Using the 2nd Amendment, as written, I think we could make that argument logically. Obviously it is not logical to allow it BUT if we use the 2nd, as written and intended, we could actually argue that. Mind you that this has nothing to do with how it is interpreted and I am not, by any means, suggesting we use SAMs (or any weapon of mass destruction) but, in order to defend ourselves from invaders or from a tyranny we should be allowed to arm ourselves with weapons that are capable of doing so. So, yeah, we could actually get a good legal team on it but it is not going anywhere - ever - as no sane judges would even accept the case as it fails at face value. Well, someone would hear it but it would likely be in Texas and not actually make it past a circuit judge. The supremes would just refuse to hear it no matter how good the argument is. Quite frankly, this is one of the rare cases where I agree that we probably should err on the side of caution as opposed to the spirit of the law or the letter of the law.
I agree entirely. I can make that shot easily. I have a slight advantage over most. "First and foremost a Rifleman."
Again, I would make this shot. It would not be gleeful, and I would likely buy the person a new drone (perhaps a nicer one) once the legal dust settled. However, I have no problems facing the courts and think it should be decided. I would take that responsibility in a heartbeat. Incarceration is not an option, really. We all know that. Not for the drone shooting at least - not in this type of situation - and certainly not where I live. Now, he was in a residential section where discharging a firearm is usually illegal. He should face a trial by his peers for such (or a bench trial if he wishes). I do *not* live in a residential area and regularly fire as many rounds as I damned well please.
More realistically? I probably would not even notice the drone.
KGIII (Stupid post count limit... So, AC it is.)
No, reality does change my opinion. The height does not change reality enough for me to alter my opinion. This may be a troubling concept for you.
I am 5' 11" and 172 lbs. Thank you. Your stereotypes do not really suit. Wait until you find out I am a leftist by any definition of the word.
That really does not change my opinion. I would shoot it down too. Of course, yeah, I live miles from people so they would have to be deliberately spying on me. There is no rational reason for me to not shoot it down. I might get a civil offense for it. Meh... I can pay the fine. I will sue them in civil court for duress, not for any money but to keep them from suing me. I *have* a lawyer on retainer. I am a good shot.
If I remember the form properly (I am not actually sure I can say this though, frankly, who gives a shit? I think disclosing the form's content was against the rules.) then every single one of the records from the OPM hack was also covered by HIPPA. There are medical questions, including contact information, on those documents some of which are quite specific. Hmm... That should be legal?
I still do not think I needed to fill it out - I had absolutely zero access to any information that would do anyone one lick of good. If you do fill one out, make sure you are complete and honest. They call on people like your best friend's high school girlfriend and shit. Very invasive. I disclosed drug and alcohol use and still was fine. I just needed some data though and all data was accessed on site.
I found that above about 10Mb/s you start to hit diminishing returns. The jump from 10 to 30 was barely noticeable. The jump from 30 to 100 is noticeable with large downloads, but nothing else. From 100 to 1000, the main thing that you notice is if you accidentally download a large file to a spinning-rust disk and see how quickly your fill up your RAM with buffer cache...
Over the last 10 years, I've gone from buying the fastest connection my ISP offered to buying the slowest. The jump from 512Kb/s to 1Mb/s was really amazing (though not as good as moving to 512Kb/s from a modem that rarely managed even 33Kb/s), but each subsequent upgrade has been less exciting.
Why in the hell would you expect combat to be perfect? Be glad you have not witnessed this. Innocents get kills all the time. That does not make it right - it makes it how it is. Much like you goobers with the autonomous cars - they only have to perform better than humans. There will still be accidents. That is tragic. If you want to avoid civilian casualties maybe consider not going to war. Seriously? You want perfect?
You know how I know you have absolutely no military experience?
No need to reply. No, really. You do not need to. You are dismissed.
Because in 1981 or so, everybody was pretty sure that this fairly obscure educational network would *never* need more than about 4 billion addresses... and they were *obviously right*.
Well, maybe. Back then home computers were already a growth area and so it was obvious that one computer per household would eventually become the norm. If you wanted to put these all on IPv4, then it would be cramped. The growth in mobile devices and multi-computer households might have been a bit surprising to someone in 1981, but you'd have wanted to add some headroom.
When 2% of your address space is consumed, you are just over 6 doublings away consumption. Even if you assume an entire decade per doubling, that's less than an average lifetime before you're doing it all over again.
With IPv6, you can have 4 billion networks for every IPv4 address. Doublings are much easier to think about in base 2: one bit per doubling. We've used all of the IPv4 addresses. Many of those are for NAT'd networks, so let's assume that they all are and that we're going to want one IPv6 subnet for each IPv4 address currently assigned during the transition. That's 32 bits gone. Assuming that we're using a
In practice, I suspect that the growth will be a bit different. Most of the current growth is multiple devices per household, which doesn't affect the number of subnets: that
IMHO: what needs to happen next is to have a 16 bit packet header to indicate the size of the address in use. This makes the address space not only dynamic, but MASSIVE without requiring all hardware on the face of the Earth to be updated any time the address space runs out.
This isn't really a workable idea. Routing tables need to be fast, which means that the hardware needs to be simple. For IPv4, you basically have a fast RAM block with 2^24 entries and switch on the first three bytes to determine where to send the packet. With IPv6, subnets are intended to be arranged hierarchically, so you end up with a simpler decision. With variable-length fields, you'd need something complex to parse them and that would send you into the software slow path. This is a problem, because you'd then have a very simple DoS attack on backbone routers (just send them packets with large length headers that chew up CPU before they're dropped). You'd also have the same deployment headaches that IPv6 has: no one would buy routers that had fast paths for very large addresses now, just because in 100 years we might need them, so no one would test that path at a large scale: you'd avoid the DoS by just dropping all packets that used an address size other than 4 or 16. In 100 years (i.e. well over 50 backbone router upgrades), people might start caring and buy routers that could handle 16 or 32 byte address fields, but that upgrade path is already possible: the field that you're looking for is called the version field in the IP header.
Well, he has a little car.
Behind a single IP address may be many computers - let us not forget that. I have all sorts of them and businesses have far more. I would not be totally surprised to hear there were 4 billion connected devices.