coming."
Isis:"That's not my fault dear."
Osiris: "...You know, you could always change your name."
Isis: "No way! Why should I change? They're the ones who suck."
It almost reads like something from the McCarthy hearings, where they attacked film makers who made films with allegedly procommunist messages because of their influence on the american people. But this is worse, it would imprison anyone who had ever even seen the movie, let alone produced it. That is a dark path indeed that Mr. Posner wants to go down.
What I find interesting is after the incident where the drone was shot down after spying on the neighbors daughter there were people shouting for him to be federally charged for firing at an aircraft.
Yet now that the FAA is treating RC quads/drones as real big boy aircraft by requiring registration and a nominal fee there is so much crying about government overreach and abuse you would think they outright banned them and then slapped the owners' mothers for spite.
Not so sure it was an organization being mad, more like trying to forestall the inevitable. I can guarantee you that there will be a person sitting in the front yard someday glancing between his shiny new quadrocoptor and his 8 week old son thinking "Hmmm". I doubt the regulations will stop dudley dumbass but at least then the FAA can say they tried.
There is absolutely, not one shred of constitutional justification for this. The FAA has legitimate jurisdiction over interstate air travel and aircraft that are planned to be used for such. It has no constitutional jurisdiction over the use of RC drones, within a state's borders, that touches on no federal property and that is barely intended to be flown to the perimeter of one's community.
That horse left the barn a long time before this. Wickward v. Filburn pretty much gave the federal government authority over anything that could remotely be considered interstate commerce. And since they found that a farmer growing his own wheat to feed his animals affected interstate commerce I don't hold out much hope for your RC drone to not be affected.
Sadly our leaders are too often willing to pander to fear to obtain power rather than work to eliminate the need for the fear.
Like the president urging congress to strip the rights of citizens based on a secret government watch list created with no judicial review and no avenue of appeal? That kind of pandering?
Don't rush to the "terrorism" label so fast, it could just be some mentally disturbed individuals.
Considering the shooting was at Inland Regional center, a center for developmentally disabled people, it is a high possibility of a former or current patient despite their race or religion.
Until some fool created infinite tamagochi and drained the entire Universe of all energy.
The Infinite Tamagochi fed and drained the old universe of all energy. But then the Infinite Tamagochi had to poop and thus the universe was created anew.
I think you just created an idea for a new religion.
The target does not change the legalities of the action. The state is compelled to investigate and rule.
But the punishment is up to their discretion (barring horrid minimum sentencing laws like some jail obsessed countries have). So while they likely will be found guilty, a smart judge will punish them with a pinkie promise not to do it again.
See, when I first heard these girls are going to be charged I was thinking the state was playing the long game. Charge them, and when it comes to the trial have the victims come to testify and then arrest them. After all, it is a staple of a true justice system of being able to face your accuser.
That's not what the FAA says. In fact, if that neighbor had been flying his toy quad for $15 to check someone's gutters for debris, the FAA says that he needs an actual pilots license, same as he'd need to fly a Cessna.
The FAA is just like many other government organizations in their tendency to overreach.
But it seems many quad operators would like for their toys to be considered real aircraft too. In fact the FAA has published their proposed rules regarding unmanned aircraft systems, which the vehicle in the story would fall under. Some of the more interesting requirements include licensing of operators, registration of the aircraft, and preflight inspections. Oh and no operating these vehicles over people not involved in the operation (this means the neighbor's back yard). The expected cost of all these regulatory requirements is around $6000 dollars, just to use a quadrocopter.
So I guess the drone owners are getting what they want, recognition as a real pilot. Not too sure they will enjoy it though.
You think the law doesn't apply, the FAA says it does, the courts will have to decide.
The FAA hasn't said anything about this case and I doubt they will. The only charges were related to firing a shotgun within city limits. As for the law the previous poster cited it is obviously concerning commercial and civil aircraft, aka real airplanes and helicopters. Not someone's overgrown RC helicopter. Or do you think the FAA should press charges the next time dad steps on little Timmy's Air Hog?
Federal Law does not put drones in a special category. They are just another aircraft. The penalty is up to 20 years in federal prison, and a $250,000 fine. That's in addition to the charges this individual has already faced for discharging a fire arm in the city he lived in, as they make that illegal there.
Don't try to embellish, the guy was flying a quadrocopter not a Cessna. It is a toy and not an aircraft. So that law does not apply.
Unless there's someone here who made productive use of throwing their own excrement in a production environment.
You've obviously never been in a department head meeting when production systems go down. Shit is flying everywhere and everyone is throwing it at each other.
In short there are differences, but they are not enough to account for there being no females or very few on most of the teams. That suggests that selection for the teams is either not based purely on merit, or there is some issue preventing more girls studying mathematics to the highest levels.
Should of read your own link, it was literally the entire second paragraph.:
In a 2008 study paid for by the National Science Foundation in the United States, researchers found that "girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests. Although 20 years ago, high school boys performed better than girls in math, the researchers found that is no longer the case. The reason, they said, is simple: Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many."[51][52] However, the study indicated that, while on average boys and girls performed similarly, boys were overrepresented among the very best performers as well as among the very worst.[53][54]
Boys have a larger variance in their scores than girls, so if you are trying to form a team of the very best of math(s) students it will most likely have a majority of boys if not be exclusively boys. And it is not a matter of only boys taking higher studies in math, as the third sentance explicitly calls out that girls are taking higher math courses as well. So no, there is no gender driven discrimination going on here, It is just a reflection of the team members performance. That you simply don't like it or feel threatened by it is irrelevant.
The Wikipedia entry also provides a link to studies which explain why high performing math teams tend to have more males than females. Linky.
The long and short of it is that while both boys and girls have similar average scores, the boys have a higher variance than the girls. Meaning they have more very high scoring members of the population and also very low scorers. The girls scores were more clustered around the mean.
So if there was a team made up of the highest scoring math students there is a much higher chance it will be mostly boys. No penis driven oppression, no grand conspiracy, the teams are drawn from the best in the population. Though, if it makes people feel better they could form a team of the absolute worst math students and it would be mostly boys as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Painting the door the same color as the wall works as camouflage right up until someone gets up and touches it.
On the other hand panting the wall the same as a door has fooled many wily coyotes.
Provided that code is even accessible.
Oh everyone knows it won't be, it will be copyrighted to hell and back and DMCA notices will fly everywhere the first time some tries to tinker with the electronic portions of these "smart guns". And any owner will have to take their weapons to authorized gunsmiths to have repairs done, even if the failing is in the mechanical portion of the gun. I firmly believe there will be a good amount of rent seeking in this new "smart gun" market, if it ever comes to pass.
I would not be surprised if, some day, liability for firearms had an attractive-nuisance provision associated with it, and that the legitimate owner of the firearm would have to maintain insurance on that firearm that covered the liability of that firearm's misuse until that firearm were legally transferred to a new owner or until that firearm were documented as destroyed.
An attractive nuisance is defined as anything that could be considered to attract children onto someones property, for example pools or fountains. Unless firearms owners are storing their weapons by strewing them about in the back yard or have a sign up saying "Guns are here" I doubt a case could be made that it is an attractive nuisance.
And worse for the firearm owner, if that firearm is stolen, unlike vehicles that are generally stolen to be disassembled for parts, the liability of the firearm would probably never go away and if they discontinued insurance then they would still have a degree of liability for what transpired for a firearm that they let get out of their possession.
What you think will happen here is tantamount to charging a car theft victim for a bank robbery committed by the thief, or a phone theft victim for a drug deal arranged with their stolen cell phone. That is not how liability works and unless the courts go pants on head retarded it will not work that way in the foreseeable future.
The biggest problem is the lack of personal responsibility at every stage of the process, right up to the legitimate owner. Absolutely there are owners that are quite responsible, but on the other hand we routinely hear of incidents where children have shot people, be it a young friend, young sibling, a parent, or in extreme cases a firearms instructor with an UZI, because firearms have been left out where people too young to understand their usage manage to get a hold of them.
Leaving weapons out where children can access them is actually already a crime and negligent owners are being prosecuted for it. Case in point is thiscase where a father left his weapon rolled up on top of the fridge and the child wanted to play cops and robbers. It is a tragic story but the father is responsible and should be charged. I am not sure how you think this shows a lack of responsibility.
We routinely hear of people's homes being broken into and their firearms stolen.
I am not what responsibility you are expecting burglary victims to hold for the theft of their belongings, do we hold big screen owners responsible when their house is robbed as well?
We routinely hear of spousal shootings.
Again we hold people responsible for that as well, shooting your spouse is against the law and people go to jail for that.
We routinely hear of gun-cleaning accidents where someone didn't clear the chamber after removing the magazine.
If a person injures someone while cleaning and is found to be negligent they can and have been charged. However if it is a true accident then there may be no charges because it was an accident, same as if a person accidentally hit a child with a car. Honestly it seems you want gun owners to be under a different standard under the law than is applicable to any other group. I would caution you that unequal treatment for groups was done in the past and it was as wrong then as it is now.
A toddler took a gun from his mother's purse and shot her in the head killing her. With smart gun technology that would might not have happened.
With proper gun safety that would of never happened. With "smart gun" technology it might not have happened, do not think this "smart gun" technology is the be all solution to weapon handling. Do not store weapons within reach of children, "Smart gun" or not. The mother's death was entirely her own fault, not the weapon's and not the toddler's.
I think you are confused about something.
Not really confused but was referring to the period in time where we had a portion of our elected leaders and population looking for the "red menace" everywhere including underneath our beds, most famously known for Senator McCarthy though the HUAC is also well known from there. The period gave rise to the term McCarthyism, which is what I was referring to.
How many more of our rights will our leaders call to sacrifice because of this boogy man ISIS? We already had our president call for the suspension of the second amendment based on some extrajudicial watch list. And now we have Eric Posner arguing to suspend the First amendment right of freedom of association and speech. The fourth has long since been ignored with the NSA blanket surveillance, so what is left for them to sacrifice?
Will we sacrifice the sixth and suspend trial by jury for those on the no fly list? After all they are on the list so they must be guilty.
How about tossing the eighth and throwing those newly convicted terrorists into the Iron maiden, bring back a little old school punishment.
Perhaps we should toss the third and start placing NSA agents inside peoples homes, to make sure ISIS doesn't get in.
Or we could ignore the fifth and give the people on the watch list a nice round of waterboarding so they confess and forgo the bother of a trial.
I mean when will it stop for these people? Throw up ISIS or Al Queda and our leaders seem to climb all over each other to rip up our bill of rights. When did we elect a bunch of gutless cowards who would gladly sacrifice our constitution to help them sleep at night? This has to stop, we should face tragedies head on while holding on to our beliefs, not throw away our rights at the earliest convenience.
Osiris: "So apparently ISIS just bombed another hospital and the boys asked me if it was your time of the month."
Isis: "You know it wasn't me honey, I was busy playing fallout."
Osiris:"yes I know, but this is getting embarrassing. I keep on telling everyone it wasn't you but the rumors keep coming."
Isis:"That's not my fault dear."
Osiris: "...You know, you could always change your name."
Isis: "No way! Why should I change? They're the ones who suck."
It almost reads like something from the McCarthy hearings, where they attacked film makers who made films with allegedly procommunist messages because of their influence on the american people. But this is worse, it would imprison anyone who had ever even seen the movie, let alone produced it. That is a dark path indeed that Mr. Posner wants to go down.
spy on some neighbors' daughter
What I find interesting is after the incident where the drone was shot down after spying on the neighbors daughter there were people shouting for him to be federally charged for firing at an aircraft.
Yet now that the FAA is treating RC quads/drones as real big boy aircraft by requiring registration and a nominal fee there is so much crying about government overreach and abuse you would think they outright banned them and then slapped the owners' mothers for spite.
Not so sure it was an organization being mad, more like trying to forestall the inevitable. I can guarantee you that there will be a person sitting in the front yard someday glancing between his shiny new quadrocoptor and his 8 week old son thinking "Hmmm". I doubt the regulations will stop dudley dumbass but at least then the FAA can say they tried.
There is absolutely, not one shred of constitutional justification for this. The FAA has legitimate jurisdiction over interstate air travel and aircraft that are planned to be used for such. It has no constitutional jurisdiction over the use of RC drones, within a state's borders, that touches on no federal property and that is barely intended to be flown to the perimeter of one's community.
That horse left the barn a long time before this. Wickward v. Filburn pretty much gave the federal government authority over anything that could remotely be considered interstate commerce. And since they found that a farmer growing his own wheat to feed his animals affected interstate commerce I don't hold out much hope for your RC drone to not be affected.
Sadly our leaders are too often willing to pander to fear to obtain power rather than work to eliminate the need for the fear.
Like the president urging congress to strip the rights of citizens based on a secret government watch list created with no judicial review and no avenue of appeal? That kind of pandering?
What I want to know, from the summary, is how "two way radios" got to be "gun related"?
That would be Steven Spielberg's fault, after he "improved" E.T. the ATF placed high capacity radios under the National Firearms Act just to be sure.
Don't rush to the "terrorism" label so fast, it could just be some mentally disturbed individuals.
Considering the shooting was at Inland Regional center, a center for developmentally disabled people, it is a high possibility of a former or current patient despite their race or religion.
Until some fool created infinite tamagochi and drained the entire Universe of all energy.
The Infinite Tamagochi fed and drained the old universe of all energy. But then the Infinite Tamagochi had to poop and thus the universe was created anew.
I think you just created an idea for a new religion.
I wasn't angry about Tamagochi until I heard about some asshole spending his free time on this instead of solving the global energy crisis.
Translation:"I am angry this guy spent his free time on something he was interested in instead of something that is important to me!"
If you're going to be a dickbag and complain about how other people spend their free time at least own up to it instead of blaming Tamagochi.
The target does not change the legalities of the action. The state is compelled to investigate and rule. But the punishment is up to their discretion (barring horrid minimum sentencing laws like some jail obsessed countries have). So while they likely will be found guilty, a smart judge will punish them with a pinkie promise not to do it again.
See, when I first heard these girls are going to be charged I was thinking the state was playing the long game. Charge them, and when it comes to the trial have the victims come to testify and then arrest them. After all, it is a staple of a true justice system of being able to face your accuser.
"We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better... stronger... faster."
Of all the times I wished Slashdot supported images, this is one of the top 5. But yes, they will.
That's not what the FAA says. In fact, if that neighbor had been flying his toy quad for $15 to check someone's gutters for debris, the FAA says that he needs an actual pilots license, same as he'd need to fly a Cessna.
The FAA is just like many other government organizations in their tendency to overreach.
But it seems many quad operators would like for their toys to be considered real aircraft too. In fact the FAA has published their proposed rules regarding unmanned aircraft systems, which the vehicle in the story would fall under. Some of the more interesting requirements include licensing of operators, registration of the aircraft, and preflight inspections. Oh and no operating these vehicles over people not involved in the operation (this means the neighbor's back yard). The expected cost of all these regulatory requirements is around $6000 dollars, just to use a quadrocopter.
So I guess the drone owners are getting what they want, recognition as a real pilot. Not too sure they will enjoy it though.
You think the law doesn't apply, the FAA says it does, the courts will have to decide.
The FAA hasn't said anything about this case and I doubt they will. The only charges were related to firing a shotgun within city limits. As for the law the previous poster cited it is obviously concerning commercial and civil aircraft, aka real airplanes and helicopters. Not someone's overgrown RC helicopter. Or do you think the FAA should press charges the next time dad steps on little Timmy's Air Hog?
Federal Law does not put drones in a special category. They are just another aircraft. The penalty is up to 20 years in federal prison, and a $250,000 fine. That's in addition to the charges this individual has already faced for discharging a fire arm in the city he lived in, as they make that illegal there.
Don't try to embellish, the guy was flying a quadrocopter not a Cessna. It is a toy and not an aircraft. So that law does not apply.
And soon, so will be the English language because that blow you just dealt it sure looks fatal...
*grunt* fire good.
Unless there's someone here who made productive use of throwing their own excrement in a production environment.
You've obviously never been in a department head meeting when production systems go down. Shit is flying everywhere and everyone is throwing it at each other.
In short there are differences, but they are not enough to account for there being no females or very few on most of the teams. That suggests that selection for the teams is either not based purely on merit, or there is some issue preventing more girls studying mathematics to the highest levels.
Should of read your own link, it was literally the entire second paragraph.:
In a 2008 study paid for by the National Science Foundation in the United States, researchers found that "girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests. Although 20 years ago, high school boys performed better than girls in math, the researchers found that is no longer the case. The reason, they said, is simple: Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many."[51][52] However, the study indicated that, while on average boys and girls performed similarly, boys were overrepresented among the very best performers as well as among the very worst.[53][54]
Boys have a larger variance in their scores than girls, so if you are trying to form a team of the very best of math(s) students it will most likely have a majority of boys if not be exclusively boys. And it is not a matter of only boys taking higher studies in math, as the third sentance explicitly calls out that girls are taking higher math courses as well. So no, there is no gender driven discrimination going on here, It is just a reflection of the team members performance. That you simply don't like it or feel threatened by it is irrelevant.
The Wikipedia entry also provides a link to studies which explain why high performing math teams tend to have more males than females. Linky.
The long and short of it is that while both boys and girls have similar average scores, the boys have a higher variance than the girls. Meaning they have more very high scoring members of the population and also very low scorers. The girls scores were more clustered around the mean.
So if there was a team made up of the highest scoring math students there is a much higher chance it will be mostly boys. No penis driven oppression, no grand conspiracy, the teams are drawn from the best in the population. Though, if it makes people feel better they could form a team of the absolute worst math students and it would be mostly boys as well.