Saying that it should be safe because shot is small and doesn't hurt when falling is like saying that it's safe to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger because you think the chamber is empty.
Granted I've only gone about a quarter of the way through the comments, but so far this is the most stupid statement I've seen. Well done.
My suggestion for dealing with low-flying drones: pool skimmer.
Good idea. It's a well-known fact that every home in the country is equipped with a pool skimmer.
You're on a roll here.
instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.
Is that what he did? Shot randomly at everything he didn't like?
Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?
What's with "randomly"? The guy hit his fucking target. That's hardly a random shot.
Also, replace "being a douche" with "breaking the law". The drone pilot was breaking the law. The homeowner stated that he thought the 4 men on the other side of the drone could have been checking out his teenage daughters, or the 16 year old sunbathing neighbor, or maybe casing the place looking for things to steal. All of those are possibilities. So, yeah, the guy was kind of within his rights to shoot the drone which was also technically flying in his exclusive airspace that extends 500 feet above his land as defined by the FAA. Calling the police would not have necessarily allowed anyone to determine who was operating the drone. Now everyone knows who was checking out all of the houses and other private property from the air.
the drone must have been below that, probably more like 50 feet
I'll never understand why people will decide to go and comment on something and then speculate about things that they could just read about, but it's pretty pointless to argue about stuff like that. The article contains all kinds of information that you might be interested in if you're commenting on this story, including things like this:
Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor's house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they've got under their back yard
I don't know how someone has a canopy *under* their back yard, but then again I don't live in Kentucky.
by 2020 windows 15 should be out and i will think about updating to it then.
I look forward to seeing how much extra carbon is pumped into the atmosphere by anti-GMO people burning any crops planted using this.
Less than 3 1/2 years later, no more iOS updates were available on it (5.1.1 was the last version) and over time apps stopped supporting this version of the OS.
That's about the same time as there was between buying our XP netbook and Microsoft dropping support for XP.
(Not that it mattered, as I stuck an SSD in there and installed Linux soon after buying it)
The The Free Software Definition states as one of the "four essential freedoms": "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." (bold mine)
Let's say I gave somebody a car out of charity, but I didn't give them the owner's manual. Are they now less free because they will have a harder time fixing the car than before I gave them the car? If I was compelled to give the person the owner's manual with the car, or not give the car at all, am I not less free?
My point is this. The Free Software Definition conflates freedom with capability, and does so at the cost of what freedom really means. It's nice for propaganda purposes, but it's Orwellian in nature.
It could be argued honestly that in the name of consumer protection we limit freedoms for the greater good, such as requiring a list of ingredients in packaged food. However, it would be dishonest to argue for such laws in the name of "freedom".
Proper authentication is made up of at least two of the following:
Something you know
I have a big Dick
Something you have
A big Dick
Something you are
A big Dick
Huh - didn't know it would be so easy......
BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU JUST NEED TO SHOUT, GODDAMNIT.
That's precisely my point - the valid reason to regulate here is specific, measurable harm, not "general well-being".
I will never allow any software that tries to take control of MY machine away from ME. If Windows 10 doesn't let me configure when I update, then I'm not updating to Windows 10
I thought I read the other day that this was one of the issues M$ backtracked on. I believe you can now choose not to have updates installed automatically.
This was a show stopped for me also (a single bad update could take out a large section of the computing public? Who thought this was a good idea?) but was not the only reason for not adopting. The main reason is that I'm tired of my machine, the one I use to perform work for which I get paid, being a test bed for whatever Microsoft thinks is this year's good idea. So no. I may look at 10 in a year or so, after the inevitable early thrashing has died down.
Because even in the face of this, no politician has the guts to propose a bill that would transfer OPM's work to more competent agencies, fire all of its staffers with a 90 day severance package and have GSA sell the agency's assets at public auction. The worst assault on US national security since the Rosenbergs' treason (yes, much much worse than any of the recent leaks) and no one high level is even losing a job, let alone facing indictment. And the best part, no one in Congress seems to think it sufficiently grave to raise that issue.
This is why when people say Donald Trump is a joke and we need serious candidates, I say bullshit. If you're talking foreign policy as a candidate and you don't have a comprehensive answer to this, you aren't serious because this is more serious than Iran getting a nuke or two. This compromises so much of our ability to do black ops.
Windows 8 was there last chance to prevent themselves from being a niche: the standard enterprise desktop product.
But do enterprise users actually want the Windows 10 interface?