OK. The proposed regulations are complex, so let me give you one example to illustrate my point. The proposed regulations require the RC pilot to notify any airport within five miles before flying an RC aircraft of any kind, even if the aircraft is a childs toy being flown in a suburban backyard. This requirement presumably really means ANY airport. Almost any town of 15,000 people has a small airport. Larger cities have multiple small airports in addition to maybe a major airport. Most of the small airports are little more than a grass strip and a few hangers. Many of them won't even have somebody answering the phone. How many people even know if they are within five miles of an airport? Most are, but few really know.
The bottom line is that most people won't be calling, even if they knew who to call. That would make them criminals. Would the average park flier call? I doubt it. Criminals all. What if they tried to call and got no answer? Still a criminal? Maybe.
I'm not saying people will quit flying if the regulations are enacted. Most will just become criminals and continue flying.
Waddgodd simply asked a question and you go postal. This is not the work of a "screaming idiot" Calm down. This is a serious issue that is not well served by rants such as yours. If I had to pick the screaming idiot here I wouldn't pick Waddgodd.
You say you operate illegally, and then you go off on the "douchbags" and "idiots" that also operate illegally. Take a look at yourself.
The regulations might need to be revised, but making the entire RC hobby illegal is the wrong approach. If you really have been flying for 30 years you would think differently about this.
You can visit the FAA comment site to comment on proposed rule changes that address this issue. The comment period ends on July 25. The proposed rules will cripple drone use by civilians and also cripple most RC aircraft operations in the USA. The proposal is simply draconian. Check it out: http://www.regulations.gov/#!d...
Use Quick JavaScript Switcher. When you see that a blank box is probably offering you a video you can choose to switch JavaScript on if you think you want to watch the video, or you can leave it off if you suspect it is an ad, or if you just don't want to be bothered by a video. Much of the time the video is just BS anyway, so read the text and move on.
Mute the sound and go to another tab for however many seconds. You don't have to watch it or listen to it. Use ad blocker for the rest. You don't have to be bothered with ads if you don't choose to be bothered. There are some serious annoyances in this world, but internet ads aren't a big deal.
Cancer? Maybe. Stink? Metaphorically perhaps. Addicts? Probably. Think there is nothing wrong with the habit? Yes. Fail to see how their behavior affects others? Yes. Think they should be able to behave obnoxiously without regard to others? Yes.
What makes perfect sense is to ban them wherever tobacco is banned, basically in any public building, certain parks, and my house. Not that the issues are the same...HMMM...or are they?
In the Florida case the ACLU is in fact challenging the legality of the use of the prescription records. In the Dewhurst case, it appears that he revealed the information in a court deposition, which is a public record.
Regarding the Affordable Care Act, medical histories being used anonymously for research is way different from using individual vaccination records to identify possible disease vectors. HIPAA does allow use of anonymised data for research, but you still can't legally use individual records to identify vaccination avoiders.
It might be paranoia, but there are laws that govern the dissemination of a patients health history. HIPAA limits what information can be disseminated and how it can be used, so, like it or not, even paranoid people have protection for their medical records. HIPAA would have to be changed to allow such a database in the USA. I can get a certificate of vaccination to show to authorities, but they can't just check my records to see if I am vaccinated, at least not legally.
I want to know who goes to jail if someone is killed under circumstances where the car makes a really stupid error that meets the standard for vehicular manslaughter?
His political contributors are indeed interesting, telecoms, casinos, and indian tribes. Presumably the tribe thing also has something to do with casinos. I don't quite get what casinos have to do with the NSA and the constitution though.
The maplight site is really interesting. I looked up my congressman, Greg Walden, to see what light Maplight would shed on his corrupting influences. Most of his money comes from cable companies. No wonder he is opposed to net neutrality.
Walden raises enormous amounts of cash from corporate interests. In addition to the communication industry he collects from mining, timber, pharmaceutical, medical, finance, war, chemical, ranching, and agriculture industries. Since he can't even come close to spending it all on his own re-election, he doles it out to other candidates in exchange for committee appointments and extra votes on critical issues. In other words, he buys more power. Then he actually uses the fact that he has power to persuade people to vote for him. In a district that relies heavily on mining, timber, and ranching, his support of those industries seems persuasive to many voters, even if the people that work in those industries getting screwed by this votes. People don't seem to be able to distinguish support of an industry from support of the workers in a particular industry, and the two don't always go together.
He gets a Democratic challenger in most elections. If it is a candidate with experience and solid credentials the Democrat gets 35% of the vote. If the challenger is an 18 year old high school dropout that lives in their mothers basement, they get 30% of the vote.
Run if you want, and you will get between 30 and 35 percent of the vote depending on your experience and funding. And, trust me, Walden will not care one bit either way.
My congressman, Greg Walden, is in a rock solid Republican district. He gets re-elected no matter what he does. As long as he can stay out of jail and avoid a primary challenge he wins by 2 to 1 in every race. He can take money from the highest bidder and get away with it. He is "congressman for life".
You probably live in a big city with actual choices. In my small town, I have ONE CHOICE for cable TV, and ONE CHOICE for internet, unless you count satellite or wireless options. In order to tell them to get screwed, I have two choices: One choice is to do without. The other choice is to pay more for even crappier service. I don't use cable TV, but I do spend way too much for a 10 meg internet connection simply because I have no choices.
They might have beaten Amazon, but I doubt they have beaten US drug interests to the first drone delivery. As you say, it is about the detection ratio. The Russian smugglers just weren't good enough at it.
Lets say an average person calls 100 different numbers over a two year period. One hop gets 100 people. Two hops gets 10,000. Three hops gets 1,000,000 people. That is for one terrorist. So, it might not be everybody.....unless you start with hundreds of terrorists, of course. Three hundred terrorists and you pretty much do have everyone in the US. If any of these numbers are for the pizza, or taxi, then you might get there with one terrorist.
Maybe she didn't say that, but she did say many things that demonstrated her failure to grasp complicated issues like climate change/disruption/warming. Or perhaps she did grasp it, but thought the voters didn't like politicians that seemed smart. Remember George Bush?
The GPS issue doesn't bother me, its the bad drivers. Unless ALL CARS are self driving the problem is that there are going to be lots of bad drivers doing stupid things for stupid reasons. A self-driving car probably won't be as good at anticipating stupid drivers as a really good human driver. There are stupid pedestrians, and stupid bikers as well. If there were no stupid, people self-driving cars might work. Have you ever seen a stupid driver try to merge onto a freeway with their turn signal on and their foot on the brake? Or see three cars bumper-to-bumper trying to merge onto a busy freeway as a pack? Can self-driving cars see this about to create chaos for the other cars?
Have you ever seen a biker ignore a stoplight because they think the laws don't apply to them? Will the smart car be watching the biker and anticipating stupid behavior?
What choices will a smart car make when an accident is inevitable, lets say it has a choice between a head-on and hitting the ditch at 65?
Imagine this: A poor person goes to an auction where they sell something that some rich people really want with the sole intent of taking it away from the rich people. The poor person claims to not really want the item, but only wants it so the rich people won't have it. What do you suppose will happen?
What will happen is, the rich people will bid as much as they have to, knowing that the poor people just don't have enough money to win the auction.
Who will win here? The congressional whores will be rolling in money, the poor will be poorer, and the rich will have exactly what they have always had.
Slashdot Mirror
Post under a pseudonym? Check
Use encryption for email? Check
Don't use Facebook? Check
Use DuckDuckGo? check
Use Tor? check
OK. The proposed regulations are complex, so let me give you one example to illustrate my point. The proposed regulations require the RC pilot to notify any airport within five miles before flying an RC aircraft of any kind, even if the aircraft is a childs toy being flown in a suburban backyard. This requirement presumably really means ANY airport. Almost any town of 15,000 people has a small airport. Larger cities have multiple small airports in addition to maybe a major airport. Most of the small airports are little more than a grass strip and a few hangers. Many of them won't even have somebody answering the phone. How many people even know if they are within five miles of an airport? Most are, but few really know.
The bottom line is that most people won't be calling, even if they knew who to call. That would make them criminals. Would the average park flier call? I doubt it. Criminals all. What if they tried to call and got no answer? Still a criminal? Maybe.
I'm not saying people will quit flying if the regulations are enacted. Most will just become criminals and continue flying.
I stand by my statement, idiot or not.
Waddgodd simply asked a question and you go postal. This is not the work of a "screaming idiot" Calm down. This is a serious issue that is not well served by rants such as yours. If I had to pick the screaming idiot here I wouldn't pick Waddgodd.
You say you operate illegally, and then you go off on the "douchbags" and "idiots" that also operate illegally. Take a look at yourself.
The regulations might need to be revised, but making the entire RC hobby illegal is the wrong approach. If you really have been flying for 30 years you would think differently about this.
You can visit the FAA comment site to comment on proposed rule changes that address this issue. The comment period ends on July 25. The proposed rules will cripple drone use by civilians and also cripple most RC aircraft operations in the USA. The proposal is simply draconian. Check it out:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!d...
Use Quick JavaScript Switcher. When you see that a blank box is probably offering you a video you can choose to switch JavaScript on if you think you want to watch the video, or you can leave it off if you suspect it is an ad, or if you just don't want to be bothered by a video. Much of the time the video is just BS anyway, so read the text and move on.
Mute the sound and go to another tab for however many seconds. You don't have to watch it or listen to it. Use ad blocker for the rest. You don't have to be bothered with ads if you don't choose to be bothered. There are some serious annoyances in this world, but internet ads aren't a big deal.
What could possibly go wrong?
This sounds like a perfect lawsuit to me. Their failure to limit the damage seems negligent. Perhaps a hefty class action suit is in order.
Cancer? Maybe. Stink? Metaphorically perhaps. Addicts? Probably. Think there is nothing wrong with the habit? Yes. Fail to see how their behavior affects others? Yes. Think they should be able to behave obnoxiously without regard to others? Yes.
What makes perfect sense is to ban them wherever tobacco is banned, basically in any public building, certain parks, and my house. Not that the issues are the same...HMMM...or are they?
Now we are talking. One just isn't enough for the world. Maybe they could debate each other.
In the Florida case the ACLU is in fact challenging the legality of the use of the prescription records. In the Dewhurst case, it appears that he revealed the information in a court deposition, which is a public record.
Regarding the Affordable Care Act, medical histories being used anonymously for research is way different from using individual vaccination records to identify possible disease vectors. HIPAA does allow use of anonymised data for research, but you still can't legally use individual records to identify vaccination avoiders.
It might be paranoia, but there are laws that govern the dissemination of a patients health history. HIPAA limits what information can be disseminated and how it can be used, so, like it or not, even paranoid people have protection for their medical records. HIPAA would have to be changed to allow such a database in the USA. I can get a certificate of vaccination to show to authorities, but they can't just check my records to see if I am vaccinated, at least not legally.
I want to know who goes to jail if someone is killed under circumstances where the car makes a really stupid error that meets the standard for vehicular manslaughter?
His political contributors are indeed interesting, telecoms, casinos, and indian tribes. Presumably the tribe thing also has something to do with casinos. I don't quite get what casinos have to do with the NSA and the constitution though.
The maplight site is really interesting. I looked up my congressman, Greg Walden, to see what light Maplight would shed on his corrupting influences. Most of his money comes from cable companies. No wonder he is opposed to net neutrality.
Thanks for pointing out Maplight.
Walden raises enormous amounts of cash from corporate interests. In addition to the communication industry he collects from mining, timber, pharmaceutical, medical, finance, war, chemical, ranching, and agriculture industries. Since he can't even come close to spending it all on his own re-election, he doles it out to other candidates in exchange for committee appointments and extra votes on critical issues. In other words, he buys more power. Then he actually uses the fact that he has power to persuade people to vote for him. In a district that relies heavily on mining, timber, and ranching, his support of those industries seems persuasive to many voters, even if the people that work in those industries getting screwed by this votes. People don't seem to be able to distinguish support of an industry from support of the workers in a particular industry, and the two don't always go together.
He gets a Democratic challenger in most elections. If it is a candidate with experience and solid credentials the Democrat gets 35% of the vote. If the challenger is an 18 year old high school dropout that lives in their mothers basement, they get 30% of the vote.
Run if you want, and you will get between 30 and 35 percent of the vote depending on your experience and funding. And, trust me, Walden will not care one bit either way.
My congressman, Greg Walden, is in a rock solid Republican district. He gets re-elected no matter what he does. As long as he can stay out of jail and avoid a primary challenge he wins by 2 to 1 in every race. He can take money from the highest bidder and get away with it. He is "congressman for life".
You probably live in a big city with actual choices. In my small town, I have ONE CHOICE for cable TV, and ONE CHOICE for internet, unless you count satellite or wireless options. In order to tell them to get screwed, I have two choices: One choice is to do without. The other choice is to pay more for even crappier service. I don't use cable TV, but I do spend way too much for a 10 meg internet connection simply because I have no choices.
They might have beaten Amazon, but I doubt they have beaten US drug interests to the first drone delivery. As you say, it is about the detection ratio. The Russian smugglers just weren't good enough at it.
I was thinking the same thing, but you said it better than I could have. (you also said it first)
Mod this one up.
Lets say an average person calls 100 different numbers over a two year period. One hop gets 100 people. Two hops gets 10,000. Three hops gets 1,000,000 people. That is for one terrorist. So, it might not be everybody.....unless you start with hundreds of terrorists, of course. Three hundred terrorists and you pretty much do have everyone in the US. If any of these numbers are for the pizza, or taxi, then you might get there with one terrorist.
In any case it shouldn't slow them down much.
Maybe she didn't say that, but she did say many things that demonstrated her failure to grasp complicated issues like climate change/disruption/warming. Or perhaps she did grasp it, but thought the voters didn't like politicians that seemed smart. Remember George Bush?
The GPS issue doesn't bother me, its the bad drivers. Unless ALL CARS are self driving the problem is that there are going to be lots of bad drivers doing stupid things for stupid reasons. A self-driving car probably won't be as good at anticipating stupid drivers as a really good human driver. There are stupid pedestrians, and stupid bikers as well. If there were no stupid, people self-driving cars might work. Have you ever seen a stupid driver try to merge onto a freeway with their turn signal on and their foot on the brake? Or see three cars bumper-to-bumper trying to merge onto a busy freeway as a pack? Can self-driving cars see this about to create chaos for the other cars?
Have you ever seen a biker ignore a stoplight because they think the laws don't apply to them? Will the smart car be watching the biker and anticipating stupid behavior?
What choices will a smart car make when an accident is inevitable, lets say it has a choice between a head-on and hitting the ditch at 65?
Imagine this: A poor person goes to an auction where they sell something that some rich people really want with the sole intent of taking it away from the rich people. The poor person claims to not really want the item, but only wants it so the rich people won't have it. What do you suppose will happen?
What will happen is, the rich people will bid as much as they have to, knowing that the poor people just don't have enough money to win the auction.
Who will win here? The congressional whores will be rolling in money, the poor will be poorer, and the rich will have exactly what they have always had.