I think a key point is: When you fly a drone below 500ft over an active firing range, you have placed it the line of fire. When your drone arguably trespasses over the range, with the intent to cause harm to the range I wouldn't expect a friendly greeting.

If someone at the range fired a rifle at the drone, I have an issue with that unless the shooter knew he was clear downrange.

While (very) unlikely, maybe the guy had a drunken one night stand and doesn't even realize she was the murdered woman. He wouldn't know he had a reason to avoid giving a sample.

While it's very likely that he did it, it can be fun to invent a few alibis. Just after he left her boyfriend arrived, caught her cleaning up, figured out what she'd been up to and killed her in a jealous rage. Her drug dealer settled the score for her unpaid debts. He'd followed them home and waited until this guy left so he could catch her alone.

He may be able to zero in on titles Netflix can't stream or doesn't pursue to add some value.

Is he in a large metro area? Can he attract a large enough anime or other genre audience to make catering to them viable? Maybe he can team up with stores in other regions and trade niche inventories to keep the selection fresher for minimal cost.

The data on open orders is available to some. Of those who get it, some are 'more equal' and get the first look at the data.

A group who is 'less equal' and feels a competitor may be using their advanced look at the open orders to gain a competitive advantage could be placing these orders to neutralize that advantage.

Just like our two party political system?

Once you have a close shop union (union membership is mandatory at that workplace) the union no longer requires the consent or approval of the workers. Closed shop unions trend towards being 'the other bad guy' over time.

I wouldn't do that. Unfortunately 'knowingly' is a legally tough standard to meet. You must prove that they knew the take down notice was materially false and issued it anyway. Proving it was false and that they should have known isn't enough. Even if they were recklessly careless they're ok.

That condition was put in there to make the law 'look' more balanced, while in fact providing no practical redress at all.

What do you think will happen when the insurance company has a profit downturn and layoffs loom (or the CEOs stock options are at risk)? I bet they'd artificially downgrade drivers ratings and bump their rates to save a quarterly earnings report (and/or CEO bonus). I doubt this rating will be subject to any more consumer scrutiny than credit scores are.

If they're offered payment for the historical location data of all their customers, do you think the more likely response would be 'No, that would be unethical.' or 'Please make the check out to...'? The dubious protection from that stalking is the cell phone companies who devalued the data when they sold the information earlier.

The last pole dancing competition I shot had dim lighting and a reflective background that looked great but punished strobe use. Forced to use a shutter speed too slow to reliably capture the action, I over-shot knowing I'd get some stand-out pictures despite the odds.

I took 1200 pictures. Just being able to locate the event via keyword wouldn't be enough. Culling got me down to 300 to present to the contestants to document the event. Of those there are maybe 25 or so that are pretty good artistically. Culling, keywords, organization and search abilities are all needed together.

Just in case I get 'pics or it didn't happen', http://www.seanpix.com/p162119036 - possibly nsfw, although they're all dressed.

If you shoot an entire wedding, you still prune and throw away three or four for every one you keep even if you're considering your shots.

The formal portraits will be different because you've got perfect studio strobe lighting and subjects that are posing for you. The rest of the time, you limit strobe use to fill (usually) so you can capture the ambiance of the venue. You'll be using even the very best camera outside the range where they reliably produce technically good results, so you shoot several shots for every one finished picture you intend to present. You aren't shooting still, posed people so you shoot when you anticipate something photogenic is going to happen. You'll take many extra pictures to make sure you catch fleeting magic moments. As you learn human nature and body language you can cut down on the number of extra pictures, but they aren't eliminated.

If everything's gone great, nearly all of the shots will be technically very good and you'll have many that are almost alike. You pick the best of the similar sets and cull the rest. The others were there for insurance, and are kept only when needed.

There is something far more important at stake, political reputations! The failure of solar power companies associated with Obama's administration has been a terrible black eye, and no cost (borne by others) is too high to make solar a more attractive alternative. We, no cost short of giving individuals the same tax breaks utilities enjoy. We can't get too crazy...

There is a political effort to throw a cloud over our non wind/solar energy alternatives, to make it seem that the 'other guy' has problems too. It all serves the same political purpose. Note that this has nothing to do with the desirability of any specific energy policy.

They can pull the basic, very limited OBD information. The really useful information that gives the dealer a huge advantage in repairing your car is restricted to protect the high dealer repair prices.

Exactly. The other possibility is that the ad affiliate actually paid the botnet owner for the clickfraud to 'legitimize' extra charges to the advertisers.

Static ads were around much longer than a year. Animated ads spread much slower than flash/pop ads when they first appeared too.

I can say that once pop-up, pop-under, new pop-up opening if you click to close the last one ads appeared I started militantly blocking all ads. When smarmy pervasive tracking started (quant, com-score) I installed blockers on all of my employers computers. When they finally pissed me off, they lost 100 systems...

Book publishers once tried to put a binding Eula in books. It said the purchaser could not resell the book or allow any other party to read the book, which sounds just like what the RIAA would like for music. The courts at the time were more sensible and struck it down.

Essentially it's an offense if any part of any statement you make doesn't perfectly match every witness statement. If your recollection is correct and the officer's is wrong, you've committed a serious crime.