Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Wonky Apple delivery dates
Date: 4 Aug 2015 05:56:46 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <d2b2guF2fpiU15@mid.individual.net>
References: <bsSdnRXZMKOdByrInZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com> <280720151533291220%star@sky.net> <55b8dd98$0$10544$b1db1813$79461190@news.astraweb.com> <mpgnba$59v$1@dont-email.me> <310720152054426630%star@sky.net> <mplcmu$h2h$1@dont-email.me> <ocadnZPkxIOFpCPInZ2dnUU7-Y2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <mpmn43$3nf$1@dont-email.me> <9bqdnfjHnYArwSLInZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <mponei$cqi$1@dont-email.me> <mpp3bv$i1b$1@dont-email.me> <030820152323445951%nospam@nospam.invalid> <d2b0heF2fpiU9@mid.individual.net> <040820150134226215%nospam@nospam.invalid>
X-Trace: individual.net 6V3Jhjhvbmw+Zu1C7QYQjQdg4Z3wl92bEeHLSBaC1lAehVIMyC
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KE5ykbV4N+XQn+YeJQBdZ50kOk0=
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW< ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin)
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:78388

On 2015-08-04, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d2b0heF2fpiU9@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I haven't seen anything (probably because I haven't done even casual 
>> >> looking for it) that says *WHAT* he shot at it with, but if it wasn't a 
>> >> shotgun (and if it was, if it wasn't loaded with small shot, rather than 
>> >> slugs or buck)  I'd call the "wanton endangerment" valid, even if I 
>> >> decide to snicker at the "throw everything possible against the wall and 
>> >> see what we can get to stick" of the "felony criminal mischief" charge.
>> >
>> > he used a shotgun.
>> >
>> > he shot it because it was hovering over his backyard, videoing his two
>> > teenage daughters who were sunbathing there. 
>> >
>> > he said if it flew by and did not hover, he would not have shot it.
>> 
>> Supposedly the flight telemetry shows the drone was doing nothing of the
>> sort:
>> 
>> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/>
>
> that just means it's higher up.
>
> that doesn't mean it wasn't taking videos.
>
> t's also an invasion of privacy.

Not arguing with that, but shooting something that high up with a
shotgun in a neighborhood setting isn't exactly a safe practice. ; )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR