> Clearly, at some height the air is part of
> the sky commons that belongs to everyone,
> as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision
> laid down
Yes, most states have set minimum altitude limits for aircraft, which allow for normal aviation, but also protect the rights of private property owners.
Basically, anything below the statutory altitude becomes a trespass. It's why paparazzi and news helicopters in Los Angeles have to stay way up there when covering everything from celebrity weddings to Lindsay Lohan's latest trek to the courthouse. They can zoom in with their cameras all they like, but the aircraft has to remain above 3000 feet (if I recall the number correctly).
I can't imagine that the State of Washington doesn't have some similar law, which would clearly make this drone flyer a trespasser. Even if they don't, the homeowner is certainly free to knock the thing out of the air with a baseball bat...
> I caught this girl [with a loogie] as she was
> coming up the steps and caught her in the face.
> I have to support the school administrators and
> the school district because this [water balloon fight]
> amounts to an assault.
It's ironic that what you did to the girl was actually more of a criminal assault than a couple of kids engaging in horselplay with water balloons. And yet you only got suspended for it. These kids now have criminal arrest records.
> But if you're asking why the DMCA was enacted
> to begin with,
No, I'm asking *you* why *you* believe a phone service provider should have a legal cause of action against me merely for making full use of my own property.
If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA. Why does there need to be this additional draconian statute with criminal penalties out there that really does nothing but prevent people from doing legal things with their own property. The underlying actions are legal but this idiotic law makes the mere act of exercising one's rights a crime.
> Under this proposal, copyright holders would
> no longer have that same legally enforceable
> claim against people that circumvent access
> controls yet do not engage in copyright
> infringement
Why should they have such a claim in the first place, especially when giving them that claim takes away my ability to use my own property the way I want to?
> 67% turn their devices off (not just put
> them in airplane mode?) I find that
> percentage stunningly, shockingly high.
I turn my phone off, but it has nothing to do with their 'rules', it's because when I leave it on, it's constantly searching for a signal the whole flight and the battery is drained by the time I land. If that didn't happen, I'd never turn mine off, either.
> And when the stewardess comes around and asks
> me if my phone, which is in my pocket is off,
> I take my earbuds out, tell her, "yes," and explain
> that my earbuds are noise-cancelling (which, with
> something playing, they block out a LOT of noise),
> which is why I'm leaving them in. Not a single one
> yet has been smart enough to tell the difference
> between passive and active noise cancellation,
> and haven't bothered me after that.
The last couple of flights I've been on, they specifically included removing all headphones and earbuds in their spiel because, as they said it, they can't tell the difference between someone trying to sleep and block out noise and someone who is still using their device to listen to music, etc. And technically, noise-cancelling headphones *are* electronic devices in and of themselves, so...
Weird how the flight attendants think my iPad will interfere with the plane's ability to fly, but half the time the pilots themselves use iPads all throughout the flight and their tablets are RIGHT NEXT TO all the sensitive electronics.
Our next door neighbor back home at my parents' house is a pilot for a major airline and he's told us many times at neighborhood gatherings that the whole 'turn your phone off for safety' thing is a crock. The real reason they insist on it is sociological. They just prefer people not have all those gadgets going when they're trying to get stuff done during take-off and landing, and that 'safety' is the one inarguable buzzword they can lay it off on.
Key takeaway from this article: If the FBI won't record its interviews with you, then you should record them yourself. If they object, decline to participate in the interview.
> So Mike, is it your position that registrars
> should be able to register domain names to
> sites that they know are committing criminal
> acts?
How does a registrar know what a website is even about? Even if you wanted to burden the registrars with having to review every single web site and act as internet censors, if a site hasn't been registered yet, it's not up and running, so there's nothing for them to look at, genius.
Re: Re: The story that just keeps on giving
> They have one judge who is trying to bully
> from the bench and make an example, by being
> investigator, judge, and jury all in one.
And yet nothing Wright cited here is false.
Prenda did file an 11th-hour appeal with the wrong court.
They did create the crisis for which they're now seeking relief.
The judge was perfectly correct to deny their motion and sanction them for non-compliance.
Drones
> Clearly, at some height the air is part of
> the sky commons that belongs to everyone,
> as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision
> laid down
Yes, most states have set minimum altitude limits for aircraft, which allow for normal aviation, but also protect the rights of private property owners.
Basically, anything below the statutory altitude becomes a trespass. It's why paparazzi and news helicopters in Los Angeles have to stay way up there when covering everything from celebrity weddings to Lindsay Lohan's latest trek to the courthouse. They can zoom in with their cameras all they like, but the aircraft has to remain above 3000 feet (if I recall the number correctly).
I can't imagine that the State of Washington doesn't have some similar law, which would clearly make this drone flyer a trespasser. Even if they don't, the homeowner is certainly free to knock the thing out of the air with a baseball bat...
Re:
> I don't think anyone commenting has actually
> been hit with a water balloon.
I have. Many times. It's fun.
> Hint: they hurt. A LOT.
Man up, Sally.
Re: "no crime too small" IS A CRIME.
> So don't throw water ballons --- at somone
> NOT agreeing to the "fun" -- unless you want
> a CRIMINAL record.
My god, you're an utter twat.
Re:
> I caught this girl [with a loogie] as she was
> coming up the steps and caught her in the face.
> I have to support the school administrators and
> the school district because this [water balloon fight]
> amounts to an assault.
It's ironic that what you did to the girl was actually more of a criminal assault than a couple of kids engaging in horselplay with water balloons. And yet you only got suspended for it. These kids now have criminal arrest records.
Re:
> I don't know why you used scare quotes around
> "disorderly conduct". That's what it was.
Weird. I've never been able to find the section of the law that requires every citizen to be orderly at all times.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Recording
> It would be a bit late to refuse to participate
> in the interview if at the end of the interview
> they took your recording device as "evidence"
Then use a recorder that streams to the cloud.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> But if you're asking why the DMCA was enacted
> to begin with,
No, I'm asking *you* why *you* believe a phone service provider should have a legal cause of action against me merely for making full use of my own property.
If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA. Why does there need to be this additional draconian statute with criminal penalties out there that really does nothing but prevent people from doing legal things with their own property. The underlying actions are legal but this idiotic law makes the mere act of exercising one's rights a crime.
Egad
> (disclaimer: I hate chocolate)
Communist!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Under this proposal, copyright holders would
> no longer have that same legally enforceable
> claim against people that circumvent access
> controls yet do not engage in copyright
> infringement
Why should they have such a claim in the first place, especially when giving them that claim takes away my ability to use my own property the way I want to?
Re:
> Hey, it's NYC. What ISN'T illegal? Why anyone
> would want to live in that hellhole is beyond me.
Amen, brother.
Every time I have to go there, I can't wait to leave. The idea of actually having to live there makes me shudder.
Re:
> 1) run by an Objectivist who
What does that have to do with anything? Now a person's philosophical viewpoint determines whether his business model is valid or not?
Re:
> laws for or against house/room rental have been
> around for ages. If you want to rent you property
> you must check the local laws
Yes, heaven forfend a person should do anything with their own property without having to ask some government bureacrat for permission first.
Land of the free indeed...
Re: Re: Recording
> They would just take your recording device
> from you as "evidence"
Then decline to participate in the interview.
Re: Re: Re:
> It's about them being told by authorities
> what the domain name had been used for
So they should yank domains on nothing more than being 'told something by the authorities'?
No due process, court proceedings, findings of guilt, nothing. Just a phone call from 'the authorities'.
> and may be used for again
Ah, so we're prosecuting future crime now, are we? I mean, sure. Why bother for a crime to actually occur when you can punish for it in advance?
> You sure you're a lawyer?
You sure you're not a fascist?
Re: I'm genuinely shocked
> 67% turn their devices off (not just put
> them in airplane mode?) I find that
> percentage stunningly, shockingly high.
I turn my phone off, but it has nothing to do with their 'rules', it's because when I leave it on, it's constantly searching for a signal the whole flight and the battery is drained by the time I land. If that didn't happen, I'd never turn mine off, either.
Re: Re:
> And when the stewardess comes around and asks
> me if my phone, which is in my pocket is off,
> I take my earbuds out, tell her, "yes," and explain
> that my earbuds are noise-cancelling (which, with
> something playing, they block out a LOT of noise),
> which is why I'm leaving them in. Not a single one
> yet has been smart enough to tell the difference
> between passive and active noise cancellation,
> and haven't bothered me after that.
The last couple of flights I've been on, they specifically included removing all headphones and earbuds in their spiel because, as they said it, they can't tell the difference between someone trying to sleep and block out noise and someone who is still using their device to listen to music, etc. And technically, noise-cancelling headphones *are* electronic devices in and of themselves, so...
iPads
Weird how the flight attendants think my iPad will interfere with the plane's ability to fly, but half the time the pilots themselves use iPads all throughout the flight and their tablets are RIGHT NEXT TO all the sensitive electronics.
Our next door neighbor back home at my parents' house is a pilot for a major airline and he's told us many times at neighborhood gatherings that the whole 'turn your phone off for safety' thing is a crock. The real reason they insist on it is sociological. They just prefer people not have all those gadgets going when they're trying to get stuff done during take-off and landing, and that 'safety' is the one inarguable buzzword they can lay it off on.
Recording
Key takeaway from this article: If the FBI won't record its interviews with you, then you should record them yourself. If they object, decline to participate in the interview.
Re:
> So Mike, is it your position that registrars
> should be able to register domain names to
> sites that they know are committing criminal
> acts?
How does a registrar know what a website is even about? Even if you wanted to burden the registrars with having to review every single web site and act as internet censors, if a site hasn't been registered yet, it's not up and running, so there's nothing for them to look at, genius.