Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Self capture (Score 1) 13 13

How do they solve the issue of capturing the camera's stand/arm? Reflective surfaces will be annoying as well.

Cameras like this have an area of occlusion, caused by the cameras being physically a few centimeters apart, that the stand often sits in. I cannot speak for this particular model but let's just say you've got a diameter of something like a foot where a strategically placed stand would be invisible.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 993 993

No, it was no longer the first owners property once in someone else' private property! There is a reason that we have the saying "Possession is 9/10ths of the Law."

Example: Kid hits a baseball and it goes into "that person's" yard. "That" person happens to see it and puts the ball in their house on the mantle. This is perfectly legal, even if it may be what we would call "dickish" behavior.

If the Drone remained on the original owners property, or we being flown in public property, destroying the drone might be illegal. As soon as the drone entered someone's private property the original owner lost their property. Willingly lost their property I'll add.

Comment Try again (Score 1) 993 993

I demonstrated that you were wrong attempting to equate to unequal objects, so you move the goal post. Not surprising, this tactic is common with irrational and/or unreasonable people.

Your move attempts to incorrectly paint a picture of a person firing a weapon in a crowded area. It is not against the law to defend your property, in fact this is a fundamental right given to us by the Constitution. Read it, understand it, and enjoy it. If you dislike the Constitution you are free to leave the country and find somewhere else to live. Start your own Utopia, but don't try to convert everyone else to a system which is impossible to achieve.

Comment Re:Um... (Score 1) 171 171

We are primarily a government contractor, and our main contract had a Siebel-based client management system (only a government would have the combination of money and stupidity to invest in an ancient technology like that, but oh well), and up until late last year, we had to run IE in the lowest security mode and IE7 compatibility mode just to make the ActiveX components function. The new version is by and large HTML5 compatible, and though they recommend Firefox, we've had only a few bumps running Chrome. I doubt more than a handful of our staff even use IE now.

Comment Re:Um... (Score 1) 171 171

Yes, well, we often hurt the ones we love.

About the only place I still see IE is on some web-based applications from the late 90s thru the mid-00s that were built using IE 5 and 6's very insecure ActiveX architecture. Up until last year, we were forced to use such software on one of our government contracts, and it literally meant viewing the site in Compatibility Mode with security settings cranked down to nothing. They finally updated the underlying Siebel engine to the HTML5 version, and after that everyone just seemed to go to Chrome. I suppose at that point where we start rolling out Win10 desktops, Edge might end up being used, but I have a feeling that MS has missed the bus here, and Chrome is king.

Comment Re: "...the same as trespassing." (Score 1) 993 993

Kentucky man knows buckshot is the wrong load for drone-hunting (there's a reason it's called "buck"-shot).

Unsubstantiated assumption. Honestly you don't really want to go into what Kentuckians do or don't know. If your argument only works if only the best most experienced shooters are the ones that step up and take out drones you're not on a particularly stable foundation.

There is no "reckless endangerment"

Really? Shooting your gun when you're not supposed to isn't reckless endangerment?

Comment Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score 1) 993 993

One item you excluded is that "physical force" does *not* included deadly force. Deadly force is defined in 503.010 (1), and is distinct and separate from 503.010 (4) which defines physical force.

Except there can't be deadly force executed on something that can't be killed. I bet the courts will ultimately rule that the drone is a person by proxy in this regard. These are monumental violations of private property and privacy. I don't know if Kentucky has recording consent laws, but in many states you cannot be recorded in a place of expected privacy without explicit permission from both parties.

Comment Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score 1) 993 993

I never said fire your gun. To a device, I don't think it matters if it is shot or bashed with a bat.

You are talking about discharging a firearm inside your home without thinking about who is in the next room.

This right here neatly sums up the issue I have with using guns to deal with drones: Lack of consideration about the environment you're in when firing a weapon. Everybody is annoyed with drones, and since they have proven to be physically dangerous they are rightfully so, but nobody around here is stopping to think: "Gee, I wonder if I'm really okay with a yokel from Kentucky running outside with his gun every time he sees something hovering?"

Honestly, I expected a lot better from this site.

In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and make it better.