And you think that's going to get by undetected?
It's definitely excessive. Just like the actual NOTAM that this is supposedly based off of is actually 30 miles (which extends just shy of the Baltimore city border).
One of DJI's own dealers is within this 15 mi radius, too. Will definitely be interested in seeing if it affects that side of the business, and/or how much they promote DJI's products.
How big is your brick? While there are hexa- and octocopters that can carry a couple of pounds (which are big and conspicuous spider-looking things), the payload of the DJI Phantom line is measured in low-double-digit grams.
Maybe it can deliver a targeted chemical payload (so can RC planes), but I think explosives would be a little difficult.
"Drones are better than high power telescopes because you don't need line of sight"
I think you're severely overestimating the capabilities of these commercial, civilian quads. The camera in the Phantom 2 Vision+ is a 12MP, 1080p fisheye lens, very similar to a GoPro 3. You're not getting the optics of a high-power telescope.
DJI's new line, the Inspire One, has a 4K camera, which I guess allows for better quality, but you're still not zooming in. These things are loud, you're not using them for invading someone's privacy without them knowing.
If you try to fly within an NFZ, it will prevent takeoff. There's a companion app that works on your smartphone as you're flying, and it will alert you that you're in a no-fly zone.
If you're already in the air, and bump against the NFZ, it will simply stop and refuse to continue in that direction.
Nobody's talking about these being 'rights'. There are existing laws for privacy violations and 'peeping toms', there's absolutely no reason or need for heavy-handed over-regulation just because it's new technology. Everything in life can be used for good or for ill, they need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, not just blanket-banning the entire industry just because of some politician's twisted mind.
Were the lawmakers in bed with big pharma or something?
Not just 'were', and not just 'in bed', but wild kinky shit. This is pretty much how the US legal system's relationship with big business has operated for years.
if you just buy through an ad network, how are you going to know? you're not. and the newspaper or whatever you're buying direct from the site publisher to put the ads on has less incentive to run bots to steal your ad money than an ad network has.
What? Of course the advertiser knows. Most decent ad networks do work with the site and the advertiser, who shapes the ad buy. I guess there are 'throw whatever on the page' ad networks, but I've never worked with them. I honestly don't know which one is more common....
But Alexa and Quantcast both require third-party cookies to be effective or accurate, which most people in this thread are advocating blocking wholesale.
Are you talking a pure content/journo site that's barely more than Wordpress? Then yes, costs are cheap.
There's more than one type of website/idea out there, though. Some exist to store, manipulate, and sort through large amounts of data for a large niche (sounds like an oxymoron, but in my personal case, I ran a site for a gaming community (niche part), but had 5 million users (large part, relatively speaking)).
Heavily CPU-bound and applications that transfer a lot of data (TB/mo) are going to cost money no matter if you're co-lo'ing or using some cloud service provider. According to their calculator, AWS costs ~$120/mo just for 1 TB of client-side output alone, nevermind the instances.
There's this weird assumption in these threads that the only sites ever created are cat blogs or political rants. I don't know if it's just general lack of experience with the web, or what. I can name several properties that can't operate on your assumed 'cable TV' budget.
And you don't think that presents a risk to those that are paying out the CPM? At least with an established, third-party network, their reputation stands on accurate reporting. If you're paying someone to share your message, are you just going to blindly trust that they started having a million uniques per day?
I guess if you're content with refusing to at least consider both sides of the discussion and thinking only your version of advertising is 'correct', then sure.... no hypocrisy.
Since you responded to literally nothing else from my post, I can only assume you aren't interested in actual discussion or debate on the topic, or simply cannot physically comprehend creating something that requires anything more than a static page or two (which would be ironic, given where we're communicating).
> I want to block their cookies. I want to deny them the analytics or even know that I visited the page. I want the advertisers to piss off and die.
> save your damned bandwidth, and leave the parasites out of the equation entirely.
This is extremely easy to do, and I'm not sure why you or others haven't suggested it:
You could not visit the site/page. The 100% bandwidth savings is worth it, wouldn't you say?
AC is right. Instead of 'running ads', you are the ad.
Also, you're assuming that every site exists to sell a specific product. In my case, I ran a pure service in which users (who are generally less-militant against ads for games, peripherals, and at least somewhat tolerant on "related" products like snack foods) could track and compare their progress on a popular gaming service.
I did it for fun initially, but the numbers I gave from my original post weren't pulled out of thin air; this actually happened. I needed hosting, I needed hardware, I needed consulting (because my DB modeling skills were terrible). While I actually did end up paying out of pocket for my hosting during its final year, I never could have scaled with demand without advertising. Being an uninterested third-party, it's easy to say "well your site didn't deserve to exist", but I am confident you would feel differently if it was your own blood and sweat at stake.
The point of all this is that not every site is equal. Not all of them are click-bait, copy-pasta "journalism", or someone's blog about their cat. There are many people out there doing labor-of-love projects that, for whatever reason, end up being useful for a number of people. Some of them have the ability to monetize them into products, like games and what have you, and others may make the end-user the product (Google, Twitter) - but there are others who may not have that ability. In many cases, advertising is simply the best and/or only business model that is viable. The web is vast; these sites deserve to exist, and there is room for them to do so.
Actively boycott those who you feel are taking advantage of its users (80 ads on a page, bad ad networks, etc), but don't damn the entire system. People willing to pay to get their message out has worked for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There's a huge difference between that, and 'punch the monkey' shit that started this 'war'.
[* Sorry for potentially putting words in anyone's mouths, I'm basically covering all the bases from every conversation I've had within ad-blocking threads on Slashdot - You can see my post history]
That's great that your own websites are 'crappy' enough that you can pay for them out of your own pocket.
What if one of them stops being crappy and ends up with 5 million users with millions of daily hits, and you suddenly have to get new hardware and support increased bandwidth expenditure? Are you going to continue to pay, say, $1,000 out of pocket to keep it up? Or would you rather kill it than supplant the costs with advertising?