Let's keep this in perspective. If the hack requires you to physically attach dongles to the vehicle, the hacker could just as easily attach a remote controlled bomb.
"just as easily" ? ORLY.
From their FAQ:
"We provide the Metromile Pulse, our OBD-II device, to our per-mile insurance customers. If you are interested in per-mile insurance, please learn more here."
Please describe how and where my victims unwittingly order a remotely controlled bomb and install it in their cars for me?
Lets keep this in perspective indeed. Thousands of people using metromile insurance receive and install this dongle in their cars. None of them are strapping C4 attached to a cellphone under the hood... although it seems they might as well be if they sign up to Metromile per-mile insurance.
First, what if he'd taken it down with a garden hose pressure washer? Or a butterfly net? Or a toy bow and arrow with rubber suction cup arrow heads? Or he threw a rock at it? Or he knocked it out with a stunt kite... or just got it tangled in a kite line. Or he forced it down with another drone.
Second, I'm curious how exactly you define lethal force vs an unmanned, inananimate object?
Precisely. We agree. Yet you seem to have missed my point.
The point is we only do that wordy nonsense with uber "ride sharing", which creates a sense that it's somehow different than other jobs.
But as you just agreed, its really not different after all.
So if we normally say the fry guy has a job working for mcdonalds, than lets just say an uber driver has a job working for uber.
What reason is there to say a fry guy has a job at mcdonalds while the uber driver is "part of the uber ride sharing economy" as if that was somehow a different thing than just having a job?
If I sign up, using my own car, how am I not sharing the car that I have with others?
So, generally, by your logic if I show up to work with my own tools I'm now in a tool sharing business?
For example, how is a home renovation contractor not in the "tool sharing business"?
Actually even more generically, this sounds like all jobs. The fry guy at mcdonalds. He's big into the the time sharing economy. He has spare time, he arranges to share some of it with mcdonalds in exchange for money.
Seems a lot of people have had stuff break. I had a toshiba laptop become unusable after a kubuntu upgrade myself. Just froze up on boot.
Winblows on the other hand, driver hell making a 1 year old scanner unusable after updating from 98 to XP.
QQ.
Some 3rd party software not made by MS broke during one of the biggest os upgrades in Windows history, and the 3rd party didn't step up with new drivers. And this is 'winblows' fault, somehow, not yours, that you selected a bottom feeding windows 98 only piece of crap scanner that likely didn't even have a windows 2000 driver.
People have hit tennis balls and baseballs onto someone else's property and it hasn't been trespass. Inanimate objects cannot trespass.
So if I send a self driving car through your ranch, but its not occupied, its not trespassing?
The law doesn't talk about "irritate". You're changing the words to make a straw argument.
The law talks about infringing on your enjoyment. "irritate" is an apt word to describe something that infringes on your enjoyment.
And if a car parks itself on your lawn, well, it's autonomous and therefore perfect. It can make no mistakes, cause no accidents.
Sarcasm right? Because it better be.
An re ""The same cite I gave last time. 14 CFR 97.119: "
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surfaceâ"
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
That's all it says... it can operate lower so long as the above, so where are the routes and what are the altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA?
Is 20' above my pool a route specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA?
It was within navigable airspace at an altitude that it could make a safe landing without undue hazard to people on the ground. That's what the law requires.
It was also in the immediate airspace above a property, where its presence was preventing the owner from full enjoyment of his property, which is a tresspass.
The law also recognizes that.
This wasn't an airplane, it was a helicopter. Helicopters do not have the 1000' foot floor.
So what is the helicpoter floor exactly? Can I hover a helicopter 5 yards over your backyard for an hour? At 50' for 30 minutes? What is the limit? Is it 100' for 1 minute? How long / how close to you have to be to my property before its a trespass?
Except the minimum height for helicopters. Which this was.
Which is stated as what, exactly, (with a cite). And no, I don't think an unmanned drone is a helicopter by FAA rules either.
It clearly did not, and clearly not "substantially" -- which is an important word in the material you quoted.
How long exactly can i hover a drone over your back yard before it irritates you 'substantially'?
Twenty-two seconds is not "multiple passes", and your ranking of that as substantial fails the reasonable man test.
22 seconds on its final pass AND multiple passes. Read the full article. Read the other articles. Even the drone owner claims it went out more than once that afternoon, and that he brought it back in to change the battery.
A part of the material you failed to quote says that the land owner is due compensation for an infraction, not that he has the right to shoot whatever he wants
not a generic "infraction". A "trespass". That's a specific legal term. In some states, responding to a trespass with force is allowed.
And trespass by an unmanned unregistered drone is new legal territory... if a car parks on my lawn I have all sorts of remedies... it probably has plates, and a visible VIN. I can call the police and prevent it from leaving.
None of those remedies makes any sense against an unregistered drone hovering just out of reach, with no owner in sight, no call numbers, no beacon, and which not even the police can easily bring down if they managed to show up in time.
Sorry, i agree shooting it down was 'wrong' but the law is clearly behind the times here, as there is no remotely effective 'right' solution within the law either. And for that reason I'm willing to be lenient.
"The dividing line between the portion of the airspace in the public domain and the portion protected as an incident of land ownership against invasions by aircraft, is the line delineated by the Federal Aviation Administration as the minimum safe altitude of flight[ix]."
FAA Minimum safe altitude of flight over occupied propertiy is 500'. Planes are required to be 1000' above nearby obstacles. This drone was under all FAA minimum heights. (Indeed, I think it has to be... as drones are not allowed higher.)
So down below 250' nothing I can find applies.
Meanwhile,
Flight by aircraft in the airspace above the land of another is a trespass, only if[xiv]:
entry into the immediate reaches of the airspace next to the land is involved, and
entry interferes substantially with the ownerâ(TM)s actual use and enjoyment of his land.
It CLEARLY interfered with the land owners use and enjoyment of his land. So the question is whether that interference was 'substantial' (and multiple passes, plus hovering of a camera equipped drone... ranks as substantial in my books) and whether under 250' counts as the immediate reaches? (Which seems fairly reasoanble to me too.
If it does... then its a tresspass.
Can you point to specifics or cites to cases that clearly show otherwise? And if so, how low exactly does it need to be to qualify as the "immediate reaches".
Except that it is not clear if overflying property at low altitudes is trespassing; it's been established a property owner does not have exclusive control over the airspace above their property.
But the public navigateable public airspace doesn't start until 500'. And air planes aren't allowed below 1000 feet over populated areas.
You are right of course that its well established we don't have exclusive control over the airspace out into the jetstream or anything, but what about at 10', 50', 100', 200'...400' ? Who has the airspace rights there?
So its not clear to me at all that they have the right to fly them over other peoples property at that height. None of the regular aircraft exemptions apply since they are for higher altitudes.
This drone was obviously (from the video) well below that. (And even the owner is only claiming 200' which seems plausible from the video... but I think it was somewhat lower.)
The advice was sound. But it seems your stomach isn't used to food that is healthy for you. That's a pretty bad sign in and of itself.
Heh, your reading waaaay too much into that post. It was little more than a poop joke. The suggestion to eat an "enourmous helping" of vegetables recalled me to my childhood when we'd binge on plums when they ripened...
I don't disagree with your overall post, but a handful of almonds doesn't make feel satiated for several hours, nor does it signal that I am full. Not one bit.
Does that really do it for you, or are you exaggerating to make your point?
And that's gallons of syrup. Actual coca cola of course is further mostly diluted by water.
Back in the 1860s-1880s, before "Coca-Cola" the syrup was mixed wine instead of water, and marketed as "Pemberton's French Wine Coca, the patent medicine; cure for everything from nerve trouble, to mental exhaustion, to gastric irritation... " yes, THAT had cocaine in it... but that wasn't Coca-Cola.
I wonder how many people would walk up to a stranger, grab their camera and throw it hard to the pavement - its much the same thing really.
I disagree. Its not the same thing at all, because any scenario involving a stranger involves a stranger.
It doesn't escalate straight to throwing the camera to the pavement because I have other options to engage the stranger.
But a drone 10 feet up? What am I supposed to do? Ask it politely to leave? I can do that to the stranger. I can also gauge his 'creepiness / intrusiveness' factor much easier as well; as well as how receptive he is to the fact that I'm not happy he's there, etc.
They're my damned reasons, they don't have to make sense to you or anybody else.
I don't drink pop because i tried it once and it was hot and burned my mouth. Some guy told me that lots of pop is served at reasonable temperatures; and usually even chilled; but fuck that guy. I'm still going to avoid drinking pop because I don't enjoy being burned. Its my damned reason and it doesn't need to make any sense.
But they're based on an actual experience.
I believe you. But most MMOs don't offer that constantly getting killed by other players experience by default, just as most pop you'll ever be served won't be too hot to drink.
Either I have to deal with the other gamers, or the assholes who think my video game experience is theirs to monetize.
Nope. There are plenty of online games where other players can be as much or as little involved with you as you like. World of Warcraft is one of them. And as for monetization... its a subscription based game to play it, with periodic expansions. Its certainly not "cheap" to play, but its not pay to win or full of microtransactions either. (at least not when i last played it long time ago). Most mmo's are going free-to-play so some sort of microtransaction monetization is inevitable -- and some games find a good balance, while others do not.
Lots of systems exist that only run signed code. Most of them have fallen to exploits. The problem is rarely that hackers have gotten the private keys... its that they've found a way of getting the system to run unsigned code.
This can't be stated enough. Freedom of speech is a protection from government censorship, not websites, stores, or other private operations.
On the one hand. Yes. You are right. On the other hand, the entire internet is a collection of privately owned entities.
Your web host doesn't HAVE to have you as customer. So you get your own server.
Your data center doesn't HAVE to have you as a customer. So you host your server from your apartment.
Your landlord doesn't HAVE to have you as a tenant. So you buy your own property to put your server on.
Your ISP doesn't have to provide you service.
The internet -should- be a basic right. But its not.
I'm not saying reddit should have to carry a subreddit they don't like. But we should have a right to put our content online, even if private interests don't want it. And the internet today... if the right private interests don't want your content, its as good as censorship.
1) Most MMO's are PVE unless you go out of your way to enter a PvP area or accept a duel or something so other players can't kill you. Some are open PvP but most aren't.
2) Most MMO's aren't FPS. Some are but most aren't.
"If MMO means getting constantly killed by every asshole who does that for fun, I don't want to have anything to do with it."
It doesn't mean that at all except for a small number of MMOs. There are lots of reasons not to like MMOs but your reasons are not really among them.
I define it, generally, as a athletic competition with a physical challenge.
Golf, skeet shooting, bowling,... all qualify as sports. The athletic fitness may be less stringent, but the ability to place a ball, or a bullet, or a bowling ball 'just so' are still very much a physical challenge. But yeah in the 'hierachy of sport' bowling is on the bottom rung for athletics.
What about a physical activity that involves unpredictability, making precise movements in response to quick decisions? That sounds kind of like...using a mouse to play League of Legends...
Jeopardy has all that too.No advance notice what the question is going to be. Quick decisions. And a even buzzer you have to race to physically push. Its still not a sport either.
Trying to play up videogames as a 'sport' because they use a mouse really accurately and fast is setting yourself up for ridicule. Your right, there's a physical challenge to it. It raises it all the way to the level of smartphone texting competitions and needle point racing.
The real question is "why do you care that it be considered a 'sport' ?" What's the point? You think it will some how be more legitimate if we call it a sport? How'd that work out for chess? (IOC recognizes it as a sport now. Nobody else does.) Hell, most of us, roll our eyes at bowling too. You think boasting about your mouse clicking prowess is the path to credibility??
Let it be its own thing, trying to attach the activity to football and hockey by calling it a "sport"... is pissing upwind. Utterly pointless... unless you like getting pissed on.
Sports are games meant for entertainment of both player and spectator, just the same as video games.
The fact that its a game, is competitive, and people are watching for entertainment doesn't make it a sport.
We're not singling out video games here:
Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Win Ben Stein's Money, and aren't sport's either. You don't hear them complaining.
Likewise Iron the tatoo artists on Ink Masters, and whatever you want to call the contestants on Ace of Cakes aren't playing sports. Nor is the guy on youtube doing crossword puzzles. Nor is your 8 year old spelling bee champion. But they too usually have the sense not to tell people they are in sports.
And poker players, chess payers, and Magic the Gathering pros... yeah they sometimes call their activity a sport, and they usually get laughed at for it too.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's keep this in perspective. If the hack requires you to physically attach dongles to the vehicle, the hacker could just as easily attach a remote controlled bomb.
"just as easily" ? ORLY.
From their FAQ:
"We provide the Metromile Pulse, our OBD-II device, to our per-mile insurance customers. If you are interested in per-mile insurance, please learn more here."
https://www.metromile.com/
Please describe how and where my victims unwittingly order a remotely controlled bomb and install it in their cars for me?
Lets keep this in perspective indeed. Thousands of people using metromile insurance receive and install this dongle in their cars. None of them are strapping C4 attached to a cellphone under the hood... although it seems they might as well be if they sign up to Metromile per-mile insurance.
First, what if he'd taken it down with a garden hose pressure washer? Or a butterfly net? Or a toy bow and arrow with rubber suction cup arrow heads? Or he threw a rock at it? Or he knocked it out with a stunt kite... or just got it tangled in a kite line. Or he forced it down with another drone.
Second, I'm curious how exactly you define lethal force vs an unmanned, inananimate object?
Precisely. We agree. Yet you seem to have missed my point.
The point is we only do that wordy nonsense with uber "ride sharing", which creates a sense that it's somehow different than other jobs.
But as you just agreed, its really not different after all.
So if we normally say the fry guy has a job working for mcdonalds, than lets just say an uber driver has a job working for uber.
What reason is there to say a fry guy has a job at mcdonalds while the uber driver is "part of the uber ride sharing economy" as if that was somehow a different thing than just having a job?
How about we just call both of them jobs.
If I sign up, using my own car, how am I not sharing the car that I have with others?
So, generally, by your logic if I show up to work with my own tools I'm now in a tool sharing business?
For example, how is a home renovation contractor not in the "tool sharing business"?
Actually even more generically, this sounds like all jobs. The fry guy at mcdonalds. He's big into the the time sharing economy. He has spare time, he arranges to share some of it with mcdonalds in exchange for money.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ubuntu+wo...
Seems a lot of people have had stuff break. I had a toshiba laptop become unusable after a kubuntu upgrade myself. Just froze up on boot.
Winblows on the other hand, driver hell making a 1 year old scanner unusable after updating from 98 to XP.
QQ.
Some 3rd party software not made by MS broke during one of the biggest os upgrades in Windows history, and the 3rd party didn't step up with new drivers. And this is 'winblows' fault, somehow, not yours, that you selected a bottom feeding windows 98 only piece of crap scanner that likely didn't even have a windows 2000 driver.
People have hit tennis balls and baseballs onto someone else's property and it hasn't been trespass. Inanimate objects cannot trespass.
So if I send a self driving car through your ranch, but its not occupied, its not trespassing?
The law doesn't talk about "irritate". You're changing the words to make a straw argument.
The law talks about infringing on your enjoyment. "irritate" is an apt word to describe something that infringes on your enjoyment.
And if a car parks itself on your lawn, well, it's autonomous and therefore perfect. It can make no mistakes, cause no accidents.
Sarcasm right? Because it better be.
An re ""The same cite I gave last time. 14 CFR 97.119: "
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surfaceâ"
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
That's all it says... it can operate lower so long as the above, so where are the routes and what are the altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA?
Is 20' above my pool a route specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA?
It was within navigable airspace at an altitude that it could make a safe landing without undue hazard to people on the ground. That's what the law requires.
It was also in the immediate airspace above a property, where its presence was preventing the owner from full enjoyment of his property, which is a tresspass.
The law also recognizes that.
This wasn't an airplane, it was a helicopter. Helicopters do not have the 1000' foot floor.
So what is the helicpoter floor exactly? Can I hover a helicopter 5 yards over your backyard for an hour? At 50' for 30 minutes? What is the limit? Is it 100' for 1 minute? How long / how close to you have to be to my property before its a trespass?
Except the minimum height for helicopters. Which this was.
Which is stated as what, exactly, (with a cite). And no, I don't think an unmanned drone is a helicopter by FAA rules either.
It clearly did not, and clearly not "substantially" -- which is an important word in the material you quoted.
How long exactly can i hover a drone over your back yard before it irritates you 'substantially'?
Twenty-two seconds is not "multiple passes", and your ranking of that as substantial fails the reasonable man test.
22 seconds on its final pass AND multiple passes. Read the full article. Read the other articles. Even the drone owner claims it went out more than once that afternoon, and that he brought it back in to change the battery.
A part of the material you failed to quote says that the land owner is due compensation for an infraction, not that he has the right to shoot whatever he wants
not a generic "infraction". A "trespass". That's a specific legal term. In some states, responding to a trespass with force is allowed.
And trespass by an unmanned unregistered drone is new legal territory... if a car parks on my lawn I have all sorts of remedies... it probably has plates, and a visible VIN. I can call the police and prevent it from leaving.
None of those remedies makes any sense against an unregistered drone hovering just out of reach, with no owner in sight, no call numbers, no beacon, and which not even the police can easily bring down if they managed to show up in time.
Sorry, i agree shooting it down was 'wrong' but the law is clearly behind the times here, as there is no remotely effective 'right' solution within the law either. And for that reason I'm willing to be lenient.
I suggest reading up on Privacy Laws and Property Laws (specifically on who owns the airspace over your property).
I've tried. Care to point me to specifics. Particularly specifics for the airspace BELOW 250'.
For example:
http://aviation.uslegal.com/ow...
"The dividing line between the portion of the airspace in the public domain and the portion protected as an incident of land ownership against invasions by aircraft, is the line delineated by the Federal Aviation Administration as the minimum safe altitude of flight[ix]."
FAA Minimum safe altitude of flight over occupied propertiy is 500'. Planes are required to be 1000' above nearby obstacles. This drone was under all FAA minimum heights. (Indeed, I think it has to be... as drones are not allowed higher.)
So down below 250' nothing I can find applies.
Meanwhile,
Flight by aircraft in the airspace above the land of another is a trespass, only if[xiv]:
entry into the immediate reaches of the airspace next to the land is involved, and
entry interferes substantially with the ownerâ(TM)s actual use and enjoyment of his land.
It CLEARLY interfered with the land owners use and enjoyment of his land. So the question is whether that interference was 'substantial' (and multiple passes, plus hovering of a camera equipped drone ... ranks as substantial in my books) and whether under 250' counts as the immediate reaches? (Which seems fairly reasoanble to me too.
If it does... then its a tresspass.
Can you point to specifics or cites to cases that clearly show otherwise? And if so, how low exactly does it need to be to qualify as the "immediate reaches".
Except that it is not clear if overflying property at low altitudes is trespassing; it's been established a property owner does not have exclusive control over the airspace above their property.
But the public navigateable public airspace doesn't start until 500'. And air planes aren't allowed below 1000 feet over populated areas.
You are right of course that its well established we don't have exclusive control over the airspace out into the jetstream or anything, but what about at 10', 50', 100', 200' ...400' ? Who has the airspace rights there?
So its not clear to me at all that they have the right to fly them over other peoples property at that height. None of the regular aircraft exemptions apply since they are for higher altitudes.
This drone was obviously (from the video) well below that. (And even the owner is only claiming 200' which seems plausible from the video... but I think it was somewhat lower.)
The advice was sound. But it seems your stomach isn't used to food that is healthy for you. That's a pretty bad sign in and of itself.
Heh, your reading waaaay too much into that post. It was little more than a poop joke. The suggestion to eat an "enourmous helping" of vegetables recalled me to my childhood when we'd binge on plums when they ripened...
I don't disagree with your overall post, but a handful of almonds doesn't make feel satiated for several hours, nor does it signal that I am full. Not one bit.
Does that really do it for you, or are you exaggerating to make your point?
Yeah, but then the diarrhea kicks in. And fresh vegetables aren't cheap and don't keep nearly as well...
"100 years ago coca cola contained actual cocaine, it probably did promote weight loss"
By 1891 coca cola was already de-cocainized to the best available technology of the day. (That's already 124 years ago)
" In an entire year's supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine."
http://snopes.com/cokelore/coc...
And that's gallons of syrup. Actual coca cola of course is further mostly diluted by water.
Back in the 1860s-1880s, before "Coca-Cola" the syrup was mixed wine instead of water, and marketed as "Pemberton's French Wine Coca, the patent medicine; cure for everything from nerve trouble, to mental exhaustion, to gastric irritation... " yes, THAT had cocaine in it... but that wasn't Coca-Cola.
I hope the creator is able to successfully sue Columbia.
Probably not. He literally sold them the rights to remake that short as a feature film.
I wonder how many people would walk
up to a stranger, grab their camera and throw it hard to the pavement - its much the same thing really.
I disagree. Its not the same thing at all, because any scenario involving a stranger involves a stranger.
It doesn't escalate straight to throwing the camera to the pavement because I have other options to engage the stranger.
But a drone 10 feet up? What am I supposed to do? Ask it politely to leave? I can do that to the stranger. I can also gauge his 'creepiness / intrusiveness' factor much easier as well; as well as how receptive he is to the fact that I'm not happy he's there, etc.
They're my damned reasons, they don't have to make sense to you or anybody else.
I don't drink pop because i tried it once and it was hot and burned my mouth. Some guy told me that lots of pop is served at reasonable temperatures; and usually even chilled; but fuck that guy. I'm still going to avoid drinking pop because I don't enjoy being burned. Its my damned reason and it doesn't need to make any sense.
But they're based on an actual experience.
I believe you. But most MMOs don't offer that constantly getting killed by other players experience by default, just as most pop you'll ever be served won't be too hot to drink.
Either I have to deal with the other gamers, or the assholes who think my video game experience is theirs to monetize.
Nope. There are plenty of online games where other players can be as much or as little involved with you as you like. World of Warcraft is one of them. And as for monetization... its a subscription based game to play it, with periodic expansions. Its certainly not "cheap" to play, but its not pay to win or full of microtransactions either. (at least not when i last played it long time ago). Most mmo's are going free-to-play so some sort of microtransaction monetization is inevitable -- and some games find a good balance, while others do not.
Lots of systems exist that only run signed code. Most of them have fallen to exploits. The problem is rarely that hackers have gotten the private keys... its that they've found a way of getting the system to run unsigned code.
and since they have the ability to do updates over-the-air
Then so can the hacker, if not today, then one day?
they don't need to recall more than a million vehicles to fix the issue.
Because there aren't that many. Have they even made 100,000 of them yet?
This can't be stated enough. Freedom of speech is a protection from government censorship, not websites, stores, or other private operations.
On the one hand. Yes. You are right.
On the other hand, the entire internet is a collection of privately owned entities.
Your web host doesn't HAVE to have you as customer. So you get your own server.
Your data center doesn't HAVE to have you as a customer. So you host your server from your apartment.
Your landlord doesn't HAVE to have you as a tenant. So you buy your own property to put your server on.
Your ISP doesn't have to provide you service.
The internet -should- be a basic right. But its not.
I'm not saying reddit should have to carry a subreddit they don't like. But we should have a right to put our content online, even if private interests don't want it. And the internet today... if the right private interests don't want your content, its as good as censorship.
What are you on about?
1) Most MMO's are PVE unless you go out of your way to enter a PvP area or accept a duel or something so other players can't kill you. Some are open PvP but most aren't.
2) Most MMO's aren't FPS. Some are but most aren't.
"If MMO means getting constantly killed by every asshole who does that for fun, I don't want to have anything to do with it."
It doesn't mean that at all except for a small number of MMOs. There are lots of reasons not to like MMOs but your reasons are not really among them.
They only promised you a secure OS. Its on you to provide a secure hardware platform to run it on.
When Stephen Hawking can play League of Legends, we'll stop calling it an e-sport.
Really that's going to be your line in the sand? Its a sport as long as it requires at least some minimum level of motor control?
I mean, Steven Hawking can't hold a cup of milk steady. So I guess that's a sport now too?
So how do you define a sport then?
I define it, generally, as a athletic competition with a physical challenge.
Golf, skeet shooting, bowling,... all qualify as sports. The athletic fitness may be less stringent, but the ability to place a ball, or a bullet, or a bowling ball 'just so' are still very much a physical challenge. But yeah in the 'hierachy of sport' bowling is on the bottom rung for athletics.
What about a physical activity that involves unpredictability, making precise movements in response to quick decisions? That sounds kind of like...using a mouse to play League of Legends...
Jeopardy has all that too.No advance notice what the question is going to be. Quick decisions. And a even buzzer you have to race to physically push. Its still not a sport either.
Trying to play up videogames as a 'sport' because they use a mouse really accurately and fast is setting yourself up for ridicule. Your right, there's a physical challenge to it. It raises it all the way to the level of smartphone texting competitions and needle point racing.
The real question is "why do you care that it be considered a 'sport' ?" What's the point? You think it will some how be more legitimate if we call it a sport? How'd that work out for chess? (IOC recognizes it as a sport now. Nobody else does.) Hell, most of us, roll our eyes at bowling too. You think boasting about your mouse clicking prowess is the path to credibility??
Let it be its own thing, trying to attach the activity to football and hockey by calling it a "sport"... is pissing upwind. Utterly pointless... unless you like getting pissed on.
Sports are games meant for entertainment of both player and spectator, just the same as video games.
The fact that its a game, is competitive, and people are watching for entertainment doesn't make it a sport.
We're not singling out video games here:
Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Win Ben Stein's Money, and aren't sport's either. You don't hear them complaining.
Likewise Iron the tatoo artists on Ink Masters, and whatever you want to call the contestants on Ace of Cakes aren't playing sports. Nor is the guy on youtube doing crossword puzzles. Nor is your 8 year old spelling bee champion. But they too usually have the sense not to tell people they are in sports.
And poker players, chess payers, and Magic the Gathering pros... yeah they sometimes call their activity a sport, and they usually get laughed at for it too.