> 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.
> 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.
> So Mike, is it your position that registrars
> should be able to register domain names to
> sites that they know are committing criminal
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.