Comment Re:How? (Score 1) 99
while at cruising altitude.
Funny, I didn't know the twin towers were THAT tall.
while at cruising altitude.
Funny, I didn't know the twin towers were THAT tall.
The problem isn't with promoting content or unmetered content
Not yet anyway. But once they make enough deals with content providers ("Give us money and your shows will be unmetered for your viewers") all of a sudden the internet providers will proudly boast "90% of our customers only use X GB of data, so that's where we're placing our bandwidth cap", where X is $((Current_cap/10)).
And then that will effectively stop customers from visiting any content provider that isn't zero-rated, since that eats their data cap. This either forces the remaining content providers to pony up or risk a loss of business, and the cycle continues.
These are probably the same type of people who thought that "Cruise Control" meant that the car was able of controlling their "cruise"
Exactly, which is all the more reason to call it something other than an "autopilot".
And yet the car makers haven't changed the name of cruise control, despite some initial confusion.
After a few years, "Cruise Control" became synonymous with "Maintains your speed". Is it inconceivable that in a few years the term "Autopilot" will be universally known to mean "A suite of driver assist technologies"?
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work.
Source.
If that video isn't parody I don't know what is.
the breach only impacts people who still use Yahoo.
Right, the senators were impacted and that's why they care.
In 2016, The FAA set regulations that "allow" drones to fly below 400 feet to prevent interference with planes above that height, and makes it a felony for a landowner to block drones flying through the lower altitudes regardless of ownership.
Citation attached to that quote
I'd certainly say taking a shotgun to an aircraft is one way to "block drones".
Also, I don't get why the judge can rule that he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft" when the FAA clearly lays out that it's illegal to "[perform] an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft" Source.
"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight
