If the SkunkWorks claim is legit about having a working idea for a practical High-Beta Fusion reactor, the by-product of that reaction is Helium-3. So:
We don't need a Helium-3/Thorium reactor
If we did, the High Beta reactor could produce the Helium 3 for it
The added nifty-ness of SkunkWork's reactor is that a requires Tritium: a by-product of existing nuclear fission reactors! So cleans up existing nuclear waste (waste-water, anyway) and creates energy and creates Helium-3! Almost too good to be true...
Don't really know why you need to go to the moon for Helium-3 if you can make it while generating power. Of course if we need copper or gallium arsenide or something and the moon has it, maybe that's worth it too.
You have the right idea. I would hope you would shoot down a drone flying low over your property.
The problem is the FAA is claiming I can't fly a drone over your property at your request in order to provide some service (crop inspection, land survey, etc.) because they are claiming (incorrectly IMO) that they own all the airspace over your land.
I would rather private property air-rights were increased to 1200 feet (right now they are arguably somewhere between 83 and 500 feet, except for those idiots in Oregon that ceded air-rights to the state from ankle-height). I don't think the FAA has the rights to restrict what you do with your airspace: and that's what they are trying to do.
In the end: I wouldn't worry about the drones you can see and shoot down with your shotgun (and you should): it's the ones you can't see you should be concerned about.
Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline
I mean, if congress passes it first, that makes it potentially law if the President agrees. But can a president sit on something until any time he chooses or veto his previous veto?
If so, I can see some strategic uses for that:
1. Congress declares war
2. President vetos declaration of war
3. Six months later President vetos his veto of war and simultaneously authorizes surprise attack.
People can and do live simple happy lives without technology. In many parts of the United States the Amish practice non-technology religiously.
However as long as people are free to make choices (and presented with adequate information) most people will choose the faster, more accurate, and more efficient method every time. Trying to limit innovation in order to continue to prop-up work that could be accomplished without manual labor is unlikely to succeed in the long run -- as the person or group who successfully innovates and uses automation will surpass those who don't.
Personally, I think the next wave of tech in the Western world must be towards independent production: 3D-printing is just getting started -- not even close to the magic of Star-Trek replicators -- but this is how the masses could gain some measure of independence. Ability to produce anything you need (given the raw materials or, where possible, ability to improvise in lieu of certain materials). If this technology is fostered: the necessity of a "regular job" might be reduced.
I agree. Iridium bet everything on this strategy and lost. Their biggest reason: the unexpected proliferation and success of land-based transmission towers.
The only thing different here is this is Google: and recently Google seems to be in deep with the US government. Maybe they want to spread the US topology further without having to be bothered about political barriers.
Yet these morons flying drones near airports are going to ruin it for everyone.
No, the FAA already ruined it for everyone by redefining the rules against congressional legislation. They've also ruined it for business by not having any sort of a plan to allow them to be used commercially.
IMO people like you who think good behavior will let you have nice things when your government is suppose to work for you are the problem.
I'm positing the farmer owns his own airspace: and if he wants to contract someone to fly his field with 20-pound drone or a paper airplane I believe he has the right to do so without anyone's permission.
And if the drone flies off course and crashes into the neighbors house/barn/cattle: the contractor is as liable as anyone trespassing and destroying property with a vehicle.
You may want to up that privacy fence. FAA rule 103 allows ultra-lights (unlicensed light-frame aircraft/no pilots license needed) to fly up to 1200 feet (and lower) right over your property and look right in your window no questions asked, no permission needed.
But contracted semi-autonomous/para-drones can't take pictures of a land owners own property with the land owners permission -- without first having an FAA permit, according to the FAA's spiel. And you can't get one! Permits are only granted to law enforcement and big foreign oil concerns flying the backside of Alaska.
Actually, constructing a building is constructing "an obstacle" (as long as said constructions whole intent is not to impair air traffic aka "spite towers"). Air traffic must now avoid the new obstacle by 500 ft.
I believe there is a concept called "enjoyment of the land". The FAA has to pay land-owners for navigation right-of-way if flights (usually near airports) routinely go below 500 feet. Obviously not a legal coat hook, but sure seems like an indication the land owner owns that space.
Heck, now that I think about it I want the FAA to compensate me for limiting the use of my own airspace by threatening to fine me!
Which is why most companies won't sign-off on it (and I'm not inspecting pipelines with mine). Though farmers (even incorporated ones) probably have a better chance of this playing out in court in their favor than any other venture.
Still haven't heard if the FAA's appeal was ever in court.
Yes, I noticed that. Maybe as a reminder that the rest of the world is moving on with this whilst the US government manages to (at least verbally) stifle innovation.
And as one of the thousands of people who own a UAS in "the land of the free" who can't use it for anything but recreation, I never miss an opportunity to disparage FAA policy and pseudo-policy regarding drone use.
Slashdot Mirror
[Citation needed]
NASA devises botnet scheme to gain renown with future whistle blowers.
If the SkunkWorks claim is legit about having a working idea for a practical High-Beta Fusion reactor, the by-product of that reaction is Helium-3. So:
The added nifty-ness of SkunkWork's reactor is that a requires Tritium: a by-product of existing nuclear fission reactors! So cleans up existing nuclear waste (waste-water, anyway) and creates energy and creates Helium-3! Almost too good to be true...
Don't really know why you need to go to the moon for Helium-3 if you can make it while generating power. Of course if we need copper or gallium arsenide or something and the moon has it, maybe that's worth it too.
You have the right idea. I would hope you would shoot down a drone flying low over your property.
The problem is the FAA is claiming I can't fly a drone over your property at your request in order to provide some service (crop inspection, land survey, etc.) because they are claiming (incorrectly IMO) that they own all the airspace over your land.
I would rather private property air-rights were increased to 1200 feet (right now they are arguably somewhere between 83 and 500 feet, except for those idiots in Oregon that ceded air-rights to the state from ankle-height). I don't think the FAA has the rights to restrict what you do with your airspace: and that's what they are trying to do.
In the end: I wouldn't worry about the drones you can see and shoot down with your shotgun (and you should): it's the ones you can't see you should be concerned about.
Can fix a story we can't care about.
Your right, we should make this the responsibility of a single government agency. That way we don't have all this nasty hacking going on.
Thanks. Answers my question.
How does issuing permits fund such a project? I thought only Congress could authorize monies.
(Well at least in theory anyway; i.e. before Harry Reid and the Republicans gave the presidency unlimited spending power.)
Is this legal?
Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline
I mean, if congress passes it first, that makes it potentially law if the President agrees. But can a president sit on something until any time he chooses or veto his previous veto?
If so, I can see some strategic uses for that:
Property taxes pretty much rule this out.
Where I live taxes on the land (20 acres of rural farmland) are almost 300 USD a month! That's pretty hefty rent on property you already own.
Kind of hard to just be when you can lose the farm and everything you're worked for to the county if you don't make enough $.
People can and do live simple happy lives without technology. In many parts of the United States the Amish practice non-technology religiously.
However as long as people are free to make choices (and presented with adequate information) most people will choose the faster, more accurate, and more efficient method every time. Trying to limit innovation in order to continue to prop-up work that could be accomplished without manual labor is unlikely to succeed in the long run -- as the person or group who successfully innovates and uses automation will surpass those who don't.
Personally, I think the next wave of tech in the Western world must be towards independent production: 3D-printing is just getting started -- not even close to the magic of Star-Trek replicators -- but this is how the masses could gain some measure of independence. Ability to produce anything you need (given the raw materials or, where possible, ability to improvise in lieu of certain materials). If this technology is fostered: the necessity of a "regular job" might be reduced.
Certain kinds of calculators have been banned from test taking for a long time. If the tech supplants mental requirements: its not allowed.
School is for teaching brains not for checking circuits designed by someone else.
Ask something less obvious next time!
Texas Instruments strikes again.
I agree. Iridium bet everything on this strategy and lost. Their biggest reason: the unexpected proliferation and success of land-based transmission towers.
The only thing different here is this is Google: and recently Google seems to be in deep with the US government. Maybe they want to spread the US topology further without having to be bothered about political barriers.
The flavor of this sentence has a slight taste of contradiction. At least this isn't deception by omission, like that last one:
If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it, though your health insurance plan may not keep you.
Nothing to see here folks! Move along!
The FAA is helping protect people like you: people who went to the trouble to get your license and have now been relegated by auto-pilot tech.
If technology is a threat to a bureaucracy, the bureaucracy will ban the tech whenever and where-ever it can.
Excepting for continued stubborn and confused FAA, the next version will be airborne.
Yet these morons flying drones near airports are going to ruin it for everyone.
No, the FAA already ruined it for everyone by redefining the rules against congressional legislation. They've also ruined it for business by not having any sort of a plan to allow them to be used commercially.
IMO people like you who think good behavior will let you have nice things when your government is suppose to work for you are the problem.
Exactly.
I'm positing the farmer owns his own airspace: and if he wants to contract someone to fly his field with 20-pound drone or a paper airplane I believe he has the right to do so without anyone's permission.
And if the drone flies off course and crashes into the neighbors house/barn/cattle: the contractor is as liable as anyone trespassing and destroying property with a vehicle.
You may want to up that privacy fence. FAA rule 103 allows ultra-lights (unlicensed light-frame aircraft/no pilots license needed) to fly up to 1200 feet (and lower) right over your property and look right in your window no questions asked, no permission needed.
But contracted semi-autonomous/para-drones can't take pictures of a land owners own property with the land owners permission -- without first having an FAA permit, according to the FAA's spiel. And you can't get one! Permits are only granted to law enforcement and big foreign oil concerns flying the backside of Alaska.
Actually, constructing a building is constructing "an obstacle" (as long as said constructions whole intent is not to impair air traffic aka "spite towers"). Air traffic must now avoid the new obstacle by 500 ft.
I believe there is a concept called "enjoyment of the land". The FAA has to pay land-owners for navigation right-of-way if flights (usually near airports) routinely go below 500 feet. Obviously not a legal coat hook, but sure seems like an indication the land owner owns that space.
Heck, now that I think about it I want the FAA to compensate me for limiting the use of my own airspace by threatening to fine me!
Which is why most companies won't sign-off on it (and I'm not inspecting pipelines with mine). Though farmers (even incorporated ones) probably have a better chance of this playing out in court in their favor than any other venture.
Still haven't heard if the FAA's appeal was ever in court.
FAA Fine Dismissed
Yes, I noticed that. Maybe as a reminder that the rest of the world is moving on with this whilst the US government manages to (at least verbally) stifle innovation.
And as one of the thousands of people who own a UAS in "the land of the free" who can't use it for anything but recreation, I never miss an opportunity to disparage FAA policy and pseudo-policy regarding drone use.