It still wouldn't matter. The other authors can license any way they want as long as it is compatible with your license. In the case of the GPL they can release their software as later version and still push back to your project under your version. You can take your code and release it proprietary and gpl at the same time because it's your code.
They have had kits that do not require a 3d printer for that for a long time now. There are a few different companies offering it. Here are a couple that I know of.
And I there there is a clone a willy kit somewhere but cannot remember the URL for it. All of these options are much cheaper than a 3d printer and you can put vibrators in them as well as glow in the dark colors and even lights. Lots of fun- just don't make a bunch of them and hand them out in the secret Santa at work next year. Trust me, it's not as fun or funny as you might think.
I saw that number written on the bathroom wall at the club I was at last night. You must get around.
Anyhow, I do not know if the FCC has an 800 number to call and check for flight restrictions. They should. I kind of assumed they did, actually.
If they do, I don't know about it.
Most of the fun for me was making the replica. It's like building models except they work like the real things. My stuff is a lot smaller but I've seen the larger ones in real life. They have them now with Jet engines and speeds that are unreal for a remote controlled unit. Or if anything, they are way beyond my skill levels. When I was into it enough to spend money, the jets were a pipe dream or electric motor with a prop enclosed in a housing to simulate a jet engine. Now they are a reality and actually burn fuel.
As for mounting a gun, of course that wouldn't be legal but we had some mount flour bombs, open bomb bays and drop bugs (beneficial bugs for pest controls in agriculture). I've heard stories of people mounting home made paintball guns. You could do it but I do not know if the air frame would survive the recoil. You could likely get a POV camera mounted to aim it too with all the new fangled electronics they have now. It sounds like it would be fun to try.
Even still, do you think it prudent to fly your UAV over a forest fire and add the mayhem?
I wouldn't just because of the chance of losing the plane let along any mayhem it might add to the situation.
here is no such thing as, well they are already at risk and the additional risk is trivial.
I would never say anything like that, my comment was how does someone know. It's a communication thing and despite you thinking it should be obvious, at least three people we know of didn't. Maybe what is needed is an 800 number or website someone can check and possible reminders to check packed into different items with the drone or drone parts.
As for a 4 foot wingspan, I don't have any but I do remember RC planes that large and larger being flown. But these were RC planes and line of sight. I havn't kept up with them and most of my experience was in recreating original planes at scale models that actually fly. I never got into the jet engines though and the larger ones were completely out of my budget. But there is one of the largest planes being flown.
Can you imagine the electronics that could fit into one of these..
Yes, the old testament where the bible says do something this way which is repeated in the new testament where the same occurs. The bible recognizes outsiders and unfaithful so the fact of it happening outside of religious demands is meaningless when checking to see if the bible allows polygamous marriages. It says to have one man and one women and the two become one.
That defeats the comment that if someone reads a bible, polygamous marriage would have been legal from the beginning. It clearly instructs the Jews and Christians to not participate in it and that it is wrong to do. The fact that it happened is a bit like ignoring what it says.
No, not really. And besides, if it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, then any additional legislation should not be a barrier to it. If it was, then it would have been a barrier to gay marriage just the same.
Here we are in a unique circumstance where because of an argument about constitutionality, laws have to be changed and the argument for not changing them to cover the same argument over a different set of people is you would have to change laws. It's like logic is thrown out the window or something.
Its used in genesis way before Corinthians. It's mentioned in the new testament several times too. In fact, The new testament mentions that god made woman from man therefore when a man takes a wife the two become one.
It has enough meaning that at least two books were clear in this interpreting.
Not all fires are fought with air support. Not all fires have 24/7 air support. To say this one at this time would have it because there is a fire is a bit misleading.
Agreed, education is needed and warranted, but I have never- ever- called any civil or military aviation board or the nearest airport or anything when launching model rockets or flying remote controlled airplanes (not the drone type). I have asked people permission to fly on or over their land, but for the most part, it's either my own land or public property. I would have no idea there is a no fly zone that pertained to my small model aircraft or where it might have been. And yes, a 4 foot wingspan is a larger but still small model aircraft. When we get a forest fire in my neck of the woods, they send men in with shovels and heavy equipment and we have firetrucks with four, six and ten wheel drive sending water in. Of course we don't have huge swaths of inaccessible lands in my area as roads are pretty well established.
lol.. They did not give us a living document that can change with society. That is completely absurd. They gave us a document that society can change as enough of it deems necessary.
If the document was living and changed with society, then the first amendment would have lost it's power a long time ago. Society at one time in numbers larger than those who want gay marriage, wanted to ban Muslims but couldn't even try because of the freedom of religion. In the 1960's, society wanted to bar black Americans from all sorts of things and if the constitution was a living document that changed with society, the amendment passed just 100 years before would have changed to not allow the challenges that eventually gave us the civil rights act. To think, 9 justices with the ability to declare the civil rights act unconstitutional despite the 14th amendment specifically giving congress the power to create law covering it- just because the constitution is a living document and can change with society.
No, it can be amended, but until such time, it's meaning and interpretations are pretty static.
But, if you change, "spouse and spouse" to "a group of spouses", then how do you change "upon death of a spouse, the remaining spouse shall inherit 100% of communal property before probate"? As in, you die, and your three widows each inherit 100%? That's 300%. Where do you get two more identical houses?
Well, first, the spouse is generally only entitled to 1/3 of the assets and in some cases, up to a certain dollar amount in an intestate death. Wills and contracts normally supersede all that unless the widow(er) receives less than that amount in which they can contest the will (though usually not the contract).
But to answer the question, it would be the unit "spouse" that receives the inheritance. If there was three spouses, they would all have to act as one unit for the transfer then figure out what to do after that. It's no different than a company being owned by 20 people that dissolves or is somehow transferred. In fact, I have two minor stakes in partnerships that one says upon my death the companies will be sold and 30% of the value will go to the first heir in the estate of the deceased and the other says my stake is to be transferred upon death to the partners. Both of those will happen before any inheritance or probate takes place.
How so? While polygamous marriage happened, the bible starts off saying man will leave his father and mother to be with his wife and the two will become one flesh.
Seems pretty clear to me, two into one.
Gay couples could always enter into the same contracts that straight couples could. They could all get married to someone of the opposite sex. But they didn't want to do that, they wanted to marry someone of the same sex.
Now here is the problem with that. A legal contract that requires a license from a state. Concealed carry is the same thing, a legal contract that requires a license from the state. Many states already have reciprocal agreements with other states but under this same principle, the 14th now allows concealed carry permit holders in Ohio to conceal carry in New York City, Maryland, or anywhere else that makes it inconceivably impossible if not outright bans the act. Furthermore, it means they cannot ban it now either- because it is entering a legal contract that others can enter into the same as marriage.
and before it is somehow claimed it is different, you actually have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the same for marriages. There is the problem with this wording.
It's rather simply. Roosevelt is what happened.
Before the New Deal and expansion of the interstate commerce clause into some umbrella concept that grants the federal government powers unlimited jurisdiction, the US seemed to be a small constitutional government that acted as if the constitution mattered. Then with Roosevelt's fight over the New Deal legislation and the courts opening the commerce clause, its now the federal jurisdiction on about anything they can casually connect to any other power they constitutionally have. This is what big government does for you.
It's not. You have it backwards in thinking. The federal government used to believe it never had the power to regulate drugs, that in order to prohibit them, it would take a constitutional amendment to grant them the power to do so. This is most obvious with prohibition, they had to create a constitutional amendment in order to ban alcohol and another in order to allow it again. But now it seems that anyone claims 14th amendment or interstate commerce clause and all the sudden the US government has the power to do anything it wants.