WTF? You really want an article on Slashdot about how campfires that get out of control get prosecuted? I.e., a story about a law that everyone agrees with gets applied? Do you also want stories about how the mugging at your local Denny's was investigated, and the perp prosecuted? Or maybe you want a story about how a campfire causes a wildfire? What the hell is your point? And even if that story would exist, what the hell does it have to do with the fact that prosecution is a-ok for a wildfire started through any means, except when it is started through guns? I mean, outside of aiming for Gold in mental gymnastics.
Seriously, take off your blinders here. Not everyone is coming for your guns, and not every use of a gun needs to be sanctioned. If you're so insecure that you can't see that.... yeah, you're really not helping your cause here.
You know, at some point you need to do some research yourself instead of asking to be spoonfed the information. Just looking for the term "accidental wildfire prosecution" returns as first hit an article about just that, including the prosecution of the farm employing two laborers who accidentally caused a fire while working on a pipe. There are plenty more examples.
Thank you for standing up to the morons in your group. It kinda restores my faith that it is possible to have a reasonable discussion about problems that come up when people do stupid things with guns.
I see. So your argument is that punishment is not a deterrent to doing something bad in the first place. In all seriousness, how do you feel about capital punishment, three strike laws and 10 year sentences for carrying pot?
You're running right over the actual issue, and focusing on the part that no one cares about: this is about fires started by guns being treated differently from guns started any other way, including camp fires. If you do everything right with a camp fire and it gets out of control, you are still responsible for it. But if you start a fire with a gun, apparently going after you for starting a fire is somehow undermining The American Way of Life. Don't come crying to me when (and it's a question of when, not if) a fire started with a gun actually kills someone.
Yes, there is a difference. However, I'd like to pull out the Islamist argument, since the use of it overlaps with the group we're talking about: gun nuts might be different from responsible gun owners, but until we hear responsible gun owners pipe up when the gun nuts are running their mouths, the rest of the world is going to assume that they all agree.
Ah, a lovely example of confirmation bias, where you only ever remember the data that supports your point. Here's what I get back when I google for "campfire creates wildfire": just on the first page, there is one recent article about how damaging wildfires are that are created when you camp, along with tips how to prevent them, three government websites dedicated to talking about wildfires and the role that campfires that in creating them, and.... well, a bunch of girlscout articles about Camp Fire.
Seriously, you're giving gun advocates a bad name.
The difference is that people will be held responsible if their camp fires get out of control: http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/recreation/recreation_activities/camping.html Granted, this is for camping on land managed by the BLM, and I don't know how that works for land managed by other public entities. But at least on the BLM site, I didn't find anything for holding people responsible for fires started through indiscriminate gun use. Furthermore, if it can be shown that you willfully started a fire by pouring gasoline out somewhere and lighting it with a match, you will be charged with arson pretty much anywhere.
So the reason that people are kinda pissed off about this is that you can be held responsible for not keeping fires under control, except if you started the fire with a gun. Then, it's just carry on, and next time, please be more careful.
First, we've established that there is a cabal, and we know its name.
So is the the local tree house gang. The real question is: what can they do? But I guess we agree on that.
I don't know what data you're referring to, but it would be damned hard to imagine any data proving that point.
Uh, yes. It's in the price of oil, and the price of oil that OPEC has repeatedly tried to set. The fact that you don't even know what the data would look like that could falsify your position tells me you have actually never looked at the data.
When you have a single unified entity controlling half the world's production
unless we are to pretend that 1974 didn't actually happen
Number 1: that's a single data point. There's no trend to be made of it. Number 2: that was almost 40 years ago, and the oil landscape, as the world, has changed significantly.
Larger point is, if you think oil is a completely untainted free market
Last point is, if you want to argue, you might want to make sure you actually have your facts straight, or you come across as the living embodiment of truthiness, and just as much of a joke.
You say that as if something like OPEC doesn't exist.
No, I say it as if OPEC doesn't have the type of price control it used to have, and not anywhere near the price control it wishes it had. Here's a nifty little link: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/shareopec.html OPEC currently controls about 45% of global output. The Persian Gulf sits at below 30%. Furthermore, OPEC is definitely not the single entity a lot of people make it out to be. Yes, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are pretty much in lock step. You know who else is part of OPEC? Iran, aka mortal enemy of Saudi Arabia.
So yes, they do influence the market. But they are clearly not able to control the price to the degree you intimate.
The same applies to your argument about companies, by the way. And then, as you rightly guessed, politics are also thrown in the mix. And the global economy. All in all, you make my point: while there are some entities that have more control over price than others, there are so many that it is ludicrous on the face of it to argue that there is even the possibility of a cabal. And then there's the data, which conclusively proves that individual actors have very little influence on the price of gas in the US.
While it might be reasonable for someone to question whether prices are subject to global manipulation, it implies that that person has never looked closely at either gas prices or who the players are.
Yes, because the prices at the local gas pump are under the direct control of an international cabal of "gentlemen" who can make the prices jump like a flea circus.
*facepalm*
What's actually happening is a combination of seasonal events, international events, wars, lack of wars, uncertainty of supply, shutdown of local refineries, state of global economy and local supply prices. In other words, gas is based on a globally traded resource that is processed somewhat locally and sold very locally.
Think about it this way: 1) Version one is IT support in India. The robot is given a script, can identify the circumstances in which to use the script, and executes it, come hell or high water. Who cares if flipping that switch also increased load 5-fold and opened up a giant security hole? It fixed the customer's problem. 2) Version 2 is IT support done by someone who was just hired off the street. Eager, but completely clueless, he looks up every single problem that he can think of, and spends all of his time figuring out basic things that are absolutely key to doing the job. Customer gets fed up, and kid gets fired for incompetence. 3) Version 3 is IT support done by an eager, fresh computer science grad. He knows the basics, knows the general concepts of how things operate, but still takes forever to solve the problem because he is bogged down by trying to make sure that the request is handled absolutely perfectly.
It's not a problem of parallelism, of having more processing power, or more knowledge of things. It's the basic problem of "how do I apply limited computational resources to a problem where I only have partial information"? To see what happens in humans who suddenly are unable to distinguish between what's trivial and what's not, look up the guy who had a brain injury and was unable to make snap decisions. He was unable to buy a pen, because he couldn't figure out which color would be the right one to buy.
Or, more importantly, tracking important shipments and the drivers who are tasked with delivering them. It goes from being able to provide excellent service (Bill is exactly 67 miles from your office) to knowing where it is when it has been high-jacked. This is going to replace a lot of homegrown stuff.
Interesting story that illustrates your point: my girlfriend works in HR, and gets to define job positions and offers after getting the wishlist from the executives. She came back one day and wanted some feedback on what a job description should like for a developer for their internal software. Then she showed me what her executives had given her: a laundry list of languages (PHP, C++, Java, SQL) with multiple years of experience, proven ability to design system software and good presence in front of customers interested in buying said software. And they were planning to pay about 80k.
In short, they were looking for a system architect with several years of experience and the ability to sell said software to potential clients. I told her that those people do exist, but they are employed and make whatever they think they should be making. After that, I'm a lot less surprised by these stories. In essence, a lot of companies think that there's still an employer's market when it comes to jobs, and most HR people have absolutely no clue that the requirements that they're getting are either not related to the job, are utterly unrealistic or have no relationship to the offered pay.
Your last quote also neatly explains the recent strategy of HR to only look for employed people. It is born of the similarly unrealistic expectation that having a job now is somehow an indication that that person is worth more than someone without a job. And it dies in the same place: the complete lack of understanding that in order to lure someone away from an existing job, they need to make it worth that person's time and effort.
to suggest so would be just as ignorant as suggesting that "libertarians" are all advocates of anarchy.
A certain brand of "libertarians" is: specifically, the Randians. Unfortunately, it is the prevalent brand of libertarianism in the US. So yes, US libertarians are as a general rule advocates of anarchy.
Want to try again?
Many countries in Europe do in fact have a hybrid public-private schooling system,
What does that have to do with existing public schools being privatized? Oh, right, nothing.
most also have a hybrid public-private health care system,
What does that have to do with schools, military and police? Oh, right, nothing.
public utilities in Europe are among the most expensive on earth
Citation needed. Not to mention - what does that have to do with their existence? Oh, right, nothing?
and "the infrastructure business" is almost completely privatized
You do understand that infrastructure goes beyond just buildings? Right?
You offer no evidence to back up what you're saying,
Do you support every single statement you make with a citation? Certain things are assumed to be part of an educated discussion. Not to mention: stones in glasshouses, etc.
but have no problem calling out people you disagree with
Clearly, your reading comprehension is lacking. I didn't call him out because I disagreed with him. I called him out because his entire argument consisted of factually incorrect statements and "nuh-uh". Something that sadly is common among the US version of libertarians.
Almost nothing is exactly what we'll have if we don't get our fiscal affairs in order right away.
Nice way to change the topic.
I'm sure the Romans felt the same way about their empire right before it collapsed.
What's your point - that we're about to be invaded by the Visigoths? Or is it that you're trying to make some appeal to emotion by equating two wholly unrelated situations?
And this is why I facepalm every time a libertarian starts to talk. Military, police and courts are being privatized. I know the gp didn't specifically source these items, but I thought Blackwater, mall cops and arbitration were well-known concepts. Public schools are most certainly not being privatized in Europe, public utilities are under severe regulatory straight jackets, and there still are quite a few public companies in Europe, specifically in the Infrastructure business. I also love how you unilaterally throw out any counter examples by simply saying "well they shouldn't exist!", as well as just declaring any reasons you disagree with as "ridiculous".
There is only one mythology, and it is the libertarian one.
Wow. Just wow. "Almost anything"? You truly have no idea of history or the rest of the world. Almost nothing would actually be better, just based on history.
Yes, because I can see the danger of making the government as small as possible without totally collapsing it, I automatically endorse dictators. Now that we have that stupid fallacy out of the way, let me count a few: France circa 1400. Germany circa 1500-1700. Italy circa 1400-1600 Afghanistan, circa now. China, circa 1900. And yes, every single Narco state counts.
Those are just off the top of my head.
Finally, I hope you actually do understand the difference between living in a democracy and living in a corporation, and that you were just trying to go for a cheap rhetorical image. Otherwise - please don't vote.
It's a good point, and I don't remember where I first heard it. Furthermore, some googling hasn't turned up anything reliable around it. That said, based on the metrics that I've seen in place in businesses, something this asinine does not surprise me in the least.
The power vacuum will be filled by others. It's too bad you didn't study what happened in countries with weak central governments and strong individuals/corporations.
You know what would fix about 30% of all the issues surrounding the patent office? Have patent examiners be paid regardless of how many patents they approve. You know what would fix about another 30% of the issues? Your fail fee.
Yes, obnoxiously long patent terms in a world where things are outdated in 5 years are no good. So are patents on processes and mathematical constructs. But the terrible approach of judging an examiner's efficiency by how many patents they approve is guaranteed to result in obvious patents being granted, and the total lack of downside to submitting a patent means that every single idea under the sun gets submitted.
Screw software patents, business process patents and the other topics. Fix the dumb-ass metrics and market incentives in place at the patent office first.
Here and here. It'll come down to how low the drones are flying, and whether taking pictures of your backyard constitute some sort of trespassing. I'd be curious to find out if there ever was a case brought against some Ultra-light or single-engine Cessna pilot for invasion of privacy, trespassing or something similar.
Agreed on how much this will do against terrorism. I'd love to see some more redundancy in our power system as well, but some things are difficult to make redundant, and can wreak havoc beyond the power aspect. What would bringing down the Hoover dam do to the surrounding area? About two dozen shaped charges in a circle, and I'm not sure the dam will be able to hold.
I'm a bit more concerned about the privacy implications. Low-flying drones can spot a lot more in my backyard - or an atrium, if I had one - than the Google car can do from the street. Finally, they might get themselves into legal trouble, as land-owners generally have air rights. I'm just curious what will happen when someone decides to assert it when they get a perfect overhead shot of their property. Or, if they want to get fancy, prove via basic trigonometry that the angled shot had to have been taken from above their property.
This again? Find me one person whose name was on the list and who was NOT already known to be an informant. Good luck. Finally, as to the original poster's point -how much different would it be from a) a corporation selling it to other corporations and governments, and b) if it is really as secure as they say - and they should release the code, who cares where it comes from?
Slashdot Mirror
WTF? You really want an article on Slashdot about how campfires that get out of control get prosecuted? I.e., a story about a law that everyone agrees with gets applied? Do you also want stories about how the mugging at your local Denny's was investigated, and the perp prosecuted? Or maybe you want a story about how a campfire causes a wildfire? What the hell is your point? And even if that story would exist, what the hell does it have to do with the fact that prosecution is a-ok for a wildfire started through any means, except when it is started through guns? I mean, outside of aiming for Gold in mental gymnastics.
Seriously, take off your blinders here. Not everyone is coming for your guns, and not every use of a gun needs to be sanctioned. If you're so insecure that you can't see that.... yeah, you're really not helping your cause here.
You know, at some point you need to do some research yourself instead of asking to be spoonfed the information. Just looking for the term "accidental wildfire prosecution" returns as first hit an article about just that, including the prosecution of the farm employing two laborers who accidentally caused a fire while working on a pipe. There are plenty more examples.
Thank you for standing up to the morons in your group. It kinda restores my faith that it is possible to have a reasonable discussion about problems that come up when people do stupid things with guns.
I see. So your argument is that punishment is not a deterrent to doing something bad in the first place. In all seriousness, how do you feel about capital punishment, three strike laws and 10 year sentences for carrying pot?
You're running right over the actual issue, and focusing on the part that no one cares about: this is about fires started by guns being treated differently from guns started any other way, including camp fires. If you do everything right with a camp fire and it gets out of control, you are still responsible for it. But if you start a fire with a gun, apparently going after you for starting a fire is somehow undermining The American Way of Life. Don't come crying to me when (and it's a question of when, not if) a fire started with a gun actually kills someone.
Yes, there is a difference. However, I'd like to pull out the Islamist argument, since the use of it overlaps with the group we're talking about: gun nuts might be different from responsible gun owners, but until we hear responsible gun owners pipe up when the gun nuts are running their mouths, the rest of the world is going to assume that they all agree.
where's the article about careless campers?
Ah, a lovely example of confirmation bias, where you only ever remember the data that supports your point. Here's what I get back when I google for "campfire creates wildfire": just on the first page, there is one recent article about how damaging wildfires are that are created when you camp, along with tips how to prevent them, three government websites dedicated to talking about wildfires and the role that campfires that in creating them, and.... well, a bunch of girlscout articles about Camp Fire.
Seriously, you're giving gun advocates a bad name.
The difference is that people will be held responsible if their camp fires get out of control: http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/recreation/recreation_activities/camping.html Granted, this is for camping on land managed by the BLM, and I don't know how that works for land managed by other public entities. But at least on the BLM site, I didn't find anything for holding people responsible for fires started through indiscriminate gun use. Furthermore, if it can be shown that you willfully started a fire by pouring gasoline out somewhere and lighting it with a match, you will be charged with arson pretty much anywhere.
So the reason that people are kinda pissed off about this is that you can be held responsible for not keeping fires under control, except if you started the fire with a gun. Then, it's just carry on, and next time, please be more careful.
Can't believe I have to explain that to you.
First, we've established that there is a cabal, and we know its name.
So is the the local tree house gang. The real question is: what can they do? But I guess we agree on that.
I don't know what data you're referring to, but it would be damned hard to imagine any data proving that point.
Uh, yes. It's in the price of oil, and the price of oil that OPEC has repeatedly tried to set. The fact that you don't even know what the data would look like that could falsify your position tells me you have actually never looked at the data.
When you have a single unified entity controlling half the world's production
And this is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about: http://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/environment/papers/colgan.pdf, as well as this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/opec-fails-to-ratify-proposal-to-boost-the-oil-cartels-output/2011/06/08/AGrHSzLH_story.html These are just a few, small instances of the general failure of OPEC to do much coordination.
a handful of about 5 companies controlling all the refining
And again, you show your total ignorance. Here's a quick link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#United_States. And that's just the US.
unless we are to pretend that 1974 didn't actually happen
Number 1: that's a single data point. There's no trend to be made of it. Number 2: that was almost 40 years ago, and the oil landscape, as the world, has changed significantly.
Larger point is, if you think oil is a completely untainted free market
Last point is, if you want to argue, you might want to make sure you actually have your facts straight, or you come across as the living embodiment of truthiness, and just as much of a joke.
You say that as if something like OPEC doesn't exist.
No, I say it as if OPEC doesn't have the type of price control it used to have, and not anywhere near the price control it wishes it had. Here's a nifty little link: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/shareopec.html OPEC currently controls about 45% of global output. The Persian Gulf sits at below 30%. Furthermore, OPEC is definitely not the single entity a lot of people make it out to be. Yes, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are pretty much in lock step. You know who else is part of OPEC? Iran, aka mortal enemy of Saudi Arabia.
So yes, they do influence the market. But they are clearly not able to control the price to the degree you intimate.
The same applies to your argument about companies, by the way. And then, as you rightly guessed, politics are also thrown in the mix. And the global economy. All in all, you make my point: while there are some entities that have more control over price than others, there are so many that it is ludicrous on the face of it to argue that there is even the possibility of a cabal. And then there's the data, which conclusively proves that individual actors have very little influence on the price of gas in the US.
While it might be reasonable for someone to question whether prices are subject to global manipulation, it implies that that person has never looked closely at either gas prices or who the players are.
Yes, because the prices at the local gas pump are under the direct control of an international cabal of "gentlemen" who can make the prices jump like a flea circus.
*facepalm*
What's actually happening is a combination of seasonal events, international events, wars, lack of wars, uncertainty of supply, shutdown of local refineries, state of global economy and local supply prices. In other words, gas is based on a globally traded resource that is processed somewhat locally and sold very locally.
So yes, they did *fall*.
Think about it this way:
1) Version one is IT support in India. The robot is given a script, can identify the circumstances in which to use the script, and executes it, come hell or high water. Who cares if flipping that switch also increased load 5-fold and opened up a giant security hole? It fixed the customer's problem.
2) Version 2 is IT support done by someone who was just hired off the street. Eager, but completely clueless, he looks up every single problem that he can think of, and spends all of his time figuring out basic things that are absolutely key to doing the job. Customer gets fed up, and kid gets fired for incompetence.
3) Version 3 is IT support done by an eager, fresh computer science grad. He knows the basics, knows the general concepts of how things operate, but still takes forever to solve the problem because he is bogged down by trying to make sure that the request is handled absolutely perfectly.
It's not a problem of parallelism, of having more processing power, or more knowledge of things. It's the basic problem of "how do I apply limited computational resources to a problem where I only have partial information"? To see what happens in humans who suddenly are unable to distinguish between what's trivial and what's not, look up the guy who had a brain injury and was unable to make snap decisions. He was unable to buy a pen, because he couldn't figure out which color would be the right one to buy.
Or, more importantly, tracking important shipments and the drivers who are tasked with delivering them. It goes from being able to provide excellent service (Bill is exactly 67 miles from your office) to knowing where it is when it has been high-jacked. This is going to replace a lot of homegrown stuff.
Interesting story that illustrates your point: my girlfriend works in HR, and gets to define job positions and offers after getting the wishlist from the executives. She came back one day and wanted some feedback on what a job description should like for a developer for their internal software. Then she showed me what her executives had given her: a laundry list of languages (PHP, C++, Java, SQL) with multiple years of experience, proven ability to design system software and good presence in front of customers interested in buying said software. And they were planning to pay about 80k.
In short, they were looking for a system architect with several years of experience and the ability to sell said software to potential clients. I told her that those people do exist, but they are employed and make whatever they think they should be making. After that, I'm a lot less surprised by these stories. In essence, a lot of companies think that there's still an employer's market when it comes to jobs, and most HR people have absolutely no clue that the requirements that they're getting are either not related to the job, are utterly unrealistic or have no relationship to the offered pay.
Your last quote also neatly explains the recent strategy of HR to only look for employed people. It is born of the similarly unrealistic expectation that having a job now is somehow an indication that that person is worth more than someone without a job. And it dies in the same place: the complete lack of understanding that in order to lure someone away from an existing job, they need to make it worth that person's time and effort.
to suggest so would be just as ignorant as suggesting that "libertarians" are all advocates of anarchy.
A certain brand of "libertarians" is: specifically, the Randians. Unfortunately, it is the prevalent brand of libertarianism in the US. So yes, US libertarians are as a general rule advocates of anarchy.
Want to try again?
Many countries in Europe do in fact have a hybrid public-private schooling system,
What does that have to do with existing public schools being privatized? Oh, right, nothing.
most also have a hybrid public-private health care system,
What does that have to do with schools, military and police? Oh, right, nothing.
public utilities in Europe are among the most expensive on earth
Citation needed. Not to mention - what does that have to do with their existence? Oh, right, nothing?
and "the infrastructure business" is almost completely privatized
You do understand that infrastructure goes beyond just buildings? Right?
You offer no evidence to back up what you're saying,
Do you support every single statement you make with a citation? Certain things are assumed to be part of an educated discussion. Not to mention: stones in glasshouses, etc.
but have no problem calling out people you disagree with
Clearly, your reading comprehension is lacking. I didn't call him out because I disagreed with him. I called him out because his entire argument consisted of factually incorrect statements and "nuh-uh". Something that sadly is common among the US version of libertarians.
So. Wanna try this again?
Almost nothing is exactly what we'll have if we don't get our fiscal affairs in order right away.
Nice way to change the topic.
I'm sure the Romans felt the same way about their empire right before it collapsed.
What's your point - that we're about to be invaded by the Visigoths? Or is it that you're trying to make some appeal to emotion by equating two wholly unrelated situations?
And this is why I facepalm every time a libertarian starts to talk. Military, police and courts are being privatized. I know the gp didn't specifically source these items, but I thought Blackwater, mall cops and arbitration were well-known concepts. Public schools are most certainly not being privatized in Europe, public utilities are under severe regulatory straight jackets, and there still are quite a few public companies in Europe, specifically in the Infrastructure business. I also love how you unilaterally throw out any counter examples by simply saying "well they shouldn't exist!", as well as just declaring any reasons you disagree with as "ridiculous".
There is only one mythology, and it is the libertarian one.
Wow. Just wow. "Almost anything"? You truly have no idea of history or the rest of the world. Almost nothing would actually be better, just based on history.
Yes, because I can see the danger of making the government as small as possible without totally collapsing it, I automatically endorse dictators. Now that we have that stupid fallacy out of the way, let me count a few:
France circa 1400.
Germany circa 1500-1700.
Italy circa 1400-1600
Afghanistan, circa now.
China, circa 1900.
And yes, every single Narco state counts.
Those are just off the top of my head.
Finally, I hope you actually do understand the difference between living in a democracy and living in a corporation, and that you were just trying to go for a cheap rhetorical image. Otherwise - please don't vote.
It's a good point, and I don't remember where I first heard it. Furthermore, some googling hasn't turned up anything reliable around it. That said, based on the metrics that I've seen in place in businesses, something this asinine does not surprise me in the least.
The power vacuum will be filled by others. It's too bad you didn't study what happened in countries with weak central governments and strong individuals/corporations.
You know what would fix about 30% of all the issues surrounding the patent office? Have patent examiners be paid regardless of how many patents they approve. You know what would fix about another 30% of the issues? Your fail fee.
Yes, obnoxiously long patent terms in a world where things are outdated in 5 years are no good. So are patents on processes and mathematical constructs. But the terrible approach of judging an examiner's efficiency by how many patents they approve is guaranteed to result in obvious patents being granted, and the total lack of downside to submitting a patent means that every single idea under the sun gets submitted.
Screw software patents, business process patents and the other topics. Fix the dumb-ass metrics and market incentives in place at the patent office first.
Here and here. It'll come down to how low the drones are flying, and whether taking pictures of your backyard constitute some sort of trespassing. I'd be curious to find out if there ever was a case brought against some Ultra-light or single-engine Cessna pilot for invasion of privacy, trespassing or something similar.
Agreed on how much this will do against terrorism. I'd love to see some more redundancy in our power system as well, but some things are difficult to make redundant, and can wreak havoc beyond the power aspect. What would bringing down the Hoover dam do to the surrounding area? About two dozen shaped charges in a circle, and I'm not sure the dam will be able to hold.
I'm a bit more concerned about the privacy implications. Low-flying drones can spot a lot more in my backyard - or an atrium, if I had one - than the Google car can do from the street. Finally, they might get themselves into legal trouble, as land-owners generally have air rights. I'm just curious what will happen when someone decides to assert it when they get a perfect overhead shot of their property. Or, if they want to get fancy, prove via basic trigonometry that the angled shot had to have been taken from above their property.
This again? Find me one person whose name was on the list and who was NOT already known to be an informant. Good luck. Finally, as to the original poster's point -how much different would it be from a) a corporation selling it to other corporations and governments, and b) if it is really as secure as they say - and they should release the code, who cares where it comes from?