If it's happening that often, you can't visually track the drone to its landing spot and go and have a discussion with the person stood there holding a controller?
I could easily build an autonomous aircraft that could fly from here to France and doesn't have a camera onboard. Indeed, it'd be easier without the camera as that would reduce the weight.
Should I be allowed to endanger millions of people by unleashing my shoddy software controlled aerial robot over the skies of London and its major international airports, or should I comply with relatively sensible laws?
It's a fair question, and probably depends on the wording from the FAA. I'd suggest you write to them requesting guidance on how to assure conformance with the law.
You may need to register, or you could gamble on getting safely out of the country before they find out whose drone just crashed into an apartment building.
I'm fairly certain that with a lithium ion battery, a raspberry pi, and some motors you could just make your own
Car.
How do they propose locking down something that seems a 12 year old could make
Through enforcement of the law.
What exactly would they do to this theoretical DIY'er if caught with such an offending device? What will they do in a few years when it is even more practical and easy to just build one yourself?
Undertake enforcement action.
Wait, am I still talking about cars or have I reverted to drones? Seems to me the answers are the same for each.
I'm confused. This law is about national security and includes a lot of text about unmanned aircraft, how to assess, train and safely use them in the US, and how to assure they safely share airspace with other aircraft.
The registration fits very neatly into that last point. So this fits within the single purpose of the law, and I don't know why you consider this bullshit.
Why can't US politicians table amendments to bills so that you can vote, "Yes, I support this great bill, but only if we remove that unnecessary stupidity"
In the UK every single act of parliament has a number of amendments suggested, examined and frequently voted on. This is how the most egregious clauses in the legislation get removed (usually; sometimes they get added).
If someone sends you a HTML format email that includes a simple image tag referencing a server hosted image then you can be tracked unless you disable third party images.
I wanted to see if he was stealing and asked security simply to check the videos
How to avoid damaging your career: Always tread very carefully on matters like these. Most companies (certainly ones with over a thousand employees) will have a process that can be followed, and/or whistleblower hotlines.
Use these. Stick strictly to them, always approach it from, "I'm concerned the company may be at risk here" and never mention personalities or personal impacts, and always plan carefully before doing or saying anything.
It's an odd thing but companies and managers will always tell you they want these things reporting/investigating, but it's also so painfully easy to get shafted by doing so improperly.
I don't interview for enthusiasm to work for a living. I want to hire people though that want to work for a living with me, helping my company, rather than somewhere else (or anywhere).
I could earn a good living at most companies in the country. I don't want to work at most of them. I can articulate easily why I would prefer to work for any potential employer than their competition or other local companies. That's where the enthusiasm and interest comes in.
Working for a living isn't great, but given that's going to happen, working somewhere you can find the work engaging and interesting, achieve personal satisfaction through individual and shared outcomes, and retain your integrity by demonstrating the value you add are all important to me and easy to convey at interview.
Fuck all to do with 'liking' sports. The key here is building rapport and a relationship with your colleagues.
You don't have to like sports, and you especially don't have to like the team they support. What matters is that they don't feel that you just don't care about them and their interests - whether that's sports, hotrod cars, cycling or anything else.
The biggest bore I've worked with was a cycling enthusiast. Every fucking conversation was about heart rates, cadence and lycra. But he was also easy to deal with: "Hey, have a good ride at the weekend?" Then switch topics to work.
He knows you aren't a cycling afficionado because you don't dive into the minutia he's deeply into. But you've shown you understand it's his hobby, you give him a chance to share his passion and he feels you're engaging with him.
Could you come back in a couple of months and let us know whether it's changed?
There'll be a lag on the impact, as a lot of people wont realise how much extra this is costing until it's hit their credit cards. That'll be the test.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's happening that often, you can't visually track the drone to its landing spot and go and have a discussion with the person stood there holding a controller?
overflying and filming my female housemate
You know for sure that the drone is filming her?
I could easily build an autonomous aircraft that could fly from here to France and doesn't have a camera onboard. Indeed, it'd be easier without the camera as that would reduce the weight.
Should I be allowed to endanger millions of people by unleashing my shoddy software controlled aerial robot over the skies of London and its major international airports, or should I comply with relatively sensible laws?
It's a fair question, and probably depends on the wording from the FAA. I'd suggest you write to them requesting guidance on how to assure conformance with the law.
You may need to register, or you could gamble on getting safely out of the country before they find out whose drone just crashed into an apartment building.
I'm fairly certain that with a lithium ion battery, a raspberry pi, and some motors you could just make your own
Car.
How do they propose locking down something that seems a 12 year old could make
Through enforcement of the law.
What exactly would they do to this theoretical DIY'er if caught with such an offending device? What will they do in a few years when it is even more practical and easy to just build one yourself?
Undertake enforcement action.
Wait, am I still talking about cars or have I reverted to drones? Seems to me the answers are the same for each.
I'm confused. This law is about national security and includes a lot of text about unmanned aircraft, how to assess, train and safely use them in the US, and how to assure they safely share airspace with other aircraft.
The registration fits very neatly into that last point. So this fits within the single purpose of the law, and I don't know why you consider this bullshit.
1) $5 fee is a tax and he cannot create his own taxes = needs act of Congress.
Who the fuck do you think passed the
2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which landed on Trumpâ(TM)s desk Tuesday
Trump cannot waive laws, he needs to go ask Congress for that.
Did he even need to ask, or did they throw that bit in for free and he's merely acceded to them?
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT
I think you'll find that sec. 336 has been superceded by SEC. 1092 of the more recent act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
Ironic homophobic insults from someone opposing alleged nazism there.
No wonder you posted anonymously, I wouldn't put my name to that juvenile idiocy either.
What's wrong with quoting Mussolini? What's fascist or corporatist about these?
Better to live a day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep
It's good to trust others but, not to do so is much better
There is no revolution that can change the nature of man
Every anarchist is a baffled dictator
Youth is a malady of which one becomes cured a little every day
You may not agree with any/all of them, but they could all come from Gandhi, Churchill or Lincoln. They happen to be quotes of Mussolini.
Why can't US politicians table amendments to bills so that you can vote, "Yes, I support this great bill, but only if we remove that unnecessary stupidity"
In the UK every single act of parliament has a number of amendments suggested, examined and frequently voted on. This is how the most egregious clauses in the legislation get removed (usually; sometimes they get added).
The first page of Google search results strongly disagrees with you.
Cryptography is shorthand for cryptography, crypto is shorthand for any long arse word people can't be bothered to type and that starts with crypto.
Ada Lovelace died in 1852 and didn't even have the right to vote.
Although in 1852 that put her in the clear majority, as only one fourteenth of the population could vote.
She also spent 90% of her life with a female head of state, so it's not like women were entirely without power.
I take my cats to one. Well, I ring the surgery and book an appointment with "the vet" but it's mostly the bloke and not his female colleague.
Maybe she does dogs.
Everyone wants to suck at some point in their lives.
(even if it's just a nipple)
If someone sends you a HTML format email that includes a simple image tag referencing a server hosted image then you can be tracked unless you disable third party images.
No javascript required.
This would almost certainly discriminate against protected groups - e.g. people with learning disabilities such as Aspergers.
Isn't the standard practice to bluff through that question then react somewhat more strongly when he asks you to tell him about your mother?
I wanted to see if he was stealing and asked security simply to check the videos
How to avoid damaging your career: Always tread very carefully on matters like these. Most companies (certainly ones with over a thousand employees) will have a process that can be followed, and/or whistleblower hotlines.
Use these. Stick strictly to them, always approach it from, "I'm concerned the company may be at risk here" and never mention personalities or personal impacts, and always plan carefully before doing or saying anything.
It's an odd thing but companies and managers will always tell you they want these things reporting/investigating, but it's also so painfully easy to get shafted by doing so improperly.
I need to work!! In fact I just need the money.
I don't interview for enthusiasm to work for a living. I want to hire people though that want to work for a living with me, helping my company, rather than somewhere else (or anywhere).
I could earn a good living at most companies in the country. I don't want to work at most of them. I can articulate easily why I would prefer to work for any potential employer than their competition or other local companies. That's where the enthusiasm and interest comes in.
Working for a living isn't great, but given that's going to happen, working somewhere you can find the work engaging and interesting, achieve personal satisfaction through individual and shared outcomes, and retain your integrity by demonstrating the value you add are all important to me and easy to convey at interview.
Well, beats listening to racists like you dismissing racism.
Yet all the double-blind studies show that women are more likely to get interviews and job offers in IT than men.
Yes, it's sexism - but not the direction you're suggesting.
And lets be honest, you wont find the sales person near enough a server to piss on it anyway.
Well, the primary difference is that most philanthropists at least put their own money where their mouth is.
These guys asked everybody else to front the money.
Fuck all to do with 'liking' sports. The key here is building rapport and a relationship with your colleagues.
You don't have to like sports, and you especially don't have to like the team they support. What matters is that they don't feel that you just don't care about them and their interests - whether that's sports, hotrod cars, cycling or anything else.
The biggest bore I've worked with was a cycling enthusiast. Every fucking conversation was about heart rates, cadence and lycra. But he was also easy to deal with: "Hey, have a good ride at the weekend?" Then switch topics to work.
He knows you aren't a cycling afficionado because you don't dive into the minutia he's deeply into. But you've shown you understand it's his hobby, you give him a chance to share his passion and he feels you're engaging with him.
To be fair, I can't see a tribunal ruling that one as 'unfair dismissal'.
Could you come back in a couple of months and let us know whether it's changed?
There'll be a lag on the impact, as a lot of people wont realise how much extra this is costing until it's hit their credit cards. That'll be the test.