|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15 [Next] | ||||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 2, 2015, acesover wrote: In fairness to Bob, I pointed out Slim's egregious blunder before Bob did. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts |
I find his ignorance amusing at times.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote: True. But I like you.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 2, 2015, S2000magician wrote: To be fair though Bill I think that the way it is spelled by Slim is a far more accurate description of his contributions here.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2015, acesover wrote: LOL! My nominee for post of the year! |
|||||||||
Tom Jorgenson Inner circle LOOSE ANGLES, CALIFORNIA 4451 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 2, 2015, Slim King wrote: In reviewing this thread....I think you are not factoring in the future use of drones. I'd guess that a drone could take out a sniper faster than the reverse. Science, ya know. Little heat-seeking Hoozits aiming the little zipping things at the big burly thangs hiding in the trees. I would presume Drones to be the next soldier. Easier and quicker to manufacture. Easier to train and you don't have to give them time off. BTW, Troops kill whoever is shooting at them. "And I think it would be pretty hard to discipline the troops into killing their own" was proven wrong via the Confederacy. At any rate, that's moot, as the snipers wouldn't be shooting at soldiers, but at impossible-to-hit flying darting gnats. Thousands of them, if necessary.
We dance an invisible dance to music they cannot hear.
|
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Just wondering. I assume they are controlled by Radio Frequency. Wouldn't that be easy to scramble and make them useless? I really have no idea, just a thought.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts |
I am guessing it is a bit tougher than that.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
The Hermit Veteran user 301 Posts |
||||||||||
Tom Jorgenson Inner circle LOOSE ANGLES, CALIFORNIA 4451 Posts |
I'd say the police arrested the wrong party.
We dance an invisible dance to music they cannot hear.
|
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 4, 2015, Tom Jorgenson wrote: I'm not sure, according to the story he violated the city ordinance against discharging a firearm within the city limits and he destroyed someone's property. I don't know if those are arrestable offenses but he seems to have earned some sanction. |
|||||||||
Tom Jorgenson Inner circle LOOSE ANGLES, CALIFORNIA 4451 Posts |
True that, but drones hovering in your backyard staring at your kids are the same as perves doing it, I'd think. Shouldn't the droners be guilty of being peeping toms? And since they did it first, they'd be the aggressive party with the shotgun being your only honest defense. Obviously the police disgree.
If you extrapolate grave misuse of drones and the laws to counteract that, coming up shortly: All drones being traceable to the operators somehow.
We dance an invisible dance to music they cannot hear.
|
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 4, 2015, Tom Jorgenson wrote: If they were peeping through windows into the home I suspect peeping tom charges could be brought. If they were peeping through a hole in the fence in an adjoining yard, I doubt it. Using a drone to do the equivalent of peeping through a fence, or just looking from an adjoining property, may not be a legal offense yet. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts |
What is your legal basis for that?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote: Which part? |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts |
The whole claim.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote: There is not a "whole claim". I said three different things, one in each sentence. |
|||||||||
The Hermit Veteran user 301 Posts |
It's Kentucky. No jury would convict. A property owner owns the airspace over their land up to a reasonable limit, mainly navigable airspace. If this drone was under 100 feet or so, he has the right to shoot it down. Depending on local zoning, he could put up a 200 foot tower if he wanted. He owns that airspace. Only when you interfere in FAA or other govt restrictions will you have a problem. The drone operator had no reason to be hovering over his property.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 4, 2015, Randwill wrote: Well why not back up all 3 of them then?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Wellll, okay.
1. If they were peeping through windows into the home I suspect peeping tom charges could be brought. As it turns out, in Kentucky, this is only true if one - "Uses the unaided eye or any device designed to improve visual acuity for the purpose of observing or viewing the sexual conduct, genitals, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent." So in Kentucky, you can peep all you want as long as you don't see any sexual conduct or naughty bits. I stand corrected. 2. If they were peeping through a hole in the fence in an adjoining yard, I doubt it. See above. 3. Using a drone to do the equivalent of peeping through a fence, or just looking from an adjoining property, may not be a legal offense yet. I found nothing about the use of drones for the purpose of voyeurism in the Kentucky law, but if the drone has a camera, it would seem to follow that as above, as long as you aren't seeing anyone doing the nasty or looking at peoples' no-nos, you are not in violation of the law. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Man had 12,000 guns. Now dead. Mystery deepens (22 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |