And that isn't fair. For some, this is an injustice to be eliminated until everyone is equal in every way.
It would seem that in the 60s and 70s kids were told "you can be anything you want when you grow up, if you work hard enough". Somewhere in the 80s and 90s it got reduced to "you can be anything you want when you grow up" and now people want something without investing all the time and effort into it.
Programming is hard and is the result of hard work and many hours of focused effort. If people want to succeed at it they need to stay in, put down the video games, and work for it.
You can have anything you want if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, do anything you set out to accomplish if you hold to that desire with singleness of purpose.
-Abraham Lincoln
Yes, if you really think about it, we've done quite a bit in our history with objects on strings, and yet a 20' string tied to helium balloons by the dozen doesn't require a pilots permit, and flying a kite doesn't require a license.
You don't have a clue what people are doing with these things, do you? Flying a unmanned aerial vehicle is nothing like tying a helium balloon to a string.
And naturally, the first question born from this insanity is why the hell aren't we forced to buy kite and balloon insurance these days...I'm rather shocked the greedy bastards let that one fly....literally.
You're not required to buy insurance for a lot of things, but you'll be personally liable for all damages without it. In the case of transportation, the risk of damage and injury is so great that the government has opted to mandate all vehicle operators be insured.
Each public flight should be insured with the insurance agency knowing the risks of each flight. Tethers do nothing but add an additional liability as they add weight, may get caught up in trees or power lines, and will potentially cause damage in the case of a vehicle crash.
Take my stance on it: 3000 years ago the Catholic Church didn't exist; today it does. On the time scale of the species, or even civilization, that means it popped into existence rather recently.
I have heard of this, actually, initially as a response to Citizens United. With this ruling, and possibly a few more, we could be seeing a real movement to amend the Constitution by 2020.
They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".
Which don't cause abortions, contradictory to their claims. Also they were against preventative methods such as IUDs, which you conveniently left out from your argument.
Also, they are giving their interpretation that anything involving money removes the operator from the "hobby and recreational" exemption that congress granted.
This isn't new and is how it has always been. If 15 years ago you attempted to use your RC for aerial photography, the FAA would consider that a violation. The rest of your examples are also no new.
What does LoS mean when the primary pilot has taken the aircraft to an altitude not discernible by the naked eye? Or when the primary pilot has taken the aircraft beyond LoS?
The FAA DID make that very recommendation. The clarification here is that they are not permitting FPV flight, and are restricting "view of the user" to their natural vision (corrected, if necessary). FPV is the new tech advancement that irresponsible pilots are using to fly in an unsafe manner.
The problem the FAA is currently faced with is that hobbyists aren't flying within a field, AMA or otherwise, but rather exceeding 400 ft, flying over populated areas and highways, and flying into controlled airspace. The only new restriction that the FAA is proposing is removing FPV flying from the domain of "model aircraft", which limits the pilots ability to perform these unsafe activities.
Ars Technica just published an article demonstrating the activities that irresponsible people (the author) do with this technology: link
You don't need an even number of rotors to cancel torque about the yaw axis if you run the rotors at asymmetric rates; tricopters are common in the hobbyist community.
I doubt it is just "a few idiots". The access to these devices has increased to the point where many people can now gain access to them, particularly those who don't give much thought to their actions. Ars Technica got their hands on a DJI Phantom and IMMEDIATELY flew above 400 ft, over other people's property, over crowded areas, over highways, and in dangerous areas (near power lines, etc): link.
The FAA agrees with you and you still retain the ability to fly the craft as a hobbyist, but you must do so below 400 ft and within line of sight (not using FPV). You must not operate the craft for money, nor as a part of a business.
The problem is that when people take their quad out to a park and fly it using FPV, they often go above 400 ft, fly over other people's property, fly over crowded areas, fly over highways, and fly in dangerous areas (near power lines, etc). This isn't a "few bad apples" either, this is the glut of FPV users.
Ars Technica got their hands on a DJI Phantom and IMMEDIATELY did the things I mentioned and wrote about it: link
Some emboldened quad users have been more than willing to put others at risk and fly their aircraft in the landing path of airports. In 2013 an Alitalia pilot identified a quad in the flight path at JFK International Airport, coming within 200 ft of the airplane on it's descent: link
Some of that is given back by having a lot more university-supported Postdocs, where as public R1s largely require their faculty to fund postdocs of their own grants.
It sounds like you may accounting a little differently than what occurred at my institution. The 40% was taken for administration and overhead; all faculty and student pay, hardware and software, and any other research materials all came out of the remaining 60%. Part of why the ARL balked was because THEY were the administrators and approval had to go through THEM, not the university. There's no reason the university should have taken so much for "administration" they weren't providing.
Shuttle had two loss of crew accidents in 135 flights. And no extra mission failures.
That's very misleading. After the 1986 Challenger explosion, one of the intended goals of the shuttle, to deploy and maintain spy satellites and equipment, was considered too risky. As a consequence many of these missions were shifted to other launch platforms such as the Delta rocket family. I'd argue that all of these should be considered mission failures, from the shuttle's perspective.
Even if you get a $500,000 grant, anywhere up to 2/3 of that goes immediately to the university you work for for overhead.
I worked on a military funded research project and the Army Research Labs contract administrators balked at the 40% (!!!) mandatory overhead costs. They felt it was exorbitant as they had their own people who oversaw nearly every aspect of the contract. The only thing the university had to provide was a space for us to work.
I don't believe this approach reverses privilege at all. In fact it sends negative messages out that girls are more valuable than boys, and that girls couldn't compete without assistance.
If sexual parity is reached, there's no advantage to Sally refusing to work as hard as Susie; Sally will get the axe at the next performance review while Susie will get a raise.
Slashdot Mirror
We can't all be rocket surgeons.
And that isn't fair. For some, this is an injustice to be eliminated until everyone is equal in every way.
It would seem that in the 60s and 70s kids were told "you can be anything you want when you grow up, if you work hard enough". Somewhere in the 80s and 90s it got reduced to "you can be anything you want when you grow up" and now people want something without investing all the time and effort into it.
Programming is hard and is the result of hard work and many hours of focused effort. If people want to succeed at it they need to stay in, put down the video games, and work for it.
You can have anything you want if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, do anything you set out to accomplish if you hold to that desire with singleness of purpose.
-Abraham Lincoln
There is no IDE or language that can help with that part of the problem.
And that's not fair! What we need is a Handicapper General.
Marissa Mayer former innovator at Google and now CEO of Yahoo. She is well known for making Google Maps useful.
If I understand correctly, she was a product manager on Google Maps, not a programmer.
Near future use: Cleaning up spilled ping pong balls on "water" in frat houses.
Yes, if you really think about it, we've done quite a bit in our history with objects on strings, and yet a 20' string tied to helium balloons by the dozen doesn't require a pilots permit, and flying a kite doesn't require a license.
You don't have a clue what people are doing with these things, do you? Flying a unmanned aerial vehicle is nothing like tying a helium balloon to a string.
And naturally, the first question born from this insanity is why the hell aren't we forced to buy kite and balloon insurance these days...I'm rather shocked the greedy bastards let that one fly....literally.
You're not required to buy insurance for a lot of things, but you'll be personally liable for all damages without it. In the case of transportation, the risk of damage and injury is so great that the government has opted to mandate all vehicle operators be insured.
Each public flight should be insured with the insurance agency knowing the risks of each flight. Tethers do nothing but add an additional liability as they add weight, may get caught up in trees or power lines, and will potentially cause damage in the case of a vehicle crash.
Take my stance on it: 3000 years ago the Catholic Church didn't exist; today it does. On the time scale of the species, or even civilization, that means it popped into existence rather recently.
It's news that affects a great many people, including nerds. Posting it here gives the self-identified nerds a forum to discuss this news.
I have heard of this, actually, initially as a response to Citizens United. With this ruling, and possibly a few more, we could be seeing a real movement to amend the Constitution by 2020.
They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".
Which don't cause abortions, contradictory to their claims. Also they were against preventative methods such as IUDs, which you conveniently left out from your argument.
You know, for important research reasons....
At one point the Catholic church didn't exist, then suddenly it did.
Also, they are giving their interpretation that anything involving money removes the operator from the "hobby and recreational" exemption that congress granted.
This isn't new and is how it has always been. If 15 years ago you attempted to use your RC for aerial photography, the FAA would consider that a violation. The rest of your examples are also no new.
What does LoS mean when the primary pilot has taken the aircraft to an altitude not discernible by the naked eye? Or when the primary pilot has taken the aircraft beyond LoS?
The FAA DID make that very recommendation. The clarification here is that they are not permitting FPV flight, and are restricting "view of the user" to their natural vision (corrected, if necessary). FPV is the new tech advancement that irresponsible pilots are using to fly in an unsafe manner.
The problem the FAA is currently faced with is that hobbyists aren't flying within a field, AMA or otherwise, but rather exceeding 400 ft, flying over populated areas and highways, and flying into controlled airspace. The only new restriction that the FAA is proposing is removing FPV flying from the domain of "model aircraft", which limits the pilots ability to perform these unsafe activities.
Ars Technica just published an article demonstrating the activities that irresponsible people (the author) do with this technology: link
You don't need an even number of rotors to cancel torque about the yaw axis if you run the rotors at asymmetric rates; tricopters are common in the hobbyist community.
In 2013, an Alitalia pilot identified a quad on the landing path to JFK International: link. There's already reason for concern.
I doubt it is just "a few idiots". The access to these devices has increased to the point where many people can now gain access to them, particularly those who don't give much thought to their actions. Ars Technica got their hands on a DJI Phantom and IMMEDIATELY flew above 400 ft, over other people's property, over crowded areas, over highways, and in dangerous areas (near power lines, etc): link.
The FAA agrees with you and you still retain the ability to fly the craft as a hobbyist, but you must do so below 400 ft and within line of sight (not using FPV). You must not operate the craft for money, nor as a part of a business.
The problem is that when people take their quad out to a park and fly it using FPV, they often go above 400 ft, fly over other people's property, fly over crowded areas, fly over highways, and fly in dangerous areas (near power lines, etc). This isn't a "few bad apples" either, this is the glut of FPV users.
Ars Technica got their hands on a DJI Phantom and IMMEDIATELY did the things I mentioned and wrote about it: link
Some emboldened quad users have been more than willing to put others at risk and fly their aircraft in the landing path of airports. In 2013 an Alitalia pilot identified a quad in the flight path at JFK International Airport, coming within 200 ft of the airplane on it's descent: link
Some of that is given back by having a lot more university-supported Postdocs, where as public R1s largely require their faculty to fund postdocs of their own grants.
It sounds like you may accounting a little differently than what occurred at my institution. The 40% was taken for administration and overhead; all faculty and student pay, hardware and software, and any other research materials all came out of the remaining 60%. Part of why the ARL balked was because THEY were the administrators and approval had to go through THEM, not the university. There's no reason the university should have taken so much for "administration" they weren't providing.
Shuttle had two loss of crew accidents in 135 flights. And no extra mission failures.
That's very misleading. After the 1986 Challenger explosion, one of the intended goals of the shuttle, to deploy and maintain spy satellites and equipment, was considered too risky. As a consequence many of these missions were shifted to other launch platforms such as the Delta rocket family. I'd argue that all of these should be considered mission failures, from the shuttle's perspective.
Even if you get a $500,000 grant, anywhere up to 2/3 of that goes immediately to the university you work for for overhead.
I worked on a military funded research project and the Army Research Labs contract administrators balked at the 40% (!!!) mandatory overhead costs. They felt it was exorbitant as they had their own people who oversaw nearly every aspect of the contract. The only thing the university had to provide was a space for us to work.
I don't believe this approach reverses privilege at all. In fact it sends negative messages out that girls are more valuable than boys, and that girls couldn't compete without assistance.
If sexual parity is reached, there's no advantage to Sally refusing to work as hard as Susie; Sally will get the axe at the next performance review while Susie will get a raise.