Actually it depends on the price elasticity of the product or service they're providing.
No it doesn't, don't be silly...
Assuming no one is cheating, then all companies have to pay it, thus all companies that wish to remain in business must raise their prices enough to cover it.
If you raised corporate taxes to 50% tomorrow, you'd just see prices rise soon after. Otherwise companies wouldn't be making money and wouldn't invest in growth and new jobs and you'd have a really big mess on your hands.
Because it is true. That you don't understand why it is true doesn't make it any less so.
Piloted aviation was here first, and frankly much of it is old and out of date and isn't going to be updated in the timeframe required by the "drone companies".
While you might put fancy computers that always talk to the ground and each other under computer control, it doesn't do any good when a 30 year old aircraft with humans on it without all the tech flies into it and crashes.
For many reasons, that 30 year old aircraft isn't going to be upgraded to what would be required any time soon. Technically it could be, but technically we could build a moon base, that doesn't mean we're going to do it.
Just noticed I'm rambling at a probable troll, no way that could be a serious thought out post. I'm gonna stop now.
Not a troll, but I am more of an expert on aviation issues than most people here, and I also understand the costs and low volume issues in general aviation.
The obstacles are not technical, they are political and financial.
Where do you live that you have the right to shoot someone not on your property who is not threatening anyone? Granted, it's really creepy, but I don't see any justification for gunfire.
You added the "not threatening anyone" part...
If someone is looking over my fence at my swimming pool, then no, there is no justification for force to be used.
If they are looking over my fence at my 13 year old daughter swimming, then yes, there is a reason for concern.
It is worth noting there is a big difference between the two.
You're assuming that the guy flying the drone was actually interested in his neighbor's daughter, which hasn't been shown.
It doesn't have to be proven, it just has to be the reasonable conclusion.
Your average person will conclude that someone flying a drone with a video camera over someone else's back yard with a young lady in a bathing suit is likely filming the girl.
That is a reasonable conclusion.
The rest of your post is just taken to the extreme and is an attempt to make something out of nothing.
Unless in a helicopter, then that doesn't apply... except that the pilot "must not fly at an altitude that causes hazard to persons or property on the surface".
What is that limit? That is largely up to your local FAA inspector, among other things.
Whatever happened to being neighborly? Go over and say hi and let them know what you're doing. Invite them over to watch your cool new drone. Offer them a beer.
Well, this is going to be fun once delivery drones start flying.
The delivery drones are a nice idea that sounds better on paper than in real life.
The first time a medical helicopter is brought down by one and it ends up on CNN, the drone flights will have to stop. It would cost a crap ton of money to make drones able to avoid other aircraft 100% of the time.
There is no way to have flying drones land in random locations in neighborhoods, there are too many obstructions, kids on bikes, etc.
I love the idea, but the execution is miles from reality.
It can be equated with some pervert climbing a tree in your yard and video recording your family, and that is about it. In that case I don't think most people would have a problem with the homeowner destroying the camera if he could do it without harming the pervert.
Why do we care about "not harming the pervert?"
If my daughter was in our fenced in backyard and someone climbed a tree and was taking pictures of her over the fence, I actually have the legal right to shoot him.
Would I? No, not if I could at all avoid it. I'd first call the police and then tell him to get lost.
But you can talk directly to a pervert, I can't talk to a drone. A shotgun blast with birdshot generally takes care of that.
From TFA, the drone's owner presented flight data showing that the drone was not below the treeline, but the man who shot the drone down had two eyewitnesses saying it was lower.
I can tell you from experience that the people on the ground win that one every time.
I've done a lot of flying in helicopters over the years, we are allowed to fly lower than airplanes, even in cities. In fact, we have no published minimum altitude, other than to "not fly at an altitude that causes hazard to persons or property on the surface".
What does that mean? I'll tell you... my FAA inspector once gave me his answer, and since he has authority over my flying, his word counts (in so much as he is the one who can put a stop to my flying).
He said, "if I get a phone call from one person saying you're flying too low, I might call around, ask you to be careful and avoid that area. if I get multiple calls from multiple people saying you're flying too low, I'm going to get into my car and come see you, and you're already guilty. if you're scaring people on the ground, you're at fault, regardless of your altitude, fly accordingly."
All that being said, why in fuck do we continue to tolerate a system in which the schools don't have enough money to buy pencils, and have to send home lists with supplies that the class needs? Seriously, looseleaf paper? Pens? Glue sticks? Do we value the schools so little that we have to ensure their failure by starving them of funding to buy the most basic supplies?
The schools have plenty of money for that stuff, they just choose not to spend it there.
Giving the schools more money wouldn't cause those things to be purchased.
A near by local school built a new football stadium, yet at the same time, parents have to provide those same basic school supplies because the school can't afford to buy them.
we're going to burn every reasonable source of fossil fuels no matter how green you live
Quoted for truth...
Short WWIII breaking out, Earth being invaded by aliens, or a mass plague killing off 90% of humanity, we're going to burn every last drop of oil we can find, every lump of coal, and every foot of natural gas we come across.
We might do it a bit faster or slower, some nations might burn more than others, but at the end of the day, we're going to burn it all.
"The United States and Canada must reduce their energy consumption by about 90 percent; Europe, Australasia, and Japan must do so by about 75 percent.
I mentioned that to my wife tonight and her simple reply was, "well that isn't going to happen".
She would be correct, we are simply not going to turn off the AC, stop driving our cars and trucks, and live in small 1,000 sqft homes.
Since that isn't going to happen, we probably should start preparing for the future that is coming, rather than wasting efforts that won't change the outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
:) No, it isn't movement, it is a rounding error...
It is quite possible that the number was 1.5% 7 years ago and remains 1.5% today.
But regardless, it is nothing to be jumping up and down about. Even Mac, with its 5% (give or take) desktop market share isn't exciting.
Frankly, if we were going to see a major challenge to Windows, I'd expect it from Mac before Linux, Apple has something to gain there.
I'm glad that you have the option to run Linux. We'd all be worse off if that option didn't exist.
My only point is that it isn't going to give Windows a run for its money in the marketshare dept anytime soon.
Windows brings in more than $10 billion dollars for Microsoft each year.
Some of that money goes to development and R&D towards the next version, but part of it goes towards making sure that Windows remains on top.
How much money did Linux bring in last year?
I think I found the problem. It is also why Linux is never going anywhere on the desktop, there just isn't any money in it.
Sadly a lot of people just don't understand that by buying random 'cheap' hardware it makes these problems unfixable too.
You are under the assumption that "a lot of people" give a damm.
They don't, they just want something that works and is cheap, the rest is just background noise.
Yes, but almost no one really cares...
Price isn't the reason people will move to Linux, and frankly Windows 10 isn't either...
Linux has less than 2% of the desktop OS market and that hasn't moved in a long time...
Actually it depends on the price elasticity of the product or service they're providing.
No it doesn't, don't be silly...
Assuming no one is cheating, then all companies have to pay it, thus all companies that wish to remain in business must raise their prices enough to cover it.
If you raised corporate taxes to 50% tomorrow, you'd just see prices rise soon after. Otherwise companies wouldn't be making money and wouldn't invest in growth and new jobs and you'd have a really big mess on your hands.
And I'm shocked that Amazon ever through they could call these people ICs.
They aren't remotely ICs in my view, and I've had both ICs and employees work for me over the years. The line seems rather clear.
Why do I keep seeing people type stuff like this?
Because it is true. That you don't understand why it is true doesn't make it any less so.
Piloted aviation was here first, and frankly much of it is old and out of date and isn't going to be updated in the timeframe required by the "drone companies".
While you might put fancy computers that always talk to the ground and each other under computer control, it doesn't do any good when a 30 year old aircraft with humans on it without all the tech flies into it and crashes.
For many reasons, that 30 year old aircraft isn't going to be upgraded to what would be required any time soon. Technically it could be, but technically we could build a moon base, that doesn't mean we're going to do it.
Just noticed I'm rambling at a probable troll, no way that could be a serious thought out post. I'm gonna stop now.
Not a troll, but I am more of an expert on aviation issues than most people here, and I also understand the costs and low volume issues in general aviation.
The obstacles are not technical, they are political and financial.
https://youtu.be/WOoUVeyaY_8?t...
You were saying?
A flying drone at 50-100ft off the ground is not going to be nearly that hard to hit, with that loaded with bird shot.
Where do you live that you have the right to shoot someone not on your property who is not threatening anyone? Granted, it's really creepy, but I don't see any justification for gunfire.
You added the "not threatening anyone" part...
If someone is looking over my fence at my swimming pool, then no, there is no justification for force to be used.
If they are looking over my fence at my 13 year old daughter swimming, then yes, there is a reason for concern.
It is worth noting there is a big difference between the two.
You're assuming that the guy flying the drone was actually interested in his neighbor's daughter, which hasn't been shown.
It doesn't have to be proven, it just has to be the reasonable conclusion.
Your average person will conclude that someone flying a drone with a video camera over someone else's back yard with a young lady in a bathing suit is likely filming the girl.
That is a reasonable conclusion.
The rest of your post is just taken to the extreme and is an attempt to make something out of nothing.
That was me actually, who posted that.
And yes, you're correct... if the public feels threatened, then they do and they win.
Or as someone else said, don't be an arsehole... play well with others...
His privacy was no more threatened than it is by aviation; anyone who files a flight plan can legally overfly him
I love it... "files a flight plan"...
So many people who know nothing about stuff make comments. A flight plan isn't required for that...
Unless in a helicopter, then that doesn't apply... except that the pilot "must not fly at an altitude that causes hazard to persons or property on the surface".
What is that limit? That is largely up to your local FAA inspector, among other things.
^ This, a hundred times this...
Whatever happened to being neighborly? Go over and say hi and let them know what you're doing. Invite them over to watch your cool new drone. Offer them a beer.
Everyone is happy... this really isn't hard...
Texas, for one...
Well, this is going to be fun once delivery drones start flying.
The delivery drones are a nice idea that sounds better on paper than in real life.
The first time a medical helicopter is brought down by one and it ends up on CNN, the drone flights will have to stop. It would cost a crap ton of money to make drones able to avoid other aircraft 100% of the time.
There is no way to have flying drones land in random locations in neighborhoods, there are too many obstructions, kids on bikes, etc.
I love the idea, but the execution is miles from reality.
It can be equated with some pervert climbing a tree in your yard and video recording your family, and that is about it. In that case I don't think most people would have a problem with the homeowner destroying the camera if he could do it without harming the pervert.
Why do we care about "not harming the pervert?"
If my daughter was in our fenced in backyard and someone climbed a tree and was taking pictures of her over the fence, I actually have the legal right to shoot him.
Would I? No, not if I could at all avoid it. I'd first call the police and then tell him to get lost.
But you can talk directly to a pervert, I can't talk to a drone. A shotgun blast with birdshot generally takes care of that.
I've flown very close to the ground over private property in a powered parachute. FAA regulations allow that.
Yes, you are, unless you scare a bunch of people. :)
Do that over a crowded area that isn't expecting it and expect a visit from the FAA. (or worse)
But over empty land, land that you are not bothering anyone, sure, go for it.
Just don't circle at a hundred feet over people's backyards. But I'm sure you know that already.
From TFA, the drone's owner presented flight data showing that the drone was not below the treeline, but the man who shot the drone down had two eyewitnesses saying it was lower.
I can tell you from experience that the people on the ground win that one every time.
I've done a lot of flying in helicopters over the years, we are allowed to fly lower than airplanes, even in cities. In fact, we have no published minimum altitude, other than to "not fly at an altitude that causes hazard to persons or property on the surface".
What does that mean? I'll tell you... my FAA inspector once gave me his answer, and since he has authority over my flying, his word counts (in so much as he is the one who can put a stop to my flying).
He said, "if I get a phone call from one person saying you're flying too low, I might call around, ask you to be careful and avoid that area. if I get multiple calls from multiple people saying you're flying too low, I'm going to get into my car and come see you, and you're already guilty. if you're scaring people on the ground, you're at fault, regardless of your altitude, fly accordingly."
To tackle the climate changes, the adjustments required are much smaller, and most of them are things that we can easily live without anyway
I'm not quite sure you understand the issue.
They are saying the US has to reduce its energy consumption by 90%.
That is not a "small adjustment", that would require getting rid of most of our cars, getting rid of HVAC, and living in much smaller homes.
If you think that is likely to happen, then you don't understand people very well.
All that being said, why in fuck do we continue to tolerate a system in which the schools don't have enough money to buy pencils, and have to send home lists with supplies that the class needs? Seriously, looseleaf paper? Pens? Glue sticks? Do we value the schools so little that we have to ensure their failure by starving them of funding to buy the most basic supplies?
The schools have plenty of money for that stuff, they just choose not to spend it there.
Giving the schools more money wouldn't cause those things to be purchased.
A near by local school built a new football stadium, yet at the same time, parents have to provide those same basic school supplies because the school can't afford to buy them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That high school football stadium was $60 million dollars... It is about 5 miles away from me...
Yet every year I spend several hundred dollars provide basic supplies for my kids in school, because the school somehow can't pay for them.
we're going to burn every reasonable source of fossil fuels no matter how green you live
Quoted for truth...
Short WWIII breaking out, Earth being invaded by aliens, or a mass plague killing off 90% of humanity, we're going to burn every last drop of oil we can find, every lump of coal, and every foot of natural gas we come across.
We might do it a bit faster or slower, some nations might burn more than others, but at the end of the day, we're going to burn it all.
"The United States and Canada must reduce their energy consumption by about 90 percent; Europe, Australasia, and Japan must do so by about 75 percent.
I mentioned that to my wife tonight and her simple reply was, "well that isn't going to happen".
She would be correct, we are simply not going to turn off the AC, stop driving our cars and trucks, and live in small 1,000 sqft homes.
Since that isn't going to happen, we probably should start preparing for the future that is coming, rather than wasting efforts that won't change the outcome.
And that's why the USA's economy was dead between 1946 and 1964 when the top tax bracket was 91%.
Find me anyone who paid that rate...
Today the top rate is over 33%, yet almost no one in that bracket pays it either.
You can raise the tax rate to 100%, it doesn't mean you collect it.