IF the people in charge are asking for it, find and suggest a solution that can do it safely.

I'm with you so far.

If they are not willing to pay for your solution, find another, albeit less safe solution and present it with a list of assumed risks. Rinse and repeat until you have a solution they are willing to pay for with risks they are accepting, then do that.

In my experience, any "solution" that you present will be understood to do everything that they wanted.

Even if you say that they cannot have X at $Y. They will give you $Y and then demand X.

When you cannot do so, a contractor will be brought in to set up a flawed implementation that will reduce your security BUT will provide X at a price point that you said could not be done.

Which is why we see this story pop up over and over and over again.

There is this piece of Cat 5 that isn't remotely hackable. Unless it's tapped, or if someone puts an inductor on it, or if they use TDR to estimate the length of the wire to figure out the distance between routers and discover where the Intrusion and Detection Systems are located.

Actually the key at that position was often called "Meta". This was true on early Linux X11 as well. For some reason it was changed to "Super" around 2000, thus breaking a lot of software that assumed it was Meta.

I think you will find a lot of Linux desktops have copied the actions from Windows for the Windows key (Linux calls it the Super key). Super-R for a run box, for instance.

Probably going to be told I am a noob, but:

I have a dual-boot machine. It is an Acer machine and has a legitimate Windows 7 license and I installed Linux, keeping Windows 7 in a resized partition, and occasionally boot into it (it has a bug where it will not boot without a usb keyboard plugged in so I don't do it as often as I thought I would as I have to dig out that keyboard and plug it in). Linux is the default boot. I have no "recovery disk" and I may have lost any paperwork that came with the machine but it is a real legal copy.

So the question is: can I replace 7 with 10? Without damaging the Linux install? If it screws up grub how do I get it back?

He was complaining that Gnome 2.0 removed desktops, and feels vindicated that Microsoft finally added them.

Wait until you have a kid. Windows L becomes VERY useful at home. Also good for curious hacker kitties.

That's not destruction of property, that's maintenance of property. Want a better analogy than the soccer ball? If your neighbor parks in your driveway without permission you can probably have him towed. What you can't do is take a 9 Iron to his headlights.

Doesn't the law make any allowance for "community standards" anymore?

I mean, what would Sheriff Andy Taylor do? (OK, OK, a different state, but you get the idea.) Sure, Barney would reach for the cuffs, but Andy would try to mediate this dispute, no?

Communism suddenly makes sense. Before you have replicators, well, not so much.....you need an end to scarcity to make communism work.

It's all they've got left. I wonder what will happen when the remaining 7 videos come out? Probably nothing, because without Planned Parenthood, Republicans would lose half the votes they have.

No, that would still be destruction of property. The fact that it's on your property does not give you the right to destroy it. If the neighbor's kid kicks a soccer ball over your fence does that give you the right to slash it with a knife before you return it to them? Of course not.

I don't see a single one of these that the pilot definitively violated. "Don't fly near people or stadiums" is the only thing he might have violated, depending on where in this guy's yard it was. (I don't consider shotgun range to be "near enough to be dangerous" - well for danger to people from the aircraft. Obviously the shotgun is dangerous).

What if he was taking pictures of the neighbor's house, at the request of the neighbor? (In fact this is what he claims he was doing.)

To play devil's advocate:

The drone pilot claims he was asked by one of the people in the neighborhood to take some pictures. I've done this before.

In the case of the guy with the shotgun - can he confirm that the camera was indeed pointed towards him, as opposed to someone else's house (that someone else who could have given permission and possibly even requested the photography)? Same for the 16 year old who waved at it - did she know for sure that she was seen on camera, or was the camera aimed elsewhere and it's just coincidence the pilot moved the thing for a different camera angle after a bit?

That said, if you're trying to take pictures of friend A's house, and want to get an oblique (from the side view) shot which requires you to be over the neighbor's property but with the camera aimed at A's property - you should probably chat with A's neighbors just to give them a heads up what you're doing.

Have you ever heard of air resistance and terminal velocity?