The drone isn't trespassing. The owner of the drone is trespassing. But you can't apprehend or warn someone that isn't there, but you can seize the property and turn it into police.
You must use appropriate care, or you are liable.
Agreed. What then is the appropriate care to bring down an unmanned unattended object hovering over your property out of arms reach?
It doesn't matter. You can never legally shoot down a drone
I have an RC model i can fly around my kitchen. The FAA doesn't give a lick whether I crash it into the couch, the kids shoot it down with water pistols, or the dog chomps it right out of the air.
But also, that's how trespass law commonly works. [...] Once I encounter you on my property and tell you to leave, if you resist I can execute a citizen's arrest for trespassing.
That is how trespassing is applied to PEOPLE. Objects are more complicated.
Let's say you aren't home for the afternoon... and then I - park a bicycle on your front lawn and then leave. - park a car on your front lawn and then leave. - crash a kite into your yard, and then leave.
These are also all trespasses.
And in general the law copes with all of these quite well; albeit differently from how it copes with with people. IF you know whose it is you can write them a letter asking them to remove it; and if they don't you can press charges for trespass, and also sue them for any costs associated with having it removed.
In the case of a vehicle in particular, because its large, heavy, usually valuable, and registered to someone this is always possible; and you can also call the police and have the vehicle towed; or even just call the towing company directly -- as this is common enough; they can escalate it to the police if they need to.
In principle you can call the police and have the bike and kite removed as well and the owner can then claim it from them, but in practice as the dollar value of the property goes down the police become less interested, and it becomes more permissible to just dispose of it. (But the property never actually becomes yours unless a court awards it to you, so if the original owner comes looking for it can become nasty if you disposed of something valuable that they left on your property.
Now drones are a bit more unique, because its still trespass; and the property owners, in principle have the right to collect the object on the property, and they can then call the police to turn it in and file a report that they want to press charges against the owner for tresspass, etc. Consider someone playing with an RC car on your property for example, but standing on the other side of the property line -- or perhaps the RC car was programmed like a drone (relying on cameras, gps, programmed routes etc so the operator could be completely out of site / far away.
You would absolutely be in your rights to catch the RC car, turn it in, call the police, and press charge for trespass if the owners show up to claim it.
While the property owner cannot simply destroy the car; if the car were damaged in the process of seizing it, I would expect the courts to side with the trespassee over liability for any damage caused incidental to recovering it.
However, aircraft drones by their nature are much harder to collect, and they can 'remove themselves from your property' without the owner having to physically show up to collect them. They are also noisy. They are usually equipped with cameras and other surveillance equipment so instead of being merely a passive object 'left' on your property; they are actively violating the owners property to much greater degree. That should not be allowed to occur with impunity.
I'm not sure what the solution here really is. In the absence of an obvious operator to complain to, by shooting it down, the property owner has, *in my opinion* taken a reasonable step to collect the unwanted drone on his property; so that it can be recovered and turned in to the police.
If the FAA wants a different solution then I propose clearly visible call letters and a radio identity beacon a smartphone app could read would need to be on any drone, so that I could easily call the police and report the trespass. Drone operators would need to register their drones, and report and record flight plans.
It's mainly trespassing only if you're told not to do it
So you have to yell at the drone first? That's kind of pointless.
Its one thing if your hiking in a public park and wander into a part of adjoining woods that's actually private property. No fence, and there can't be a sign on every tree... so yeah now your tresspassing; but almost nobody would fault you for it; and certainly not 'criminally charge you with it', so long as you immediately left after being told.
Warned the operators then shot?
How do you warn the operators? Maybe in some cases you can see them standing there. But as often as not you cannot locate or identify the operators nevermind warn them.
I'm certainly not in favor of shooting first ask questions later, but I don't see much choice. Its unmanned, unmarked, unregistered...
She couldn't have known it wasn't transporting life-saving meds to someone or trying to find someone lost in the woods. Easy to guess it wasn't, but guessing isn't being positive.
Quite so. But we live in a world mostly without absolutes. People are imprisoned for life based on a judgement 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; so I'm pretty sure the threshold for shooting down a trespassing drone can be less than absolute certainty.
Apple has always included plenty of ports in the pro models, and they will continue to do so...
LMAO. No. I have a pro. 2012 and 2015. It does not have 'plenty of ports'. It has just BARELY enough.
Both only have 2 USB ports? I need a hub just to use an external keyboard+mouse+external hard drive on a "pro device".
And no ethernet port on the 2015? idiotic for a pro device.So now i get to pay for a thunderbolt to ethernet dongle. Thanks apple.
At least it has hdmi instead of a useless 'mini-displayport' like the 2012 unit though.
There's nothing wrong or odd about having multiple lines of product that serve the needs of different users.
Agreed. Where is there pro device line? Apple should really make one.
All I see is a consumer macbook, a consumer macbook air, and a more expensive consumer macbook air that they call "pro".
A pro device would be a touch thicker (use the space for battery!), have a proper ethernet port, upgradeable/replaceable RAM and storage. Oh, and physical function keys (i think i read they were replacing those with a stupid touch UI). And it wouldn't ever make you choose between charging the device and attaching a peripheral.
99% of the people using them do not need the ports they are taking out enough that it matters they are gone.
Do you know many people that own a macbook pro that don't have a usb hub or dongle in their bag? for my old one i had had minidisplayport to hdmi + usb hub + usb to serial (yay cisco), mini-displayport to vga (because in 2012 vga projectors were still far more common than anything else).
For my current one I need a thunderbolt to ethernet, plus a usb hub, plus usb to serial. Oh, and since it has no internal dvd I have an external one. (I don't use it much, and I'm happy the internal space is being used for battery instead of a drive... but I still need it from time to time so its another dongle.
Now I'm willing to concede that with respect to the usb to serial; I might be in the one percent for that one; and I'm not even too irate about that one. And the DVD is pretty situational too. But even so I don't actually know anybody who doesn't have at least a hub and at least one dongle in their bag. So I call BS on 99% being happy with the ports it comes with... when 100% of the actual professionals I know carry around more than one adapter for something and/or a usb hub.
I guess if your idea of a professional is a hipster blogger working out of a starbucks then you don't need any adapters.
how long does it take claim your insurance, replace your hardware, then retrieve your backup. Realistically there could be weeks or months involved.
Unless I were actually caught in the fire and in intensive care for weeks months, I'd have a laptop within hours.
And if I WERE caught in the fire, and in a coma for months, and crashplan went out of business at the same time...
a) risk management is about managing risk. you can't eliminate it. b) losing my photos would not be the biggest issue in my life. c) if I did deem the photos so valuable that this was a risk i wasn't prepared for, I could have 2 cloud providers for just a bit more $$... or 3.... c) risk management is about evaluating risk.
Anyone who didn't realize that two people, starting at random places in a universe where visiting each planet for 1 second would still take billions of years IN REAL TIME, almost would NEVER meet.... doesn't have much common sense.
Well... unless one of the people called the other person and said... where are you? I'm coming over. Lets hook up.
Seriously, you are right, the odds of two groups stumbling into eachother in a world that big is effectively zero. But given that you know for an abolute fact that friends would make the effort join up and explore together, the idea that it would be a long time before the 'lie of multiplayer' was exposed is absurd. Think about it.
I've played several survival type games where you start off randomly; 7 Days to Die for example. Which on a random gen world where if two people just started exploring or heading in a random direction they'd also likely never meet; they could even pass within 20m of eachother and never know they almost met.
But since I plan to play with friends, and we are actively looking to meet up, we are usually all formed up within 10-15 minutes of a new game. Because we aren't randomly wandering in different directions, instead we make an explicit plan to all go to the same place and wait for eachother; and then strike out...
The odds backblaze or crashplan or carbonite spontaneously decide to shutdown without notice the same day my house burns down is pretty low, after all.
I am a developer also... except I use Linux and multiple workspaces.
Yeah, Windows 10 has them too. Its a pretty good implementation, and I use it.
(I've also used them in Linux and OSX too but obviously not with Visual Studio dev work.)
It's like having as many monitors as I like, but without the neck pain.
No its really not. It's a really nice feature, but its a poor substitute for having actual monitors side by side.
(And there's no reason you can't use both; you can have multiple workspaces with multiple monitors -- I have yet to see a perfect implementation that does exactly what I want; although most are quite usable)
As we all know: 50% = 50 per cent = 50 per hundred = 50/100 = 1/2
"And 1/2 as slow as X" means twice as fast as X. Its the inverse --> 1 / 1/2 = 2
This glacier 1 meter per year. This other glacier is only 1/2 as slow. So it moves 2 meters per year. Twice as fast.
Interestingly the phrase 0% as slow; seems difficult to make sense of, which makes sense since the inverse of 0/100s is a division by zero error. 1 / 0/100 = 1/0 = NaN
I currently use a pair of 27" LCD 2560x1440. And I'm itching for a 3rd screen.
As a developer, at this point, I consider a pair of matched 24" screens to be the minimum for any serious work. And I fully expect that after getting a 3rd screen I won't be able to go back to 2.
I don't see how anyone is satisified with one after having two. Visual Studio in full screen with multiple code panes, watch windows, etc etc on one... the application, along with my email, word/excel/pdf documents (specifications/documentation/references, etc etc), browser, slack/skype/etc in the other.
A 3rd screen would let me have more information immediately accessible.
As a gamer, I opted not to get a 4k screen last cycle because i didn't have a card that could push the pixels. Now, I'm thinking I'd rather add a 3rd 27" and try some triple screen gaming rather than a 4k screen. OR maybe I'll do a 4k in the middle and use the pair of 27s on the flanks. But I like having matched screens enough I'll probably skip 4k for another few years.
As an aside, I have a 2015 13" macbook pro as my laptop for email, browsing, programming cisco routers, etc. And its fine for that. I like it because its light and portable, but i don't even try to do any real dev work on it beyond answering email.
I also hate trying to game on it -- it rapidly runs too hot for my lap and fingers and the fan noise is distracting. (even for stuff like ToME or DoomRL or SoTS the Pit or Darkest Dungeon which really shouldn't be that demanding)
While the 918 Spyder is its own thing...even just relatively "regular" Porsches are pushing up against it...
The 2014 911 Turbo S did it in 2.6 The 2017 911 Turbo S is expected to do it in at least 2.5s if not faster; so even if can't buy one today, its not like its going to be long at all before a bevy of high end cars can do it.
And the tech in the 918 is going to be showing up all over the place within a year or 3.
Not to take anything away from the Tesla, any car that can do 0-60 in 2.5s is impressive in its own right; and it gets full credit for it's MASSIVE contribution to the electric car landscape. And although I really don't care for the Tesla itself; I am very much looking forward to the next decade; as Porsche and the rest start releasing more hybrids and full electrics; and the space fills up with options.
They made it impossible to play while riding as a passenger in a car
No they didn't. My son uses my wife's phone, launches the app, it says you are going too fast, he taps 'i am a passenger'* and then usually catches 3-4 on the drive to wherever as well as picking up supplies.
* Somewhat amusingly "I am a passenger" is the only option it presents when tripping the speed lock. No "Cancel" option.
Also somewhat amusingly, he triggered the speedlock during a walk. Not even a particularly fast walk. Again, he hit 'I am a passenger'. Perhaps the button should say "I'm not driving".
I am sure it is to prevent idiot drivers from removing themselves from the gene pool via obtaining the coveted "Darwin Award.
idiot drivers can just hit "I am a passenger" and merrily proceed to kill themselves and others around them.
Some people have recommended backing up the entire OS using non-free backup software designed for that very task
You can use floss if you like. I thought your goal however was to minimize the time and effort you spend on it though; so an off-the-shelf backup is less work to setup and manage; at least for a single copy of windows 7.
OTOH, it doesn't help with the fact that Microsoft will undoubtedly be bundling spyware together with security patches starting in October.
And from your other posts, I'm starting to gather that this is really the only reason why you don't already have automatic updates on; because you'll never catch a patch that breaks some obscure photoshop plugin using the methodology you described.
So... you aren't *really* all that concerned about cumulative updates breaking your photoshop and lightroom etc. You weren't backing up the OS prior to now, and you really have no patch vetting method that would have caught actual breaking changes.
However the cumulative updates DOES interfere with your ability to selectively avoid patches with telemetry functionality in them. Most people I know are dealing with this with the use of anti-telemetry tools. (Spybot Anti-beacon, ShutUp10, WindowsPirvacyTweaker, and many others)
Then you just turn updates on, and rely on these to kill the services, block the hosts, and so on. Its not ideal, but if you are standing for anti-telemetry as a 'principle' (like me) rather than actually being genuinely concerned that Microsoft and the NSA is out to get your wife's business photos then its, in my opinion, good enough.
And if you want even more, throw a real firewall in front of the system and use any of a number of host block lists at the firewall; and/or block microsoft entirely, use WSUS offline to get the cumulative patches, and don't worry too much about what they want to do, because they can't phone home anyway.
Rebranding and image polishing are undertaken only when a company knows that things aren't going too well for them.
Rebranding happens all the time for lots of reason. Yours, it just one of them. One company I work with rebranded because it was growing and the original branding was looking dated. Another I know of rebranded because its portfolio of products had expanded and its current branding didn't reflect it.
The brand and image are fine.
Meh. All they have is the lowercase mozilla; they've already distanced themselves from the big red dino head (which still appears on wikipedia, but doesn't seem to be anywhere else at least not prominently. So sure, they could use a more stylized and recognizable logo to rally around. Its not the worst idea anyone has ever had.
Of the bunch suggested i like the Moz://a one, and mostly hate the rest. They make a web browser mostly; and that's what they are known for so that one fits; although I'd have gone with a lower case m. The rest are, in my opinion, lousy. Some are fine logos -- but don't really go with mozilla; and others I just don't like at all.
However, Windows is not my day-job OS, and I need to be economical with the time, energy, and number of neurons I spend babysitting that OS.
So what were you doing up until now? Reading each KB article? Vetting each update on a test system? I dont' really see that based on you response, so how on earth does THIS cumulative update model really change anything for YOU exactly?!!
Meanwhile, a dead simple off-the-shelf backup software packages for windows suitable for a single system seems like a perfect solution...
For example...this is pretty much exactly what you seem to need...but choose any you like.
Back up your entire computer including your operating system, applications and data, not just files and folders to an external hard drive or NAS.
You've already got the photographs properly protected; so this would be a perfect solution for the operating system.
that more likely I am to just switch to a platform that's more reliable and is easier to rebuild.
For Photoshop and Lightroom? What platform OSX? Here, I'll save you some time:
==== Q: I installed the latest version of Mavericks and it broke some stuff (instruments) which I cannot afford to have broken. Is there a way to roll back to my previous release? Am currently on 10.9.2 and want to go to 10.9.1 or 10.9.
A: (paraphrased) there is not an uninstall feature for patches, upgrades and even apps.
Unfortunately the only real way to do this is to wipe the drive, install the pervisous version, assuming you have the installer or can find it and restore from backup.
Its like you've never heard of backups. FFS, your wifes photography business sounds like it runs on one windows 7 computer.
A windows update that toasts your 'photo editing environment' is less likely than a variety of hardware failures. I'm sure, since you are clearly so conscientious about the reliability and accessibility of this environment, that you have a proper backup solution in place.
So.. in the unlikely event of an update fiasco... roll back, and carry on...
For a large enterprises, where it actually makes sense to lab test an update before rolling it out this doesn't work... but for 'your wifes photography business' I can't really figure out what you are trying to accomplish.
And EVEN the enterprise guys can still lab test before letting the cumulative update through to production... and hold it up if there is an issue. (Although its less clear how they resolve a problem.) But that is a whole other situation.
I really don't think that's true. A well-written guide, with clear and well-chosen screen-shots, is more valuable than a video every single time
Not every single time. There's a few things out there where video really is best.
I learned how to make a few origami pieces from youtube videos that I'd tried repeatedly over the years to figure out from multiple books. All those arrows and folds and pointers suddenly made sense, but only after seeing someone actually do it.
There's a few other things too.
Especially for software tutorials, not least because it's extremely difficult to cut & paste from a video.
Again, there's a few things that you really just need to *see*; some critical step omitted that is obvious once you know about it. Some of the stuff in gimp or photoshop is like that.
With music it's often really helpful to hear the piece you are working on get played by someone else, and even more helpful to see their fingering, and even just how they move their hands.
When I took apart the first iphone i worked on, it was good to *see* the video where they use the suction cup to lift out the screen. I can read the guide and look at pictures a 1000 times, but I was a lot more comfortable with what I could expect after seeing a video.
Video doesn't ~replace~ good instructions, but it can supplant good instructions and add immense value to them used right.
I almost always prefer well written instructions to video and will normally actively avoid video; but there are a few exceptions.
The case here is more like "the music industry discovers that half way through the trial you started format shifting to vinyl as well as CD".
My analogy wasn't perfect, but this is not really any better.
Oracles main argument is that Google went from "not being in its market space" to "being in its market space". Therefor it went from not harming it to harming it. And that's more than just "vinyl vs cassette vs CD".
To try a better analogy -- it would be like Apple suing me for trademark infringement for my Apple brand bbq cover business; and me winning in part because our markets don't overlap... but midway through the trial Apple discovers I started selling covers for phones and laptops...
*IF* google won its fair used defense because it "wasn't competing on the desktop" then it matters. IF that was entire superfluous and google would win regardless then it doesn't. In my opinion it doesn't matter. Nevertheless google did raise the point as part of its defense, so oracle has a legitimate nit to pick.
So a billion Android devices is fair use, but add in 500k Chromebooks, and oh no, it's a different matter all together?
Its qualitative not quantitative.
Listen to AC/DC in your living room a billion times with a billion different friends is fair use. Start paying your brother to DJ the odd party or rent a hall, and throw the party there, and its a different matter altogether.
IMHO the wheres and the whatfors don't really change anything. Either Google can use their re-engineered APIs or they can't. The court ruled... they can.
I'm not siding with Oracle, but...
Just from reading the summary, it sounds like google made a fair-use defense.
And in a fair use defense the 'where and whatfors' you raise in your justfication for why its fair use absolutely matter.
Either Google can use their re-engineered APIs or they can't. The court ruled... they can.
Lets say you format shifted your own personal cassette tapes to CD, for your own personal use. Then the music industry freaks out and comes after you... you make a fair use defense...
you are only doing it for music you already own
to convert it to a format you prefer to use
yada yada yada.
and you win the case
Then after the case ends, the music industry discovers that half way through the trial you started selling 'format shifting services' commercially...
This really is a whole other thing. You can't say "Either you can format shift, or you can't. The court ruled you can". The court ruled you can do it with music you own for your own use. They didn't rule you could do it as a commercial service for other people... that's potentially a whole new trial.
Similarly google, *as part of its defense*, claimed that it's implementation didn't compete with Oracle on the desktop. Then it launched a version that does run on the desktop.
Google should still win (IMO). But Oracle has a valid argument that that piece of the defense is no longer valid, and theoretically could change the outcome.
Do you think the Olympic athletes work 9 to 5 5 days a week? And they usually pay their coaches to work the hell out of them.
-shrug- I think the olympics are a sham, and when you get right too it, I mostly think Olympic athletes are little more than circus performers who provide a bit of entertainment to the masses. (I'll stop short of saying circus freaks, but on some level even that applies... "step right up, see the worlds fastest man!!") To be completely honest, Its not a lifestyle I'd even advocate as healthy. Spending one's life competing to be the best in the world at X, for some weird arbitrary athletic definition of X where victory is a combination of lucky genetics, training, and luck -- seems to me to be a pretty pointless endeavor when you get right down to it.
. They also are not an employer, who you are free to negotiate your salary with or go elsewhere for work. If you don't like the terms
The fact that I can choose not to go to this school, and choose not to accept their terms and conditions is exactly the same as me being free not to accept a particular job with particular working conditions.
The point stands that an employer is not allowed to offer certain working conditions. Even in the industrial revolution employees were "free" not to take employment terms they didn't like. Yet, we banned certain employment conditions anyway, and most of us called that 'progress'.
. This is a school that is teaching you a skill that will be with you for the rest of your life -- something you would have to pay for otherwise
Yes, and? How is that categorically different from a job offer that gives you experience that will be with you for the rest of your life, and they are even willing to pay you to give it to you so you can select the room and board you want? That doesn't mean the terms of employment can be anything at all. The law sets standards. What's the difference? Why is the 'employer' not allowed to set any terms he wants? But the "school" is?
Why shouldn't schools be restricted in how much class time they throw at students the same way employers are restricted in how much work time they assign employees? In both cases the student or the employee is free to choose a different school or employer, so why the double standard?
A commercial plane autopilot is a fundamentally different animal.
In a plane someone has to be in the cockpit. But the majority of the flight is a straight trajectory through largely completely empty space, with nothing at all 10,000 feet in any direction. They can stand up and stretch in the cockpit. A 3-4 second response time is fine. The pilot can read flight manuals, do paperwork, study a map, play cards, stand up and stretch (in the cockpit)... etc. He also has a copilot to hand-off too so he can even take a nap.
In a car, at least with Tesla's autopilot, its completely different. There are potentially other cars within a dozen feet to either side, and few dozens feet ahead or behind. There can be trees and poles, dividers, whizzing by to the sides. And the driver is expected to be there continually on much higher alert, "hands on the wheel".
Yes, a pilot needs to be 'ready' at all times, but not nearly as 'ready' as a Tesla driver. A tesla driver needs to be fully engaged, hands on the wheel... almost but not quite driving the entire trip. A pilot just needs to be there, alert, but he can doing paperwork, following the flight along in an atlas, and all kinds of stuff that a Tesla driver can't do. He also has a copilot and can take breaks.
Sorry, it is a fundamental fact in logic, that you can not prove a negative. At least that is what is taught in my university, no idea about yours.
You need to go back to university and have a conversation with your logic professor. I suspect its far more likely that you simply misunderstood something, than it is that they told you something this wrong.
There ARE lots of things you can't prove. But "you can't prove a negative" is much to broad a claim to be universally true in all formal logic systems. No logician or philosopher would side with you on this.
Slashdot Mirror
A drone can't trespass.
The drone isn't trespassing. The owner of the drone is trespassing. But you can't apprehend or warn someone that isn't there, but you can seize the property and turn it into police.
You must use appropriate care, or you are liable.
Agreed. What then is the appropriate care to bring down an unmanned unattended object hovering over your property out of arms reach?
It doesn't matter. You can never legally shoot down a drone
I have an RC model i can fly around my kitchen. The FAA doesn't give a lick whether I crash it into the couch, the kids shoot it down with water pistols, or the dog chomps it right out of the air.
But also, that's how trespass law commonly works. [...] Once I encounter you on my property and tell you to leave, if you resist I can execute a citizen's arrest for trespassing.
That is how trespassing is applied to PEOPLE. Objects are more complicated.
Let's say you aren't home for the afternoon... and then I
- park a bicycle on your front lawn and then leave.
- park a car on your front lawn and then leave.
- crash a kite into your yard, and then leave.
These are also all trespasses.
And in general the law copes with all of these quite well; albeit differently from how it copes with with people. IF you know whose it is you can write them a letter asking them to remove it; and if they don't you can press charges for trespass, and also sue them for any costs associated with having it removed.
In the case of a vehicle in particular, because its large, heavy, usually valuable, and registered to someone this is always possible; and you can also call the police and have the vehicle towed; or even just call the towing company directly -- as this is common enough; they can escalate it to the police if they need to.
In principle you can call the police and have the bike and kite removed as well and the owner can then claim it from them, but in practice as the dollar value of the property goes down the police become less interested, and it becomes more permissible to just dispose of it. (But the property never actually becomes yours unless a court awards it to you, so if the original owner comes looking for it can become nasty if you disposed of something valuable that they left on your property.
Now drones are a bit more unique, because its still trespass; and the property owners, in principle have the right to collect the object on the property, and they can then call the police to turn it in and file a report that they want to press charges against the owner for tresspass, etc. Consider someone playing with an RC car on your property for example, but standing on the other side of the property line -- or perhaps the RC car was programmed like a drone (relying on cameras, gps, programmed routes etc so the operator could be completely out of site / far away.
You would absolutely be in your rights to catch the RC car, turn it in, call the police, and press charge for trespass if the owners show up to claim it.
While the property owner cannot simply destroy the car; if the car were damaged in the process of seizing it, I would expect the courts to side with the trespassee over liability for any damage caused incidental to recovering it.
However, aircraft drones by their nature are much harder to collect, and they can 'remove themselves from your property' without the owner having to physically show up to collect them. They are also noisy. They are usually equipped with cameras and other surveillance equipment so instead of being merely a passive object 'left' on your property; they are actively violating the owners property to much greater degree. That should not be allowed to occur with impunity.
I'm not sure what the solution here really is. In the absence of an obvious operator to complain to, by shooting it down, the property owner has, *in my opinion* taken a reasonable step to collect the unwanted drone on his property; so that it can be recovered and turned in to the police.
If the FAA wants a different solution then I propose clearly visible call letters and a radio identity beacon a smartphone app could read would need to be on any drone, so that I could easily call the police and report the trespass. Drone operators would need to register their drones, and report and record flight plans.
And any drone that wasn't
It's mainly trespassing only if you're told not to do it
So you have to yell at the drone first? That's kind of pointless.
Its one thing if your hiking in a public park and wander into a part of adjoining woods that's actually private property. No fence, and there can't be a sign on every tree... so yeah now your tresspassing; but almost nobody would fault you for it; and certainly not 'criminally charge you with it', so long as you immediately left after being told.
Warned the operators then shot?
How do you warn the operators? Maybe in some cases you can see them standing there. But as often as not you cannot locate or identify the operators nevermind warn them.
I'm certainly not in favor of shooting first ask questions later, but I don't see much choice. Its unmanned, unmarked, unregistered...
She couldn't have known it wasn't transporting life-saving meds to someone or trying to find someone lost in the woods. Easy to guess it wasn't, but guessing isn't being positive.
Quite so. But we live in a world mostly without absolutes. People are imprisoned for life based on a judgement 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; so I'm pretty sure the threshold for shooting down a trespassing drone can be less than absolute certainty.
Apple has always included plenty of ports in the pro models, and they will continue to do so...
LMAO. No. I have a pro. 2012 and 2015. It does not have 'plenty of ports'. It has just BARELY enough.
Both only have 2 USB ports? I need a hub just to use an external keyboard+mouse+external hard drive on a "pro device".
And no ethernet port on the 2015? idiotic for a pro device.So now i get to pay for a thunderbolt to ethernet dongle. Thanks apple.
At least it has hdmi instead of a useless 'mini-displayport' like the 2012 unit though.
There's nothing wrong or odd about having multiple lines of product that serve the needs of different users.
Agreed. Where is there pro device line? Apple should really make one.
All I see is a consumer macbook, a consumer macbook air, and a more expensive consumer macbook air that they call "pro".
A pro device would be a touch thicker (use the space for battery!), have a proper ethernet port, upgradeable/replaceable RAM and storage. Oh, and physical function keys (i think i read they were replacing those with a stupid touch UI). And it wouldn't ever make you choose between charging the device and attaching a peripheral.
99% of the people using them do not need the ports they are taking out enough that it matters they are gone.
Do you know many people that own a macbook pro that don't have a usb hub or dongle in their bag? for my old one i had had minidisplayport to hdmi + usb hub + usb to serial (yay cisco), mini-displayport to vga (because in 2012 vga projectors were still far more common than anything else).
For my current one I need a thunderbolt to ethernet, plus a usb hub, plus usb to serial. Oh, and since it has no internal dvd I have an external one. (I don't use it much, and I'm happy the internal space is being used for battery instead of a drive... but I still need it from time to time so its another dongle.
Now I'm willing to concede that with respect to the usb to serial; I might be in the one percent for that one; and I'm not even too irate about that one. And the DVD is pretty situational too. But even so I don't actually know anybody who doesn't have at least a hub and at least one dongle in their bag. So I call BS on 99% being happy with the ports it comes with ... when 100% of the actual professionals I know carry around more than one adapter for something and/or a usb hub.
I guess if your idea of a professional is a hipster blogger working out of a starbucks then you don't need any adapters.
how long does it take claim your insurance, replace your hardware, then retrieve your backup. Realistically there could be weeks or months involved.
Unless I were actually caught in the fire and in intensive care for weeks months, I'd have a laptop within hours.
And if I WERE caught in the fire, and in a coma for months, and crashplan went out of business at the same time...
a) risk management is about managing risk. you can't eliminate it.
b) losing my photos would not be the biggest issue in my life.
c) if I did deem the photos so valuable that this was a risk i wasn't prepared for, I could have 2 cloud providers for just a bit more $$... or 3....
c) risk management is about evaluating risk.
Anyone who didn't realize that two people, starting at random places in a universe where visiting each planet for 1 second would still take billions of years IN REAL TIME, almost would NEVER meet.... doesn't have much common sense.
Well... unless one of the people called the other person and said... where are you? I'm coming over. Lets hook up.
Seriously, you are right, the odds of two groups stumbling into eachother in a world that big is effectively zero. But given that you know for an abolute fact that friends would make the effort join up and explore together, the idea that it would be a long time before the 'lie of multiplayer' was exposed is absurd. Think about it.
I've played several survival type games where you start off randomly; 7 Days to Die for example. Which on a random gen world where if two people just started exploring or heading in a random direction they'd also likely never meet; they could even pass within 20m of eachother and never know they almost met.
But since I plan to play with friends, and we are actively looking to meet up, we are usually all formed up within 10-15 minutes of a new game. Because we aren't randomly wandering in different directions, instead we make an explicit plan to all go to the same place and wait for eachother; and then strike out...
The odds backblaze or crashplan or carbonite spontaneously decide to shutdown without notice the same day my house burns down is pretty low, after all.
I am a developer also... except I use Linux and multiple workspaces.
Yeah, Windows 10 has them too. Its a pretty good implementation, and I use it.
(I've also used them in Linux and OSX too but obviously not with Visual Studio dev work.)
It's like having as many monitors as I like, but without the neck pain.
No its really not. It's a really nice feature, but its a poor substitute for having actual monitors side by side.
(And there's no reason you can't use both; you can have multiple workspaces with multiple monitors -- I have yet to see a perfect implementation that does exactly what I want; although most are quite usable)
You might well be right. There are times when I know I'd like to have a 3rd -- but I tend to agree it's probably not THAT necessary.
And like I said, I'd also like to try it for some triple screen gaming; so there is some value there just for that.
And 50% as slow as means?
As we all know:
50% = 50 per cent = 50 per hundred = 50/100 = 1/2
"And 1/2 as slow as X" means twice as fast as X.
Its the inverse --> 1 / 1/2 = 2
This glacier 1 meter per year. This other glacier is only 1/2 as slow. So it moves 2 meters per year. Twice as fast.
Interestingly the phrase 0% as slow; seems difficult to make sense of, which makes sense since the inverse of 0/100s is a division by zero error. 1 / 0/100 = 1/0 = NaN
I use a desktop with a 24 inch LCD (1920x1200)
I currently use a pair of 27" LCD 2560x1440. And I'm itching for a 3rd screen.
As a developer, at this point, I consider a pair of matched 24" screens to be the minimum for any serious work. And I fully expect that after getting a 3rd screen I won't be able to go back to 2.
I don't see how anyone is satisified with one after having two. Visual Studio in full screen with multiple code panes, watch windows, etc etc on one... the application, along with my email, word/excel/pdf documents (specifications/documentation/references, etc etc), browser, slack/skype/etc in the other.
A 3rd screen would let me have more information immediately accessible.
As a gamer, I opted not to get a 4k screen last cycle because i didn't have a card that could push the pixels. Now, I'm thinking I'd rather add a 3rd 27" and try some triple screen gaming rather than a 4k screen. OR maybe I'll do a 4k in the middle and use the pair of 27s on the flanks. But I like having matched screens enough I'll probably skip 4k for another few years.
As an aside, I have a 2015 13" macbook pro as my laptop for email, browsing, programming cisco routers, etc. And its fine for that. I like it because its light and portable, but i don't even try to do any real dev work on it beyond answering email.
I also hate trying to game on it -- it rapidly runs too hot for my lap and fingers and the fan noise is distracting. (even for stuff like ToME or DoomRL or SoTS the Pit or Darkest Dungeon which really shouldn't be that demanding)
While the 918 Spyder is its own thing...even just relatively "regular" Porsches are pushing up against it...
The 2014 911 Turbo S did it in 2.6
The 2017 911 Turbo S is expected to do it in at least 2.5s if not faster; so even if can't buy one today, its not like its going to be long at all before a bevy of high end cars can do it.
And the tech in the 918 is going to be showing up all over the place within a year or 3.
Not to take anything away from the Tesla, any car that can do 0-60 in 2.5s is impressive in its own right; and it gets full credit for it's MASSIVE contribution to the electric car landscape. And although I really don't care for the Tesla itself; I am very much looking forward to the next decade; as Porsche and the rest start releasing more hybrids and full electrics; and the space fills up with options.
They made it impossible to play while riding as a passenger in a car
No they didn't. My son uses my wife's phone, launches the app, it says you are going too fast, he taps 'i am a passenger'* and then usually catches 3-4 on the drive to wherever as well as picking up supplies.
* Somewhat amusingly "I am a passenger" is the only option it presents when tripping the speed lock. No "Cancel" option.
Also somewhat amusingly, he triggered the speedlock during a walk. Not even a particularly fast walk. Again, he hit 'I am a passenger'. Perhaps the button should say "I'm not driving".
I am sure it is to prevent idiot drivers from removing themselves from the gene pool via obtaining the coveted "Darwin Award.
idiot drivers can just hit "I am a passenger" and merrily proceed to kill themselves and others around them.
Some people have recommended backing up the entire OS using non-free backup software designed for that very task
You can use floss if you like. I thought your goal however was to minimize the time and effort you spend on it though; so an off-the-shelf backup is less work to setup and manage; at least for a single copy of windows 7.
OTOH, it doesn't help with the fact that Microsoft will undoubtedly be bundling spyware together with security patches starting in October.
And from your other posts, I'm starting to gather that this is really the only reason why you don't already have automatic updates on; because you'll never catch a patch that breaks some obscure photoshop plugin using the methodology you described.
So... you aren't *really* all that concerned about cumulative updates breaking your photoshop and lightroom etc. You weren't backing up the OS prior to now, and you really have no patch vetting method that would have caught actual breaking changes.
However the cumulative updates DOES interfere with your ability to selectively avoid patches with telemetry functionality in them. Most people I know are dealing with this with the use of anti-telemetry tools. (Spybot Anti-beacon, ShutUp10, WindowsPirvacyTweaker, and many others)
Then you just turn updates on, and rely on these to kill the services, block the hosts, and so on. Its not ideal, but if you are standing for anti-telemetry as a 'principle' (like me) rather than actually being genuinely concerned that Microsoft and the NSA is out to get your wife's business photos then its, in my opinion, good enough.
And if you want even more, throw a real firewall in front of the system and use any of a number of host block lists at the firewall; and/or block microsoft entirely, use WSUS offline to get the cumulative patches, and don't worry too much about what they want to do, because they can't phone home anyway.
Rebranding and image polishing are undertaken only when a company knows that things aren't going too well for them.
Rebranding happens all the time for lots of reason. Yours, it just one of them. One company I work with rebranded because it was growing and the original branding was looking dated. Another I know of rebranded because its portfolio of products had expanded and its current branding didn't reflect it.
The brand and image are fine.
Meh. All they have is the lowercase mozilla; they've already distanced themselves from the big red dino head (which still appears on wikipedia, but doesn't seem to be anywhere else at least not prominently. So sure, they could use a more stylized and recognizable logo to rally around. Its not the worst idea anyone has ever had.
Of the bunch suggested i like the Moz://a one, and mostly hate the rest. They make a web browser mostly; and that's what they are known for so that one fits; although I'd have gone with a lower case m. The rest are, in my opinion, lousy. Some are fine logos -- but don't really go with mozilla; and others I just don't like at all.
However, Windows is not my day-job OS, and I need to be economical with the time, energy, and number of neurons I spend babysitting that OS.
So what were you doing up until now? Reading each KB article? Vetting each update on a test system? I dont' really see that based on you response, so how on earth does THIS cumulative update model really change anything for YOU exactly?!!
Meanwhile, a dead simple off-the-shelf backup software packages for windows suitable for a single system seems like a perfect solution...
For example...this is pretty much exactly what you seem to need...but choose any you like.
http://www.acronis.com/en-us/p...
Full Disk-Image Backup
Back up your entire computer including your operating system, applications and data, not just files and folders to an external hard drive or NAS.
You've already got the photographs properly protected; so this would be a perfect solution for the operating system.
that more likely I am to just switch to a platform that's more reliable and is easier to rebuild.
For Photoshop and Lightroom? What platform OSX? Here, I'll save you some time:
====
Q:
I installed the latest version of Mavericks and it broke some stuff (instruments) which I cannot afford to have broken. Is there a way to roll back to my previous release? Am currently on 10.9.2 and want to go to 10.9.1 or 10.9.
A: (paraphrased)
there is not an uninstall feature for patches, upgrades and even apps.
Unfortunately the only real way to do this is to wipe the drive, install the pervisous version, assuming you have the installer or can find it and restore from backup.
http://apple.stackexchange.com...
=====
OS X invented cumulative software updates that can't be rolled back.
And Linux or BSD don't even run photoshop or lightroom.
So, what exactly is your plan?
Its like you've never heard of backups. FFS, your wifes photography business sounds like it runs on one windows 7 computer.
A windows update that toasts your 'photo editing environment' is less likely than a variety of hardware failures. I'm sure, since you are clearly so conscientious about the reliability and accessibility of this environment, that you have a proper backup solution in place.
So.. in the unlikely event of an update fiasco... roll back, and carry on...
For a large enterprises, where it actually makes sense to lab test an update before rolling it out this doesn't work... but for 'your wifes photography business' I can't really figure out what you are trying to accomplish.
And EVEN the enterprise guys can still lab test before letting the cumulative update through to production... and hold it up if there is an issue. (Although its less clear how they resolve a problem.) But that is a whole other situation.
I really don't think that's true. A well-written guide, with clear and well-chosen screen-shots, is more valuable than a video every single time
Not every single time. There's a few things out there where video really is best.
I learned how to make a few origami pieces from youtube videos that I'd tried repeatedly over the years to figure out from multiple books. All those arrows and folds and pointers suddenly made sense, but only after seeing someone actually do it.
There's a few other things too.
Especially for software tutorials, not least because it's extremely difficult to cut & paste from a video.
Again, there's a few things that you really just need to *see*; some critical step omitted that is obvious once you know about it. Some of the stuff in gimp or photoshop is like that.
With music it's often really helpful to hear the piece you are working on get played by someone else, and even more helpful to see their fingering, and even just how they move their hands.
When I took apart the first iphone i worked on, it was good to *see* the video where they use the suction cup to lift out the screen. I can read the guide and look at pictures a 1000 times, but I was a lot more comfortable with what I could expect after seeing a video.
Video doesn't ~replace~ good instructions, but it can supplant good instructions and add immense value to them used right.
I almost always prefer well written instructions to video and will normally actively avoid video; but there are a few exceptions.
Since it was legal to re-implement the API, it is legal wherever that re-implementation might be used.
Legal to reimplement yes. But perhaps not legal to USE it.
Just as its perfectly legal to record yourself reading a book, but where and how you can use that recording is a whole other question.
The case here is more like "the music industry discovers that half way through the trial you started format shifting to vinyl as well as CD".
My analogy wasn't perfect, but this is not really any better.
Oracles main argument is that Google went from "not being in its market space" to "being in its market space". Therefor it went from not harming it to harming it. And that's more than just "vinyl vs cassette vs CD".
To try a better analogy -- it would be like Apple suing me for trademark infringement for my Apple brand bbq cover business; and me winning in part because our markets don't overlap... but midway through the trial Apple discovers I started selling covers for phones and laptops...
*IF* google won its fair used defense because it "wasn't competing on the desktop" then it matters. IF that was entire superfluous and google would win regardless then it doesn't. In my opinion it doesn't matter. Nevertheless google did raise the point as part of its defense, so oracle has a legitimate nit to pick.
So a billion Android devices is fair use, but add in 500k Chromebooks, and oh no, it's a different matter all together?
Its qualitative not quantitative.
Listen to AC/DC in your living room a billion times with a billion different friends is fair use. Start paying your brother to DJ the odd party or rent a hall, and throw the party there, and its a different matter altogether.
IMHO the wheres and the whatfors don't really change anything. Either Google can use their re-engineered APIs or they can't. The court ruled ... they can.
I'm not siding with Oracle, but...
Just from reading the summary, it sounds like google made a fair-use defense.
And in a fair use defense the 'where and whatfors' you raise in your justfication for why its fair use absolutely matter.
Either Google can use their re-engineered APIs or they can't. The court ruled ... they can.
Lets say you format shifted your own personal cassette tapes to CD, for your own personal use. Then the music industry freaks out and comes after you... you make a fair use defense...
you are only doing it for music you already own
to convert it to a format you prefer to use
yada yada yada.
and you win the case
Then after the case ends, the music industry discovers that half way through the trial you started selling 'format shifting services' commercially...
This really is a whole other thing. You can't say "Either you can format shift, or you can't. The court ruled you can". The court ruled you can do it with music you own for your own use. They didn't rule you could do it as a commercial service for other people... that's potentially a whole new trial.
Similarly google, *as part of its defense*, claimed that it's implementation didn't compete with Oracle on the desktop. Then it launched a version that does run on the desktop.
Google should still win (IMO). But Oracle has a valid argument that that piece of the defense is no longer valid, and theoretically could change the outcome.
Do you think the Olympic athletes work 9 to 5 5 days a week? And they usually pay their coaches to work the hell out of them.
-shrug-
I think the olympics are a sham, and when you get right too it, I mostly think Olympic athletes are little more than circus performers who provide a bit of entertainment to the masses. (I'll stop short of saying circus freaks, but on some level even that applies... "step right up, see the worlds fastest man!!") To be completely honest, Its not a lifestyle I'd even advocate as healthy. Spending one's life competing to be the best in the world at X, for some weird arbitrary athletic definition of X where victory is a combination of lucky genetics, training, and luck -- seems to me to be a pretty pointless endeavor when you get right down to it.
. They also are not an employer, who you are free to negotiate your salary with or go elsewhere for work. If you don't like the terms
The fact that I can choose not to go to this school, and choose not to accept their terms and conditions is exactly the same as me being free not to accept a particular job with particular working conditions.
The point stands that an employer is not allowed to offer certain working conditions. Even in the industrial revolution employees were "free" not to take employment terms they didn't like. Yet, we banned certain employment conditions anyway, and most of us called that 'progress'.
. This is a school that is teaching you a skill that will be with you for the rest of your life -- something you would have to pay for otherwise
Yes, and? How is that categorically different from a job offer that gives you experience that will be with you for the rest of your life, and they are even willing to pay you to give it to you so you can select the room and board you want? That doesn't mean the terms of employment can be anything at all. The law sets standards. What's the difference? Why is the 'employer' not allowed to set any terms he wants? But the "school" is?
Why shouldn't schools be restricted in how much class time they throw at students the same way employers are restricted in how much work time they assign employees? In both cases the student or the employee is free to choose a different school or employer, so why the double standard?
A commercial plane autopilot is a fundamentally different animal.
In a plane someone has to be in the cockpit. But the majority of the flight is a straight trajectory through largely completely empty space, with nothing at all 10,000 feet in any direction. They can stand up and stretch in the cockpit. A 3-4 second response time is fine. The pilot can read flight manuals, do paperwork, study a map, play cards, stand up and stretch (in the cockpit)... etc. He also has a copilot to hand-off too so he can even take a nap.
In a car, at least with Tesla's autopilot, its completely different. There are potentially other cars within a dozen feet to either side, and few dozens feet ahead or behind. There can be trees and poles, dividers, whizzing by to the sides. And the driver is expected to be there continually on much higher alert, "hands on the wheel".
Yes, a pilot needs to be 'ready' at all times, but not nearly as 'ready' as a Tesla driver. A tesla driver needs to be fully engaged, hands on the wheel... almost but not quite driving the entire trip. A pilot just needs to be there, alert, but he can doing paperwork, following the flight along in an atlas, and all kinds of stuff that a Tesla driver can't do. He also has a copilot and can take breaks.
Sorry, it is a fundamental fact in logic, that you can not prove a negative. At least that is what is taught in my university, no idea about yours.
You need to go back to university and have a conversation with your logic professor. I suspect its far more likely that you simply misunderstood something, than it is that they told you something this wrong.
There ARE lots of things you can't prove. But "you can't prove a negative" is much to broad a claim to be universally true in all formal logic systems. No logician or philosopher would side with you on this.