Comment It's a radio transmitter. (Score 1) 518
It's a radio transmitter feeding a closed waveguide. One has to ask: why haven't we seen evidence of radio transmission providing thrust before, when it's been feeding an open waveguide?
Well, robbery would be a bit tougher than general mayhem. In the foreseeable future you'd probably need a human in the loop, for example to confirm that the victim actually complied with the order to "put ALL the money in the bag." Still that would remove the perpetrator from the scene of the crime. If there were an open or hackable wi-fi access point nearby it'd be tricky to hunt him down.
This kind of remote controlled drone mediated crime is very feasible now. It wouldn't take much technical savvy to figure out how to mount a shotgun shell on a quadcopter and fly it to a particular victim (if you have one). That's a lot less sophisticated than stuff terrorists do already; anyone with moderate technical aptitude could do it with off-the-shelf components. I'm sure we'll see our first non-state-actor controlled drone assassination in the next couple of years. Or maybe a hacktivist will detonate a party popper on the President or something like that.
Within our lifetime it'll surely be feasible for ordinary hackers to build autonomous systems that could fly into a general area and hunt down a particular victim using facial recognition. People have experimented with facial recognition with SBCs like the Raspberry Pi already.
You can forbid states from doing this all you want, but as technology advances the technology to do this won't be exotic. It'll be commonplace stuff used for work and even recreation.
We're not okay with campaign spending. I don't think anyone is, but how else do you reach 300+ million people?
Via the Internet, of course. Have each candidate publish a profile on candidates.gov.
It doesn't matter what the terms of the permit are; those terms are illegal.
That is for a court of law to decide. You may be right but that has not yet been decided to my knowledge.
The government may only enact reasonable content-neutral restrictions on speech. Saying that a specific person cannot perform or a specific viewpoint cannot be expressed runs afoul of well-established First Amendment case law.
That is not remotely true. I refer you to FCC v Pacifica Foundation, better known as the case over George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words broadcast which was upheld by the Supreme Court and restricts viewpoints based on their content.
How many times psychopathic tyrants were toppled because of moral rebellion within own forces?
Countless times. It is trivial to find examples throughout history. Look up military coup and you'll find no end of examples of tyrants being deposed by their own military forces, often for moral reasons.
If I were sitting on the SCOUTS I would have to question even those restrictions. The first amendment provides for the right of peaceful assembly, not the right of peaceful assembly when adequate sanitation as defined by a government agency happens to be in place.
There is nothing mutually exclusive between assembling peacefully and ensuring an event is adequately planned to ensure the safety and rights of all. When that sanitation is paid for by the local community then the local community gets a say in the matter. When large events are held there invariably is a need for extra security - even at ostensibly peaceful events not everyone behaves themselves. When you have large groups of people the physical reality of the situation is that people need to eat, drink and poop and there needs to be adequate medical care available. If that is not addressed then you get serious public health problems up to and including people dying. Assembling peacefully does not mean you get to do whatever you want, wherever you want and whenever you want without any planning or consideration of the consequences of your actions no matter how peaceful you are.
I find it hard to accept the government can make a credible claim that an anti-violence fundraiser isn't a peaceful assembly, until there is probably cause to expect its anything else the government should have NO RIGHT to interfere irrespective of the number of porta-cans present.
Insisting that the event be sufficiently organized to ensure the safety of the attendees and the community and the rights of all are respected is hardly unreasonable and frankly is well enshrined in our laws. You are making the mistake of presuming the first amendment rights of those attending the event are the only rights in play. They aren't.
Note that this sort of permit/license is justified under the theory that it requires extra city services to do this sort of thing - more cops, more street cleanup, etc.
It's more than that. If you hold an event there are issues of public safety, sanitation, noise and other public nuisances, civil rights of other parties, other groups that may want the same space at the same time. There are practical issues of how to hold a safe and peaceful event and there are civil rights issues for the local residents and their expression of free speech and other rights. As a simple made up example, if a group decided to hold a loud gathering outside my home at 3 in the morning, shouldn't I have some say in the matter if the issue could be reasonably addressed at another time?
They shouldn't deny the permit on the grounds of the message but the free speech rights of the permit seeker is rarely the only consideration. If someone wanted to hold a million man march in the small town I live in the town would probably deny it because it is too small to hold such an event even if they wanted to. There simply isn't adequate infrastructure to make it happen safely and peacefully and there would be serious public safety problems which would likely supersede any free speech issues in play.
Not necessarily a tyrant. Any psychopath with money.
Why should the state be allowed to put such restrictions on permits???
To ensure that the performance doesn't become a public nuisance or a danger to others. The first amendment rights of the people seeking the permit are important but they are not the only rights in play here. The people who live in that local community also have rights. Its not unreasonable to require the organizers to provide reasonable assurances that the activity will be safe, that they will have adequate security, adequate parking or other infrastructure, that it will be peaceful, that it will not disturb the local residents unnecessarily, that public health issues (sanitation, food, water, etc) are addressed, etc. Free speech is a super important right but you don't get the right to endanger others in the process and it isn't the only right involved. So we often require permits for public performances and demonstration (a kind of performance) when they involved public property. The permitting process is typically fairly reasonable and we have courts for when it becomes unreasonable.
This is the state restricting speech on public property.
And? The Supreme Court has long upheld reasonable restrictions on speech in public places. Even big civil rights marches have needed to show that they are not endangering others. They shouldn't be denied because they don't like the message but there are a host of practical consideration and other rights that need to be seriously dealt with.
In this case, you need a permit to use the park. Their permit said that they would not have this wanted fugitive perform. They violated the terms of their permit, so were shut down.
But that doesn't answer the question: what right does the city, which manages public spaces such as parks on behalf of the public, has to put arbitrary conditions on their use by said public?
Would the police also have shut them down if they started playing clips of Roman Polanski (wanted in the US for raping a 13 year old girl) movies?
If that was prohibited in the terms for the permit then yes. Not arguing if that is right or wrong but they could probably legally do it as long as they weren't stupidly clumsy about the whole thing.
That'll be the FIAT that owns Ferrari and Maserati, which are quite well thought of.
They are well thought of because they are cool looking and very fast cars. Their reputation has NOTHING to do with their reliability or longevity. Most Ferrari's and Maseratis spend the majority of their life sitting in a garage somewhere not being driven. Nobody buys a Ferrari because they think it is going to have amazing reliability.
I was going to buy one, but after looking at owner forums and discovering the problems and horrible service that most people are getting I ran away.
My brother-in-law owned an Abarth for a few years just recently. It was fine and fun to drive. To my knowledge he had no substantial problems with it. One data point of course but a positive one.
Except the pain recalls. Honda has the crappiest paint in the entire automotive industry, and the recalls are repainting with the same low grade crap that will fail in another 5 years.
My daily driver right now is a Honda which I've had since 2009 and I've owned several over the years. Never had a problem with the paint. Again one data point but I'm not aware of any systemic problem with Honda's paint worse than any other major brand.
I'm Italian (near Turin, too). Jeep and RAM models where never designed here. Other (even worse) cars, yes, but not those.
Not true. The Jeep Renegade is built entirely in Melfi, Italy and is based on the GM Fiat Small platform.
The Ecodiesel engine in the current model Ram pickups and the Jeep Grand Cherokee was designed and built by VM Motori. They also have made engines for the Jeep Wrangler and Jeep Cherokee.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
