News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by jrockway on Friday June 23, 2023 @09:15PM (#36454427)
> But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.

But you were specifically instructed to not use any laws local to your jurisdiction, and that's why this can happen. The 15 countries it flew over are members of the ICAO, which delegated some of their sovereignty to the common good of easy air travel. It could have easily worked out some other way; fly over our country without stopping for immigration, and we blow up your plane. (You can see this in action if you fly your plane from Canada to do a low approach over the White House. You probably won't be home for dinner.) Similarly, in the US, the FAA decides who can fly over your property and how low. These are not universal constraints on existence, just actual laws that people wrote down because nobody could agree on the details. I'd venture a guess that if you asked the average property owner if airplanes could fly over their property and stare at them in their hot tubs, they'd say "no". However, the law simply doesn't agree with them, and a satellite is photographing your underwear as we speak!

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by monocasa on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:16PM (#36454805)
But it's not really a local thing; I'd be shocked if there was a park which meaningfully controlled it's airspace. Practically the bounds of a park only go so high.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by gmane on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:33PM (#36454898)
I mean, while it's not technically just the park, I'm sure there are several parks on US Military bases where the airspace is restricted. Also, we can be the change we wish to see in the world: any park can be a park with a controlled airspace if you bring enough surface-to-air missiles into the park.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by bhaney on Friday June 23, 2023 @11:31PM (#36455248)
Do the missiles count as vehicles? Might not be able to bring them in.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by coryrc on Saturday June 24, 2023 @02:07AM (#36456027)
Do you consider them a conveyance for the warhead? Then yes.

But what if it's a single unit (no warhead) which only works via kinetic contact, then perhaps not a vehicle.

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by flaminHotSpeedo on Saturday June 24, 2023 @03:53AM (#36456554)
That hypothetical airspace is restricted due to it being a military base... Which means you're applying other rules beyond what's written
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by jrockway on Saturday June 24, 2023 @02:03AM (#36456006)
That's how you see it, but not how most people see it. The "corner crossing" lawsuit got a LOT of coverage on Hacker News. Landowners claimed that merely floating over their property was trespassing. The courts disagreed.

Trust me, if there weren't any laws, people would be shooting down airplanes above their farms, or at the very least, writing a lot of angry letters to the FAA. The laws that we have right now allowing the freedom of air travel were hard-won and unpopular among those affected.

Therefore, the park in this exercise would mostly like try and shoot down the International Space Station, or else risk the reputation of not being strict against surfers carrying surfboards. It's exactly the same thing.

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by flaminHotSpeedo on Saturday June 24, 2023 @03:58AM (#36456584)
Ignoring the fact that many of the corner crossing cases were bad faith arguments by landowners intentionally attempting to abuse the situation, I don't think anyone would argue that the park boundary is a prism that extends vertically to infinity.

So where do you draw the line?

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by jrockway on Saturday June 24, 2023 @03:13PM (#36461789)
It definitely extends to infinity. Why would it stop somewhere?
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by zerocrates on Saturday June 24, 2023 @09:17PM (#36464307)
Why wouldn't it? If you think most people would consider a satellite passing overhead, an airplane flying high overhead, the Moon, the Sun, other objects in space etc. when directly overhead to be "in" a park, I think you'd be mistaken. And the results here bear that out, at least to the limited extent there were relevant questions.

Similarly a subway train passing underneath the park is not "in" the park, nor are vehicles that are at the antipode of the park on the polar opposite side of the Earth.

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by flaminHotSpeedo on Monday June 26, 2023 @07:27PM (#36487198)
So you're saying that, for parks in there right location, for brief periods of time, parts of other plants, stars, and space are "part of the park"
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by emmelaich on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:33PM (#36454901)
> specifically instructed to not use any laws local to your jurisdiction,

To me, that doesn't change the answers much. You still have to have some definition of vehicle that inevitably assumes some context.

That to me means any human-propelled thing smaller than say a motorbike is not a vehicle.

So I only said 'is indisputably a vehicle' to cars and similar (even if was an ambulance or police car)