So they didn't correlate the IMU data with ranging radar or even barometric altitude information so as to avoid this?
I know weight and volume are at a premium on such craft but a barometric sensor (even one capable of operating in Mars's rarefied atmosphere, is the size of a thumbnail and weighs just a fraction of a gram.
Instead of storing a music track (or movie) as an MP3 or MP4 file on a single server, why not break it up into a bitstream in chunks of less than a byte and distribute it amongst a large number of servers. Each file on each server would then appear to be nothing but a random bitstream bearing no relation to the actual original work.
To access/download said movie/music, all you need is the right piece of software and the key which activates a function that downloads the bitstream fragments from the relevant servers and re-orders them into the original track.
This way, no server will have a copy of the copyright-infringing material that could be recognised as the offending work so surely could not be the subject of a copyright violation.
Since the servers would be useless without the key and the key would be useless without the servers -- neither part constitutes the copyrighted work.
Yeah, it's a form of distributed encryption -- but how do copyright holders issue a takedown notice for something that is clearly not their copyrighted content?
Just a thought. Probably already been done because there's nothing new in the universe.
Uh. You don't know how to spell "weird". I don't think we should take you very seriously.
If I was Mr Trump, I'd be gravely concerned that those who have most to lose from this victory might seek out a grassy knoll somewhere to "put things right". From what I read of history, it would not be "unprecedented" -- which would then leave the USA "unpresidented". People who aspire to power often don't take failure very well.
Here in New Zealand Samsung did a huge recall of washing machines that were burning houses down. Apparently, when used with a full load, the machines would splash water on the electrics and the resulting current flow could precipitate a fire in which the plastic parts of the machine (top and cover) went up in flames -- setting fire to anything else that was nearby (such as your house).
Samsung delivered my replacement machine this week (after I had to wait a hell of a long time) and I asked them if I got a free Note 7 phone to go with it -- since it's Guy Fawkes this weekend and sometimes those bonfires are hard to get lit after a spring shower.
They said "no". Bugger!
Anyway, the new machine is so ugly we've called it Davros.
When your own government acts like terrorists -- you know the terrorists have won.
The terrorists have very effectively smashed the US Constitution and removed a huge swathe of "freedoms" that were previously enjoyed by Western nations. They did not do this alone -- the governments of those nations were complicit with the terrorists' objectives by bending to the pressure.
As Midnight OIl said: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Sadly, Western governments have opted to strip their peoples of the freedoms they're (allegedly) trying to protect, in promise of security.
Benajin Franklin quote goes here [....]
O'Neill Cylinders are unstable as I recall. They tend to eventually start rotating around their short axis instead, dumping everything on the curved walls out to the end caps.
Stanford Toruses are better.
I hope all Americans realize that the rest of the world is dumbfounded that Clinton and Trump are supposedly the best candidates for the presidency of your great nation.
You are all lost!
It's not the registration that is the problem -- it's the contract that the FAA forces upon you when you register.
Section 336 clearly states that the FAA may make no new rules to control model aircraft so they've been clever as a fox. The FAA has no way to make new rules to control these craft so they conjured up a contract and called it "registration". In order to register you must agree to the terms of the contract which include restrictions that were not previously present -- such as not flying over 400 feet AGL etc. Once you've registered, you have agreed to that contract and breaching it (such as flying over 400 feet AGL) exposes you to legal action for breach of the contract. So, the FAA have created new rules by stealth in the form of this binding contract.
It's a crock and has been done solely to sidestep the decree of Congress. Nasty work!
Even nastier is how little has been done to highlight this fact. Thank goodness *someone* is taking them to court over this dirty dealing.
The problem is that the FAA (and other regulators around the world) have chosen to penalize the genuine hobbyist for the acts of the idiots. This is totally uncalled for and unfair. Imagine if, every time some dick-head decided to break the speed limit, *every* responsible driver was penalised as a result. That's the situation we have here with drones.
The regulators can't even define what a drone is accurately or consistently so instead of making even the smallest effort (such as differentiating between craft that have onboard GPS and an autonomous or semi-autonomous capability -- such as auto-land, return to home etc) they consider everything that flies without a pilot to be a drone.
This is just laziness on the part of regulators and gross unfairness towards the responsible members of a hobby that has for decades proven itself to be safe and family-friendly.
Ultimately, we have a bunch of suits who fly desks telling the rest of us (some like myself who've been flying model aircraft for over 50 years) under threat of severe fines and/or imprisonment, what's safe and what's not. Ludicrous!
So this Netflix thing... it's kind of like paying for Kodi and Exodus on a Raspberry Pi except that you have less choice of content?
I don't get it.
Samsung really ought to go into the munitions business.
They've already had to recall one of their washing machines which set fire to dozens of houses due to a bad design fault -- now the G7 problem.
Maybe they're not a bad company, they've just missed their calling
Your two statements are contradictory.
They're not. Holding a copyright on a work does not confer one with complete authority as to how that work may be used. The rights which comprise copyright are relatively few; further, they are themselves limited in a number of respects.
For example, copyright on a book does not include a right to prohibit other people from reading the book. The list of exclusive rights that together form a copyright can mostly be found at 17 USC 106. (Again, only for the purposes of US copyright law; I have no idea about foreign copyright law, and I don't care to)
And posting a picture on your website doesn't tell or demonstrate anything.
The conduct of doing so, assuming a website open to the public, is an implicit license to anyone to access and view it (and to make incidental copies in the process of doing so).
If I happen to know that the Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see it. And if I happen to know the URL of your picture, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see your picture; this is so whether I provide people with a link to be manually followed, or an embedded link to be automatically followed such that the picture appears in the web page. I'm not copying it onto my website or anything.
First sale is not profiting in a commercial sense.
It is absolutely that. A used book store will sell copies of works for a profit, because it is a commercial enterprise. It is totally reliant on the first sale doctrine. Ditto however many independent video stores still exist (since it's perfectly legal to rent lawfully made copies of movies that you own).
Commercial use is not fair use.
Well, where the hell were you when the Supreme Court needed your input in 1994 in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music?
There the Court not only found that a commercial use certainly could be a fair use, they even said that it is wrong to treat a commercial use as being presumptively unfair. Commerciality is just an element to be considered, and that's all:
If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of Â 107, including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities "are generally conducted for profit in this country." Harper & Row, supra, at 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Congress could not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not inferable from the common-law cases, arising as they did from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could pronounce that "[n]o man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." 3 Boswell's Life of Johnson 19 (G. Hill ed. 1934).
But then I guess you already knew everything you wrong was wrong since you fell the need to try and make your point using an insult.
'Everything you wrong was wrong?' What the hell is that?
Anyway, I called you an idiot because you're clearly an idiot. It had nothing to do with my actual argument. But my advice to you is that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, at least within the context of US copyright law, and you would do yourself, and everyone else a great service if you'd shut the fuck up and learn something from a legitimate, neutral source before you next presume to talk about it.
But it does move! -- Galileo Galilei