It does seem like a rather bone headed way to handle such a situation, doesn't it?
Then again, that would be consistent. This feature is designed to appeal to parents and such, not suicidal people. Both suicide and self injury have a long history of being handled the opposite of how they should be since in both cases the focus tends to be on how it affects the people around them, people who do not understand what is going on and want to feel like they are doing something.
I had a similar worry, though I could picture it more as an alternative to swatting, a way to harass (or beat at multiplayer games) people as opposed to extortion.
Unfortunately, escrow sites like this are one of the proposed solutions to other issues involved with anonymous trades. So there is a bit of a rock and hard place here.
That tends to be the problem with pure free market corrections. What is good for the market and what is good for individuals in advantageous positions often to not align, with aggregate self interest often running contrary to what is good for almost everyone.
If the government was not fighting drugs, sites like this would probably just change which black market commodities they were involved with. That is not to say I agree with prohibition, but I think in this case it would not matter one way or the other since it was the profit motive of illegal trades that drew people in.
What would be nice is if media was more critical of such scams. It kinda seems like when their core audience is excited about something they avoid questioning it.
I am also thinking back to that scam artist who got a bunch of media attention for 'finding' flight MH370 a while back by using magic xray film. Got time on CNN and everything, even though even basic journalism should have led them to ignore the guy. I have yet to see media outlets going over how wrong he was, they just sorta dropped it and pretended they were never supportive of him. I suspect a similiar thing goes on with stuff like Mars One, they either say something nice or nothing at all.
Yeah, calling it 'dangerously' flawed is a bit much. 'pathetically' flawed might be closer. Outside some bank accounts and embarrassment, this will probably not injure anyone.
I kinda fear that like fiberchannel it will get relegated to expensive hardware since the number of people who really benefit from it is fairly small, while USB has enough mass appeal to appear in pretty much everything. There is a rather nasty catch-22 in there though since there are all sorts of nifty things thunderbolt could be doing if it was common enough for marketers to cater to, but the market will remain small unless there are lots of devices for doing neat things.
Even something like Apple putting out a cheap external expansion bay might help there since that opens up a whole host of 3rd party hardware right there.
3 links at the bottom of the page going over regulation for government, non-government, and hobby usage, including relevent references to existing law.
And also because the 'substance' requires living in an alternative reality bubble that takes on a whole set of initial assumptions which can not be challenged.
It is currently a very local thing, with trespass and nuisance laws varying. However one major piece to keep in mind is property rights do not extend to the airspace above a parcel, with navigable airspace being considered public domain, so that makes things more complicated right there.
It should also be noted that you do NOT waive your ability to seek redress from harm when committing a crime, at least not automatically. If you, as a property owner, destroy someone's else's property, they generally can bring legal action against you, at which point the property owner has to demonstrate that not only was there a legal trespass (not clear when it comes to property trespassing as opposed to people) but that it was threatening enough to use violent destruction against as opposed to contacting law enforcement.
Since no test cases have completed yet, it is hard to say what it will be 'similar to' and thus which laws apply.
Better be careful about that, the legality of destroying drones over your property has not actually been settled yet. When a trespass is not a significant physical threat, the use of firearms becomes much more restrictive and butts up with 'destruction of property', which is its own offense.
Looks like the FAA already has regulation in place for what you can and can not do with drones. Popping over to their site, while they do not have huge amounts of it, they do seem to have some pretty clear rules already in place. So I can only assume that what the piece is talking about is new regulation that is laxer, opening up commercial use that is currently prohibited.
Glancing over the current rules, commercial enterprises are currently barred for using drones to move persons or cargo for compensation in general airspace. The license also requires submitting engineering and quality assurance about the system they will be using, so the drones + command system + maintenance routines all have to pass an inspector.
There is a separate certificate that allows for such transport if it is in controlled/low risk spaces.
For an immature technology this sounds pretty reasonable. Insurance is not a good solution yet since underwriters still have to get onboard and that only kicks in AFTER someone has been hurt, so a bit of preventative 'prove you are not a public danger' restrictions for commercial entities makes sense. I could see people being unhappy about the 'no passengers or cargo' rule, but that gives some pretty good breathing room for development before higher mass applications start ratcheting up the potential damages.
If I had not already commented, I would give you mod you up.
People tend to forget that the FAA has some pretty heavy tasks on its regulatory plate with a lot of lives (not to mention property) on the line. While drones represent fun and profit, if clear rules for use of airspace are not spelled out a lot of people could (and will) get hurt as usage rises.... and the 'victim pays' mentality of deregulation tends to not go very well.
You are pretty confident about those made up numbers you've got there. Do you have any models to back that up? If it is mathematically trivial you should. For that matter if you can handle this classic problem with such triviality there is probably a Nobel Prize in your future given how much difficulty some of the best minds of our era have had attacking just this problem.
Ahm, China has a pretty significant domestic terrorism problem. It also has a rather significant 'robber baron' problem with local business and police forces, which is little more than terrorism in the hands of wealthy people rather than poor.
"China" meddles heavily with the middle class anyway, given the problems with corruption and pretty much anyone with enough money can use state power to deal with rivals, pesky workers, or land owners who have stuff they want.
I don't know, this sounds like something good for US companies. US companies are not allowed to compete with each other yet (so there is no race to be first), but they do get to sit back and watch companies in other countries make all the mistakes first, then get to implement their businesses based off those cautionary tales.
Time does seem like the solution to this, if Yik Yak gets that toxic than most people will leave and without an audience the jerks will also fade away. Given that rather rapid turnover on college campuses this process could happen pretty rapidly.
In the US system the president can not 'make up law', but as the head of the branch which enforces it, they have a great deal of flexibility in the details of how laws are implemented. Things like this are a case of "Law X does action Y to entity type A", and one responsibility of the executive branch is determining if something is entity type A or not, and how action Y actually plays out in the particular case.
It should also be noted that it is not 'congress' scrambling, but particular opponents of the current administration scrambling. Lots of people in congress do not like how various laws are implemented or even various laws, and submit legislation all the time to change things (crow, there are a few representatives who submit laws for splitting the country every few years), but it is not really 'congress' till the law actually comes up for a vote and passes at least one house.
Slashdot Mirror
It does seem like a rather bone headed way to handle such a situation, doesn't it?
Then again, that would be consistent. This feature is designed to appeal to parents and such, not suicidal people. Both suicide and self injury have a long history of being handled the opposite of how they should be since in both cases the focus tends to be on how it affects the people around them, people who do not understand what is going on and want to feel like they are doing something.
I had a similar worry, though I could picture it more as an alternative to swatting, a way to harass (or beat at multiplayer games) people as opposed to extortion.
Unfortunately, escrow sites like this are one of the proposed solutions to other issues involved with anonymous trades. So there is a bit of a rock and hard place here.
That tends to be the problem with pure free market corrections. What is good for the market and what is good for individuals in advantageous positions often to not align, with aggregate self interest often running contrary to what is good for almost everyone.
If the government was not fighting drugs, sites like this would probably just change which black market commodities they were involved with. That is not to say I agree with prohibition, but I think in this case it would not matter one way or the other since it was the profit motive of illegal trades that drew people in.
If this goes on much longer, this lawsuit will have a longer lifespan than Duke Nukem's development hell.
SCO, taking the idea of vaporware to a whole new level.
The problems involved here are not really within the range of 'fans' to solve, no matter how many you throw at it or how included they are.
What would be nice is if media was more critical of such scams. It kinda seems like when their core audience is excited about something they avoid questioning it.
I am also thinking back to that scam artist who got a bunch of media attention for 'finding' flight MH370 a while back by using magic xray film. Got time on CNN and everything, even though even basic journalism should have led them to ignore the guy. I have yet to see media outlets going over how wrong he was, they just sorta dropped it and pretended they were never supportive of him. I suspect a similiar thing goes on with stuff like Mars One, they either say something nice or nothing at all.
Yeah, calling it 'dangerously' flawed is a bit much. 'pathetically' flawed might be closer. Outside some bank accounts and embarrassment, this will probably not injure anyone.
Ever notice that 'uncertainty' seems to always be something that someone else is responsible for?
I kinda fear that like fiberchannel it will get relegated to expensive hardware since the number of people who really benefit from it is fairly small, while USB has enough mass appeal to appear in pretty much everything. There is a rather nasty catch-22 in there though since there are all sorts of nifty things thunderbolt could be doing if it was common enough for marketers to cater to, but the market will remain small unless there are lots of devices for doing neat things.
Even something like Apple putting out a cheap external expansion bay might help there since that opens up a whole host of 3rd party hardware right there.
Privacy is kinda like Responsibility, the rules are different because THEY actually need it.
Here you go.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/
3 links at the bottom of the page going over regulation for government, non-government, and hobby usage, including relevent references to existing law.
And also because the 'substance' requires living in an alternative reality bubble that takes on a whole set of initial assumptions which can not be challenged.
These classes only exist in the minds of MRAs.
It is currently a very local thing, with trespass and nuisance laws varying. However one major piece to keep in mind is property rights do not extend to the airspace above a parcel, with navigable airspace being considered public domain, so that makes things more complicated right there.
It should also be noted that you do NOT waive your ability to seek redress from harm when committing a crime, at least not automatically. If you, as a property owner, destroy someone's else's property, they generally can bring legal action against you, at which point the property owner has to demonstrate that not only was there a legal trespass (not clear when it comes to property trespassing as opposed to people) but that it was threatening enough to use violent destruction against as opposed to contacting law enforcement.
Since no test cases have completed yet, it is hard to say what it will be 'similar to' and thus which laws apply.
Better be careful about that, the legality of destroying drones over your property has not actually been settled yet. When a trespass is not a significant physical threat, the use of firearms becomes much more restrictive and butts up with 'destruction of property', which is its own offense.
Looks like the FAA already has regulation in place for what you can and can not do with drones. Popping over to their site, while they do not have huge amounts of it, they do seem to have some pretty clear rules already in place. So I can only assume that what the piece is talking about is new regulation that is laxer, opening up commercial use that is currently prohibited.
Glancing over the current rules, commercial enterprises are currently barred for using drones to move persons or cargo for compensation in general airspace. The license also requires submitting engineering and quality assurance about the system they will be using, so the drones + command system + maintenance routines all have to pass an inspector.
There is a separate certificate that allows for such transport if it is in controlled/low risk spaces.
For an immature technology this sounds pretty reasonable. Insurance is not a good solution yet since underwriters still have to get onboard and that only kicks in AFTER someone has been hurt, so a bit of preventative 'prove you are not a public danger' restrictions for commercial entities makes sense. I could see people being unhappy about the 'no passengers or cargo' rule, but that gives some pretty good breathing room for development before higher mass applications start ratcheting up the potential damages.
If I had not already commented, I would give you mod you up.
People tend to forget that the FAA has some pretty heavy tasks on its regulatory plate with a lot of lives (not to mention property) on the line. While drones represent fun and profit, if clear rules for use of airspace are not spelled out a lot of people could (and will) get hurt as usage rises.... and the 'victim pays' mentality of deregulation tends to not go very well.
You are pretty confident about those made up numbers you've got there. Do you have any models to back that up? If it is mathematically trivial you should. For that matter if you can handle this classic problem with such triviality there is probably a Nobel Prize in your future given how much difficulty some of the best minds of our era have had attacking just this problem.
Ahm, China has a pretty significant domestic terrorism problem. It also has a rather significant 'robber baron' problem with local business and police forces, which is little more than terrorism in the hands of wealthy people rather than poor.
"China" meddles heavily with the middle class anyway, given the problems with corruption and pretty much anyone with enough money can use state power to deal with rivals, pesky workers, or land owners who have stuff they want.
I don't know, this sounds like something good for US companies. US companies are not allowed to compete with each other yet (so there is no race to be first), but they do get to sit back and watch companies in other countries make all the mistakes first, then get to implement their businesses based off those cautionary tales.
Time does seem like the solution to this, if Yik Yak gets that toxic than most people will leave and without an audience the jerks will also fade away. Given that rather rapid turnover on college campuses this process could happen pretty rapidly.
I think (2) is because they 'have their eyes open' and are super smart so they can see patterns where others can not. SUPER SMART DAMN IT!
In the US system the president can not 'make up law', but as the head of the branch which enforces it, they have a great deal of flexibility in the details of how laws are implemented. Things like this are a case of "Law X does action Y to entity type A", and one responsibility of the executive branch is determining if something is entity type A or not, and how action Y actually plays out in the particular case.
It should also be noted that it is not 'congress' scrambling, but particular opponents of the current administration scrambling. Lots of people in congress do not like how various laws are implemented or even various laws, and submit legislation all the time to change things (crow, there are a few representatives who submit laws for splitting the country every few years), but it is not really 'congress' till the law actually comes up for a vote and passes at least one house.