Yet, he (she?) chose the third option: to be a dick. He's an adult, whether he was aware of the consequences or not, he should take the blame and face the results like a fucking responsible adult that he purports to be. He should be funding the lady's defense fund and making damn sure her kid is taken care of safely while she's dealing with the legal system. And apologize profusely to both the lady and the kid. And maybe, just maybe, read online about the shit that's happening about him. It's called being an informed, responsible citizen, for crying out loud.
the business owner may have had a legitimate concern
That fucktard should keep his/her "legitimate" concerns to him/herself. Either walk the kid to school or shut the fuck up. That's all there's to it. How does ruining the mother's day help anyone?
Is there a gofundme or somesuch for the mother? She needs help. We the society have failed her big time.
Yeah man, sure, now try shooting the "bad guy" in a packed Chuck-e-cheese without some collateral damage. You'd "save" the kids from the "bad guy" at the cost of possibly killing a few of them and/or their parents. Nice thinking. If you really grew up around guns and know how to use one, I fail to understand how you can think of shooting inside of a place like that and assuming there won't be a bunch of injuries/deaths if it came to any kind of a shoot-out? Especially if there'd be more than one person who carries, and they won't all be as level-headed as I assume you're. It'd be a fucking bloodbath, that's what it'd be, and numerically the most damage would be to innocent kids and parents.
She should sue the dumbfuck business owner for costs and damages. That idiot should be taught a fucking lesson. I have zero sympathy for these types. "Mind the children", my ass. You've just fucked up this kid's life, even if temporarily. Are you happy, fucker? Perhaps we should figure out what that business is and tell him what we think of it. Personally, I'm outraged.
Were the mutations found in the genome or the exome? Is this project sequencing the entire genome, or just the exome? Given that exome mutations are thought responsible for 85% of genetic disease out there, wouldn't it be more useful to have a 100,000 exomes project first?
I don't even know what's the point of trying to "fix" malware. You can't win that battle, and the tools available for it - paid or not - are woefully insufficient. There's no way to "repair" a system install that is owned. No way period.
The code is integral to the research. Your prof's theories are useless without the code that shows that they are of some use and that they work. Just as you are "replaceable", your professor is, too. So don't think any less of yourself just for being replaceable: most of us are. Furthermore, personally, I believe the implementer is due same credit as the researcher. One can't exist without the other, it's a very close symbiosis.
If one person comes up with a theory or model or formula that is not implemented at the moment, it's not even generally possible to tell if their contribution is of any use. To get results, you need an implementation, and the implementation is absolutely crucial. Even in terms of algorithmic improvements in "pure" computer science, if the real life implementations are constrained such that the algorithmic improvement doesn't matter, the value of the theoretical improvement is decreased or it simply becomes irrelevant and nobody will cite it.
I heard of an interesting possibility offered by a BBC analyst today: Of course this could all be posturing with full knowledge of the leadership. But perhaps the development facility is lying to the leadership about it. The leadership is completely crazy and demands things that might not be possible in their circumstances. The bomb makers might have detonated another fission device to buy more time, or simply to keep the disconnected-from-reality leadership placated.
Going further along this line of thinking: Perhaps the atomic weapon program people are sabotaging their own program. Better this than the crazy leadership bombing Japan or South Korea on a whim. They probably have the talent needed to develop a hydrogen bomb, but these people aren't stupid gullible fools anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if they said "fuck that" and only pretend to have a hydrogen bomb.
3-5 min flight time, on-board camera, ~300ft ceiling, gyro and drift stabilization... I don't know what you're going on about, this stuff was pretty much science fiction just 30 years ago, and even 20 years ago it was only affordable by the few and an active area of research. Pieces of crap, my ass.
That's only because when they are detected, all aircraft operations cease
I wonder what imaginary uebermensch fly around wildfires if they can still have enough attention to spot what looks like a rather small bird.
No, dude, the drones the uninformed fly around wildfires are much larger, have a much longer flight time, and go quite a bit further.
If you have $500+ to spend on a drone, you can afford to be informed:) That's not what sells by the thousands at Walmart, though.
Because most drones (>99%) are flown more-or-less in the "airspace" where kids can throw rocks. You seem to be arguing, for the most part, that one needs to be a pilot to throw rocks. I'm dead serious. The sales heavily favor drones that weigh a couple of ounces - pretty much any drone under $100 is an ounce or two.
The videos posted to youtube suffer from selection bias towards larger drones.
They require full artificial stability 100% of the time or they won't fly.
You said that as if the human body was any different. Guess what: a human body has no passive stability of any kind whatsoever. You can't even make a fresh corpse sit straight in a chair. That doesn't make the human body particularly inefficient at what it does, though. So please, don't imply that a quad is a particularly bad flying machine. I urge you to look at the complexity of a "simple" helicopter. You'd probably have a better TWR on a large quad powered by a gas-turbine-driven generator, than on a helicopter with a similar payload capacity, with its monstrous gearbox and complex control mechanics.
Dude, the drones the uninformed fly have a 300ft range and 3 minute flight time. You're more than welcome to try and fly one into a wildfire. It won't cause anyone any harm. Get real.
I don't know what you're droning about, but what people normally buy is not planes, but toy drones, that weigh 2oz, have a ~100m control range, and 3 minutes flight time. That's 99.9% of the drones out there. It doesn't matter where you fly them, the most damage they'll do is to cut up someone's eye if you fly one into someone's face. My biggest worry was about what happens if one gets sucked into the turbine of a small helicopter. A friend who was doing some FOD ingestion testing on these small turbines tells me that there might be some damage in the rarest of circumstances, but nothing that makes it immediately non-flyable/fall out of the sky. He then told me "oh, BTW, the choppers have big fucking screens on the intakes - I told you what would happen if you'd toss one straight into the turbine inlet. If you got it to hit the screen first, it'd fragment enough that it'd most likely not register anywhere until the turbine overhaul."
You're completely out of touch with reality. 99% of sales is drones that weigh a couple of ounces, and have similar payload capacity. If you've got $500+ to toss on a big drone, you can get custom controllers, put custom firmware on them, and pretty much do anything you want anyway. You haven't paid for any payload *yet*. Personally, if I wanted to launch a malicious payload on a target a dozen miles away, I'd use a guided mortar shell, not a drone.
Really? A 2oz drone that can stay aloft for maybe 3 minutes, and simply drops down to the ground if it's past about 300ft of LOS range from the operator? Nah, you're just making shit up to justify a yet another stupid law.
What's so special about DC? Say I was in a park in Greenbelt, why couldn't I fly my super-dangerous 2oz drone there? The ruling is nonsensical. Really.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. Hell is paved with good intentions.
He had two sane options:
1. Walk the kid to school.
2. Do nothing.
Yet, he (she?) chose the third option: to be a dick. He's an adult, whether he was aware of the consequences or not, he should take the blame and face the results like a fucking responsible adult that he purports to be. He should be funding the lady's defense fund and making damn sure her kid is taken care of safely while she's dealing with the legal system. And apologize profusely to both the lady and the kid. And maybe, just maybe, read online about the shit that's happening about him. It's called being an informed, responsible citizen, for crying out loud.
the business owner may have had a legitimate concern
That fucktard should keep his/her "legitimate" concerns to him/herself. Either walk the kid to school or shut the fuck up. That's all there's to it. How does ruining the mother's day help anyone?
Is there a gofundme or somesuch for the mother? She needs help. We the society have failed her big time.
The unsafe-feels lady was asking the accomplice for help. That makes all the sense in the world.
Yeah, she had an idiot moment. That's all there's to it. Hopefully she reflected on it and is a tad saner now. Sigh, one might hope...
okay, so what are you going to do to make me feel safe if I come over?
Nothing. It's not my fucking job. Kthxbye. <click>
Yeah man, sure, now try shooting the "bad guy" in a packed Chuck-e-cheese without some collateral damage. You'd "save" the kids from the "bad guy" at the cost of possibly killing a few of them and/or their parents. Nice thinking. If you really grew up around guns and know how to use one, I fail to understand how you can think of shooting inside of a place like that and assuming there won't be a bunch of injuries/deaths if it came to any kind of a shoot-out? Especially if there'd be more than one person who carries, and they won't all be as level-headed as I assume you're. It'd be a fucking bloodbath, that's what it'd be, and numerically the most damage would be to innocent kids and parents.
She should sue the dumbfuck business owner for costs and damages. That idiot should be taught a fucking lesson. I have zero sympathy for these types. "Mind the children", my ass. You've just fucked up this kid's life, even if temporarily. Are you happy, fucker? Perhaps we should figure out what that business is and tell him what we think of it. Personally, I'm outraged.
Were the mutations found in the genome or the exome? Is this project sequencing the entire genome, or just the exome? Given that exome mutations are thought responsible for 85% of genetic disease out there, wouldn't it be more useful to have a 100,000 exomes project first?
I don't even know what's the point of trying to "fix" malware. You can't win that battle, and the tools available for it - paid or not - are woefully insufficient. There's no way to "repair" a system install that is owned. No way period.
IRL Erlang FTW :)
The code is integral to the research. Your prof's theories are useless without the code that shows that they are of some use and that they work. Just as you are "replaceable", your professor is, too. So don't think any less of yourself just for being replaceable: most of us are. Furthermore, personally, I believe the implementer is due same credit as the researcher. One can't exist without the other, it's a very close symbiosis.
If one person comes up with a theory or model or formula that is not implemented at the moment, it's not even generally possible to tell if their contribution is of any use. To get results, you need an implementation, and the implementation is absolutely crucial. Even in terms of algorithmic improvements in "pure" computer science, if the real life implementations are constrained such that the algorithmic improvement doesn't matter, the value of the theoretical improvement is decreased or it simply becomes irrelevant and nobody will cite it.
I heard of an interesting possibility offered by a BBC analyst today: Of course this could all be posturing with full knowledge of the leadership. But perhaps the development facility is lying to the leadership about it. The leadership is completely crazy and demands things that might not be possible in their circumstances. The bomb makers might have detonated another fission device to buy more time, or simply to keep the disconnected-from-reality leadership placated.
Going further along this line of thinking: Perhaps the atomic weapon program people are sabotaging their own program. Better this than the crazy leadership bombing Japan or South Korea on a whim. They probably have the talent needed to develop a hydrogen bomb, but these people aren't stupid gullible fools anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if they said "fuck that" and only pretend to have a hydrogen bomb.
Not all drones are the 2 oz pieces of crap
3-5 min flight time, on-board camera, ~300ft ceiling, gyro and drift stabilization... I don't know what you're going on about, this stuff was pretty much science fiction just 30 years ago, and even 20 years ago it was only affordable by the few and an active area of research. Pieces of crap, my ass.
That's only because when they are detected, all aircraft operations cease
I wonder what imaginary uebermensch fly around wildfires if they can still have enough attention to spot what looks like a rather small bird.
No, dude, the drones the uninformed fly around wildfires are much larger, have a much longer flight time, and go quite a bit further.
If you have $500+ to spend on a drone, you can afford to be informed :) That's not what sells by the thousands at Walmart, though.
Because most drones (>99%) are flown more-or-less in the "airspace" where kids can throw rocks. You seem to be arguing, for the most part, that one needs to be a pilot to throw rocks. I'm dead serious. The sales heavily favor drones that weigh a couple of ounces - pretty much any drone under $100 is an ounce or two.
The videos posted to youtube suffer from selection bias towards larger drones.
The "weight" means mass. Just because it's full of gas doesn't make it massless.
Then you comply with them by default :)
basically every R/C model out there
This is plain wrong. The vast majority of sales of drones are in the "couple ounces" range and don't require registration at all.
I think that there's no need whatsoever for the U.S. to have a federal Department of Education. It's pointless, and a waste of tax dollars.
They require full artificial stability 100% of the time or they won't fly.
You said that as if the human body was any different. Guess what: a human body has no passive stability of any kind whatsoever. You can't even make a fresh corpse sit straight in a chair. That doesn't make the human body particularly inefficient at what it does, though. So please, don't imply that a quad is a particularly bad flying machine. I urge you to look at the complexity of a "simple" helicopter. You'd probably have a better TWR on a large quad powered by a gas-turbine-driven generator, than on a helicopter with a similar payload capacity, with its monstrous gearbox and complex control mechanics.
Dude, the drones the uninformed fly have a 300ft range and 3 minute flight time. You're more than welcome to try and fly one into a wildfire. It won't cause anyone any harm. Get real.
I don't know what you're droning about, but what people normally buy is not planes, but toy drones, that weigh 2oz, have a ~100m control range, and 3 minutes flight time. That's 99.9% of the drones out there. It doesn't matter where you fly them, the most damage they'll do is to cut up someone's eye if you fly one into someone's face. My biggest worry was about what happens if one gets sucked into the turbine of a small helicopter. A friend who was doing some FOD ingestion testing on these small turbines tells me that there might be some damage in the rarest of circumstances, but nothing that makes it immediately non-flyable/fall out of the sky. He then told me "oh, BTW, the choppers have big fucking screens on the intakes - I told you what would happen if you'd toss one straight into the turbine inlet. If you got it to hit the screen first, it'd fragment enough that it'd most likely not register anywhere until the turbine overhaul."
If jumbo jets can be taken out of the sky by 2oz drones (that's 99.9% of sold drones!), then we have waaaay bigger problems, dude.
You're completely out of touch with reality. 99% of sales is drones that weigh a couple of ounces, and have similar payload capacity. If you've got $500+ to toss on a big drone, you can get custom controllers, put custom firmware on them, and pretty much do anything you want anyway. You haven't paid for any payload *yet*. Personally, if I wanted to launch a malicious payload on a target a dozen miles away, I'd use a guided mortar shell, not a drone.
Really? A 2oz drone that can stay aloft for maybe 3 minutes, and simply drops down to the ground if it's past about 300ft of LOS range from the operator? Nah, you're just making shit up to justify a yet another stupid law.
What's so special about DC? Say I was in a park in Greenbelt, why couldn't I fly my super-dangerous 2oz drone there? The ruling is nonsensical. Really.