To be fair, I note that many text books and for that matter scientists still use the Bohr model in explanations and only resort to the quantum mechanical model when they absolutely have to.
Writing for someone not a specialist in the field is not at all the same thing as dumbing down. It's also not an exclusive relationship. Writing a section for the layman does not preclude writing another for the domain specialist.
I'll just leave this here:
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Albert Einstein
I thought the all too common gradeschool understanding of the market that thinks two players constitutes healthy competition was bad. Now apparently even almost having 2 players counts.
It is fairly clear that the purpose of free speech in the Constitution is to make attempts at peaceful political change explicitly legal. For example, saying "The king is an idiot and should be deposed". The thing is, that is very clearly also a call for an action. The speaker is clearly hoping to introduce the idea to others and so in the longer term, cause the king to be deposed. Most places where the monarch isn't just a figurehead make that intent illegal. Most of them would claim it isn't the speech, but the attempt to weaken the king that is being punished.
Consider, the blacklisting during the red scare.
Hate speech is a more recent slippery slope. At what point does my speech cross the line from an expression of my own dislike for group X and an incitement to illegal discrimination or violence against members of X?
It's better than having costs thrust upon me even after I decide not to do business with an organization that plays too fast and loose with ID verification. This way, the idiots will necessarily become more expensive than the careful.
Wrong. You are exactly wrong. Other than a few things explicitly limited to citizens such as holding office or voting, the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to all people.
So wanting the FCC to lighten up on the regulations a bit make me a typical leftist? You're going to have to send me a program because that seems a bit off to me.
The FCC should also, BTW lighten up on the competition's regulations so long as the use is non-interfering. In other words, the FCC's jog isn't to cripple everyone until they're equal, it's supposed to manage spectrum allocations so they don't step on each other. The boosters do not expand the spectrum allocation.
Maps like that necessarily gloss over terrain interference and such. If you could zoom in and the map was inch for inch accurate, you would see shadowed areas where reception is poor to non-existent.
No, we're supposed to bandwagon against the head of the Federal COMMUNICATIONS commission for letting the holy paperwork come before maintaining an ability to effectively COMMUNICATE with the population in the event of an emergency. There's no need to predict a particular emergency, just be prepared when one comes up. As for the need for the boosters, they're SUPPOSED to know this stuff. They absolutely could know that they were necessary to reach all of the population. If they didn't know then they're incompetent. If they just didn't care they are culpably negligent.
You mean someone who did a meaningful thing like find the cure for a disease that has plagued mankind for all of written history? They never end up with that kind of cash.
It's really just a matter of comparing an event less common than death by lightning strike with a somewhat unlikely seeming but far more common injury.
I'm basically just tired of people (including the FAA) trolling to make drones (particularly toy and hobby) sound more dangerous than reality suggests. Suddenly everything that goes thud MUST be a drone and flying a mile above a drone's absolute maximum operating altitude is suddenly a "near miss". Helo flies lower than is advisable hits a drone flying higher than is advisable then lands safely. Drone is obliterated. Clearly the drone is at fault?
We were discussing drones. And I said innuendo, not a flat out claim. It was after all part of a package deal with more innuendo that turned out to be a bat and a video that turned out to be not all that near.
The crash in Germany was certainly unfortunate, but was not a drone, was the only incident I have seen of anything vaguely drone like being involved in a serious incident. 1 world wide and not even in this century isn't half bad. Consider, clamshell packaging results in 6K visits to the ER annually in the U.S. alone. Admittedly, no fatalities so far.
No, my point is that the poster posted a bunch of innuendo and tried to make it look like we had a credible report of a drone causing a fatality from Australia when what we actually had was a not so near miss, a bat strike, and Australia reporting that Germany reported that a very large conventional RC airplane once caused a motor glider fatality back in 1999.
Most drones are somewhat lighter than the one you found which is designed for spraying crops. Certainly it will be flying slower than a fixed wing r/c plane and so will have a lot less kinetic energy which, yes, means it's likely to do less damage than a fixed wing craft of the same weight. Also easier to avoid by a poorly maneuverable motor glider. But I note that few people are flying $8K crop spraying drones and that crop spraying is an odd hobby.
Likely so. I would at least like to see some restraint shown by enforcing the whole for the public good part. Surely a company with multiple felony convictions can no longer be considered to be operating for the public good. Of course, corporate personhood is over the top crazy.
There's no point in even pretending that natural people have the rights, resources, legal options, or market power on par with these many headed corporate behemoth "people"
So it was a hearsay report. Following the link, the collision was with a conventional radio controlled airplane weighing 10 Kg and with a 2.4 meter wingspan. It took place before there were any of the craft we commonly call drones in existence. It was a really BIG model airplane.
That's funny, the first document you claimed said there have been 5 collisions, one fatal ACTUALLY says "To date, there have been no reported collisions between RPAS and manned aircraft in Australia."
i guess 30 metres is a near miss, looks more like 50-100 to me, and if thats a near miss than i guess the virgin jet also nearly crashed into the trees on the approach.
I've always been skeptical of the Libertarians, but when they forgot that corporate charters were yet another problematic government interference I lost all respect. The whole system fails hard if corporate charters are allowed to continue, especially with limited liability still in place.
I suspect they underestimate the overhead of everyone taking everyone to court and millions of individual negotiations by several orders of magnitude.
Yeah, realistically, they've gotten a pass from the courts and legislature since forever. Of course, we did eventually see some judges actually start demanding proof of mortgages from banks and the banks come up short.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, I note that many text books and for that matter scientists still use the Bohr model in explanations and only resort to the quantum mechanical model when they absolutely have to.
Writing for someone not a specialist in the field is not at all the same thing as dumbing down. It's also not an exclusive relationship. Writing a section for the layman does not preclude writing another for the domain specialist.
I'll just leave this here:
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Albert Einstein
I thought the all too common gradeschool understanding of the market that thinks two players constitutes healthy competition was bad. Now apparently even almost having 2 players counts.
Absolutely, but that only moves the problem.
It is fairly clear that the purpose of free speech in the Constitution is to make attempts at peaceful political change explicitly legal. For example, saying "The king is an idiot and should be deposed". The thing is, that is very clearly also a call for an action. The speaker is clearly hoping to introduce the idea to others and so in the longer term, cause the king to be deposed. Most places where the monarch isn't just a figurehead make that intent illegal. Most of them would claim it isn't the speech, but the attempt to weaken the king that is being punished.
Consider, the blacklisting during the red scare.
Hate speech is a more recent slippery slope. At what point does my speech cross the line from an expression of my own dislike for group X and an incitement to illegal discrimination or violence against members of X?
It's better than having costs thrust upon me even after I decide not to do business with an organization that plays too fast and loose with ID verification. This way, the idiots will necessarily become more expensive than the careful.
Why are you even using passwords when public key authentication is a thing?
Wrong. You are exactly wrong. Other than a few things explicitly limited to citizens such as holding office or voting, the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to all people.
According to the pictures of various cooking failures, apparently for some people it's hard NOT to turn a pressure cooker into a bomb.
Go home, you're drunk!
OTOH, if that was true, I can't imagine any commercial operation saying, "What the heck, lets blow a few $100K on repeaters anyway.".
So wanting the FCC to lighten up on the regulations a bit make me a typical leftist? You're going to have to send me a program because that seems a bit off to me.
The FCC should also, BTW lighten up on the competition's regulations so long as the use is non-interfering. In other words, the FCC's jog isn't to cripple everyone until they're equal, it's supposed to manage spectrum allocations so they don't step on each other. The boosters do not expand the spectrum allocation.
Maps like that necessarily gloss over terrain interference and such. If you could zoom in and the map was inch for inch accurate, you would see shadowed areas where reception is poor to non-existent.
I heard a radio preacher in Kansas calling for the extermination of inferior people (by which he meant of a race or religion he didn't fancy).
No, we're supposed to bandwagon against the head of the Federal COMMUNICATIONS commission for letting the holy paperwork come before maintaining an ability to effectively COMMUNICATE with the population in the event of an emergency. There's no need to predict a particular emergency, just be prepared when one comes up. As for the need for the boosters, they're SUPPOSED to know this stuff. They absolutely could know that they were necessary to reach all of the population. If they didn't know then they're incompetent. If they just didn't care they are culpably negligent.
You mean someone who did a meaningful thing like find the cure for a disease that has plagued mankind for all of written history? They never end up with that kind of cash.
It's really just a matter of comparing an event less common than death by lightning strike with a somewhat unlikely seeming but far more common injury.
I'm basically just tired of people (including the FAA) trolling to make drones (particularly toy and hobby) sound more dangerous than reality suggests. Suddenly everything that goes thud MUST be a drone and flying a mile above a drone's absolute maximum operating altitude is suddenly a "near miss". Helo flies lower than is advisable hits a drone flying higher than is advisable then lands safely. Drone is obliterated. Clearly the drone is at fault?
We were discussing drones. And I said innuendo, not a flat out claim. It was after all part of a package deal with more innuendo that turned out to be a bat and a video that turned out to be not all that near.
The crash in Germany was certainly unfortunate, but was not a drone, was the only incident I have seen of anything vaguely drone like being involved in a serious incident. 1 world wide and not even in this century isn't half bad. Consider, clamshell packaging results in 6K visits to the ER annually in the U.S. alone. Admittedly, no fatalities so far.
No, my point is that the poster posted a bunch of innuendo and tried to make it look like we had a credible report of a drone causing a fatality from Australia when what we actually had was a not so near miss, a bat strike, and Australia reporting that Germany reported that a very large conventional RC airplane once caused a motor glider fatality back in 1999.
Most drones are somewhat lighter than the one you found which is designed for spraying crops. Certainly it will be flying slower than a fixed wing r/c plane and so will have a lot less kinetic energy which, yes, means it's likely to do less damage than a fixed wing craft of the same weight. Also easier to avoid by a poorly maneuverable motor glider. But I note that few people are flying $8K crop spraying drones and that crop spraying is an odd hobby.
Likely so. I would at least like to see some restraint shown by enforcing the whole for the public good part. Surely a company with multiple felony convictions can no longer be considered to be operating for the public good. Of course, corporate personhood is over the top crazy.
There's no point in even pretending that natural people have the rights, resources, legal options, or market power on par with these many headed corporate behemoth "people"
So it was a hearsay report. Following the link, the collision was with a conventional radio controlled airplane weighing 10 Kg and with a 2.4 meter wingspan. It took place before there were any of the craft we commonly call drones in existence. It was a really BIG model airplane.
"In Australia", what?
That's funny, the first document you claimed said there have been 5 collisions, one fatal ACTUALLY says "To date, there have been no reported collisions between RPAS and manned aircraft in Australia."
Your second link was followed up with THE “drone strike” that sent a shiver through the aviation safety industry this month was in fact a bat strike, investigators have revealed.
The video link had this in int's summary:
i guess 30 metres is a near miss, looks more like 50-100 to me, and if thats a near miss than i guess the virgin jet also nearly crashed into the trees on the approach.
Except this and this suggest that mortgages in Europe are comparable to the U.S. Perhaps your information is out of date.
I've always been skeptical of the Libertarians, but when they forgot that corporate charters were yet another problematic government interference I lost all respect. The whole system fails hard if corporate charters are allowed to continue, especially with limited liability still in place.
I suspect they underestimate the overhead of everyone taking everyone to court and millions of individual negotiations by several orders of magnitude.
Yeah, realistically, they've gotten a pass from the courts and legislature since forever. Of course, we did eventually see some judges actually start demanding proof of mortgages from banks and the banks come up short.