It just means that you will need to fly them on private land.
I have an RC aircraft habit myself and that's what I do, fly on private land. I suppose I could use the street in front of my house, but it's kind of dangerous and noisy so I don't think my neighbors would appreciate it so I joined a club. The club I'm in has agreement with a private land owner and we fly on their property. The hobby will not die, it will just be relegated to private property.
I understand why people are upset, but let's face it, the crazies among us who insist on flying their drones in places they shouldn't have, taking pictures of things they shouldn't have and being irresponsible in general have made this necessary. Don't blame the government, blame the crazies that make this necessary for privacy and safety.
This seems like a very reasonable law to me. I would only add one more provision though.
I think that they could designate some common public areas in which you could fly and anybody who entered the are giving implicit permission to have drones flying around them. That way, if you don't want a drone dive bombing you and taking HD video, you just stay away from the areas where it's allowed. There would have to be a "fair warning" signage requirement, but leave it up to the local authorities who are enforcing the "no drone" rule to decide where to allow drones.
Oh, so they date the sand part of the sediment that was made into sedimentary rocks and consider THAT the age of the fossil?
You do realize that the elements you mention are pretty much not part of the fossil, but part of the substrate which contains the fossil. What you are suggesting they are doing is going to a wall built yesterday and claiming it's 100 years old because of the age of the barn wood that the wall was covered in.
I don't think the process of dating fossils is done that way... Last I heard they go to the geologists and ask them how old the rocks are.... Of course the question then becomes how the geologists know how old the rocks are.... I sure hope they don't go ask the biologists to date the fossils they see...
You are crushing the dreams of all those 30 something gamers who live in their mother's basement so they can spend every last dime on the latest game and hardware to run it on. These guys don't go down without putting up a really big flame war fight, well at least until their mom turns off the cable modem at their 9:30 bedtime... Good luck Mr. Bunker... You will need it.
So I'm not a "qualified teacher" eh? Truly you DON'T need one of those to teach kids. The rest of your list I would have paid for anyway, being it was for my home. The cost deltas for me was about $800 per year pre student. I can do it cheaper (and I'd argue BETTER, but that's another argument). I could have sent my kids to a PRIVATE school for less than what most public schools spend per student. Trust me, I considered doing that a number of times.
The POINT I'm trying to make here is that public schools are horribly inefficient operations. They suck in money like an out of shape 50 year old software engineer running a 3 min mile sucks air. Even with a five fold increase in the number of students per staff member over my private school, they cannot deliver quality but need more funding. Even if I paid my "teacher" for her time, I could have more than doubled the minimum wage and stayed under the $50-100K numbers being thrown out above.
No, public schools are money pits...
However, I'd like to point out that the reasons public schools are this way is not what you may think. They have become a lab for a whole host of social experiments and well intentioned but stupid laws. There are programs handing out money and laws governing how they do what they do. Both force them to push "educating children" off the top of their priority list and put "follow the stupid law" and "Chase the program money" in it's place. That's why they are so good at spending and so bad at educating.
It's also why I could do it so much cheaper.... Feel free to thank me for not spending your tax money on educating my kids.... Go ahead... I'm waiting....
I was saying that my kids where being schooled by my wife about 4 hours per day. That was about all it took to "teach" two kids, which really amounted to supervising their schooling, making sure they did the work and grading their progress.
Yet, I have a student to staff ratio of 2 to 1, my little private school should NOT be as efficient as the big public school up the street with 10-15 to 1 student to staff ratio, yet, it is. Another poster put the suburban cost outside of Detroit at $13K per student, using his numbers I could have easily paid my wife for her part time effort and had money left over to pay for the building costs and such. Public schools should be able to make up a LOT of cost efficiency on volume because they have at least 5 times more students pre staff than I do. If I had 10 kids and could collect $130K for 10 students, I'd be in high cotton (and my wife in a straight jacket..) but I could blow the doors off of the public school cost per student.
I'm totally aware of the things unaccounted for here, I'm not really complaining all that much about it either. I'm merely saying that public education in this country has turned into a money pit which is not efficient and not good at educating. The reasons for this are varied, but it boils down to one simple thing, they have left their primary mission and made it something else. Now it's about securing funding from that program or fulfilling the social engineering rules from that law over there and actually educating students has fallen off the top of the priority list.
Detroit is a total mess you know and their public school system is a reflection of the same mess, loss of tax base, loss of students, loss of stability. I don't think I'd point to the Detroit schools as an example of how much it really costs us to provide public education, but no matter..
It's still a money pit. I have 2 students and one teacher and even with the opportunity costs of having my wife not work the $26,000 it cost my suburban public school price is way too high. I could have done it, and paid my wife for her part time job for less than that. The public schools around here have 20 to 1 student to teacher ratios, and nearly 15 to 1 student to staff ratios, they should be a whole lot more efficient at this than my 2 student operation.
However, I'd like to point out that there is a *reason* public schools are like the/dev/null of money streams. It's because they do a whole lot of things other than actual teaching of students. Much of that is not their fault, but is a direct result of the patchwork of laws, programs and grants that push social engineering stupidity onto the schools at the expense of education. It's about securing the various funding streams now, not educating kids. Their priorities are messed up.
Look, sorry if I offended you but you didn't read my whole post...
The only valid reason to play, IMHO, is for entertainment value, which is pretty limited. If you want to bet for entertainment, hit the blackjack tables after you learn the rules of how you play. Blackjack is a better deal because the entertainment lasts longer for the same cost, on average.
IF you get enjoyment out of playing the lottery and have money to spend on such entertainment, have fun, buy your tickets. You know what the odds mean and that you won't win but you enjoy the thrill making sure and finding that if you had matched ONE more number, they would have paid you $5.
However, you are not the target audience of lotteries. People like you don't buy that many tickets. People who are poor, don't have disposable income, who are inclined to make stupid financial decisions are the same folks who more often buying lottery tickets. It amounts to a tax on foolishness and stupidity.
I'm not so sure it's all that hard to do myself. I can imagine a number of ways which may allow you to take out a bit of randomness by adjusting the size and weight of things and stack the odds in a way you could profit from. How you could do such a thing without getting caught though is an issue, but I'm sure somebody is clever enough to work out that detail if they could engineer the necessary changes to the physical system.
Think of it as the same kind of gaming the system as card counting is in blackjack.. You don't rig the game to win all the time, you just want to win more than you loose over the long term. Win a little bit at a time... Just not so much you draw too much attention to yourself..
Depending on what kind of full time job you had to give up, it could have cost upwards of $50,000 or $100,000 per year for you to educate your 2 kids, given the opportunity cost. Don't get me wrong, I can think of lots of *good* reasons to home school your kids, but saving money isn't one of them.
And it wasn't my reason either.. I was simply saying that my little two student homeschool cost less per student than what gets spent per student at the big public school up the street and that the public school system is a money pit that really doesn't fulfill it's primary purpose anymore..
So your grandpa was a Lt Col and a Marine and that makes you an expert in Shotguns... Well excuse me Mr. Expert, obviously I'm not as well educated in firearms as you must be having grown up hunting with an Eagle scout raised by a career Army Sarget for a father... (sarcasm off)
You don't shoot airborne targets with slugs, you use shot, which is NOT very effective at even 100 yards... If you are hitting ducks with slugs at 150 yards (heck if you can hit them with SHOT at that distance), you need to drop this Slashdot gig and do some professional shooting. The pros generally shoot at under 60 yards in competition, you should find the experience easy given you are good enough to shoot out at 150 yards so well, just lead the target a bit more...
Come on, I'm not claiming to be an expert marksman, or even a good shooter, but I do know the physical limitations of the shotgun, what it was designed to do, what it can do, and what it cannot. Shooting an airborne target at 150 yards is clearly something that a shotgun cannot do effectively. Even at half that distance shotguns would be only somewhat effective in the hands of your average shooter, there is no way 150 yards is going to work.
So you're calling lottery players stupid. You seem nice.
If he's not, I will.
Lotteries are a tax on stupidity. I call them a foolishness tax. Because most who play the lottery are stupid fools who are just wasting their money.
The only valid reason to play, IMHO, is for entertainment value, which is pretty limited. If you want to bet for entertainment, hit the blackjack tables after you learn the rules of how you play. Blackjack is a better deal because the entertainment lasts longer for the same cost, on average.
So when this trusted friend claims the $14m and then decides to keep it all, what do you do then?
Find somebody else you trust and do it again.... Eventually you will find a honorable criminal to share the wealth with... Better yet, blackmail the winners by threatening to turn yourself in if they don't keep you flush with spending money.
He was going to get caught anyway, it was just a matter of time. ANYBODY who won the lottery who started transferring large sums of money to someone who currently or even used to work for the lottery is asking for a real close look by authorities.
They said it would benefit schools. Here we are 30 years later and our schools still struggle asking for donations of supplies.
Public schools are money pits. They will take as much money as you have and a few dollars more and provide just about the same level of education as they would on half the resources. They struggle because they have HUGE administrative costs and they are not effective at providing education because there is no incentive to perform.
I homeschooled my two children for about $800/year in supplies and about 4 hours a day of labor. We had a student to Teacher ratio of 2 to 1, spent only a fraction of what it cost at the local public school, and the kids got as good or better educations in the process. My results may not be typical, but my oldest is currently an honors student in college going after a PHD in Physics and my youngest seems to be on track to do better than the first.
Did he buy tickets with credit cards? Or he just couldn't find someone he trusted to not run away with the $14million?
The latter. You can't buy tickets with credit cards, because people are dumb and must be protected from their own dumb selves.
How untrue. We don't protect the dumb from theirselves... We DO have the lottery after all... I call it a tax on foolishness myself, but you can call it being dumb or stupid when people play..
While there were a significant number of struts that failed at 6,000 lbs (3x what's needed) rather than the rated 10,000 lbs, only 1 in a batch of 1,000 struts failed at 2,000 lbs. They found a 0.1% failure rate. Random testing from a batch would not have found the needle in the haystack. SpaceX (Elon) has said they will test each and every strut now, not just a few.
Well testing found ONE, but the launch found another... You miss my point though. Their process allowed one of the two bad parts into flight ready hardware where it broke and cost them the vehicle. This is a process problem...
Want to know how I know you've never fired a real gun before?
Magnum slugs alone on an unchoked barrel can be accurate up to 150 yards.
You are wrong, I grew up hunting. I even did a bit of competitive shotgun shooting for a time, though I'm not that good.
You are not going to hit a small moving airborne target with slugs at 150 yards using a shot gun without making an extremely lucky shot. Shooting a stationary target with a shotgun slug at 150 yards is difficult in its own right, unless the target is the broad side of a barn.
I'm not so sure you know what you are talking about, but I wouldn't want to take bets on how much experience you have with firearms....
Slashdot Mirror
It just means that you will need to fly them on private land.
I have an RC aircraft habit myself and that's what I do, fly on private land. I suppose I could use the street in front of my house, but it's kind of dangerous and noisy so I don't think my neighbors would appreciate it so I joined a club. The club I'm in has agreement with a private land owner and we fly on their property. The hobby will not die, it will just be relegated to private property.
I understand why people are upset, but let's face it, the crazies among us who insist on flying their drones in places they shouldn't have, taking pictures of things they shouldn't have and being irresponsible in general have made this necessary. Don't blame the government, blame the crazies that make this necessary for privacy and safety.
Exactly this.
This seems like a very reasonable law to me. I would only add one more provision though.
I think that they could designate some common public areas in which you could fly and anybody who entered the are giving implicit permission to have drones flying around them. That way, if you don't want a drone dive bombing you and taking HD video, you just stay away from the areas where it's allowed. There would have to be a "fair warning" signage requirement, but leave it up to the local authorities who are enforcing the "no drone" rule to decide where to allow drones.
Classic....
Yea sure, so it followed you home and ate your homework too....
Oh, so they date the sand part of the sediment that was made into sedimentary rocks and consider THAT the age of the fossil?
You do realize that the elements you mention are pretty much not part of the fossil, but part of the substrate which contains the fossil. What you are suggesting they are doing is going to a wall built yesterday and claiming it's 100 years old because of the age of the barn wood that the wall was covered in.
I don't think the process of dating fossils is done that way... Last I heard they go to the geologists and ask them how old the rocks are.... Of course the question then becomes how the geologists know how old the rocks are.... I sure hope they don't go ask the biologists to date the fossils they see...
Queue up the flame throwers in 3....2....1...
You are crushing the dreams of all those 30 something gamers who live in their mother's basement so they can spend every last dime on the latest game and hardware to run it on. These guys don't go down without putting up a really big flame war fight, well at least until their mom turns off the cable modem at their 9:30 bedtime... Good luck Mr. Bunker... You will need it.
So I'm not a "qualified teacher" eh? Truly you DON'T need one of those to teach kids. The rest of your list I would have paid for anyway, being it was for my home. The cost deltas for me was about $800 per year pre student. I can do it cheaper (and I'd argue BETTER, but that's another argument). I could have sent my kids to a PRIVATE school for less than what most public schools spend per student. Trust me, I considered doing that a number of times.
The POINT I'm trying to make here is that public schools are horribly inefficient operations. They suck in money like an out of shape 50 year old software engineer running a 3 min mile sucks air. Even with a five fold increase in the number of students per staff member over my private school, they cannot deliver quality but need more funding. Even if I paid my "teacher" for her time, I could have more than doubled the minimum wage and stayed under the $50-100K numbers being thrown out above.
No, public schools are money pits...
However, I'd like to point out that the reasons public schools are this way is not what you may think. They have become a lab for a whole host of social experiments and well intentioned but stupid laws. There are programs handing out money and laws governing how they do what they do. Both force them to push "educating children" off the top of their priority list and put "follow the stupid law" and "Chase the program money" in it's place. That's why they are so good at spending and so bad at educating.
It's also why I could do it so much cheaper.... Feel free to thank me for not spending your tax money on educating my kids.... Go ahead... I'm waiting....
Well, that and he broke the law.... Which kind of makes you an idiot in my book....
What you do is collect your money in to the LLC, offshore the cash ASAP and move to a place that won't extradite you back to the USA.
I was saying that my kids where being schooled by my wife about 4 hours per day. That was about all it took to "teach" two kids, which really amounted to supervising their schooling, making sure they did the work and grading their progress.
Yet, I have a student to staff ratio of 2 to 1, my little private school should NOT be as efficient as the big public school up the street with 10-15 to 1 student to staff ratio, yet, it is. Another poster put the suburban cost outside of Detroit at $13K per student, using his numbers I could have easily paid my wife for her part time effort and had money left over to pay for the building costs and such. Public schools should be able to make up a LOT of cost efficiency on volume because they have at least 5 times more students pre staff than I do. If I had 10 kids and could collect $130K for 10 students, I'd be in high cotton (and my wife in a straight jacket..) but I could blow the doors off of the public school cost per student.
I'm totally aware of the things unaccounted for here, I'm not really complaining all that much about it either. I'm merely saying that public education in this country has turned into a money pit which is not efficient and not good at educating. The reasons for this are varied, but it boils down to one simple thing, they have left their primary mission and made it something else. Now it's about securing funding from that program or fulfilling the social engineering rules from that law over there and actually educating students has fallen off the top of the priority list.
Detroit is a total mess you know and their public school system is a reflection of the same mess, loss of tax base, loss of students, loss of stability. I don't think I'd point to the Detroit schools as an example of how much it really costs us to provide public education, but no matter..
It's still a money pit. I have 2 students and one teacher and even with the opportunity costs of having my wife not work the $26,000 it cost my suburban public school price is way too high. I could have done it, and paid my wife for her part time job for less than that. The public schools around here have 20 to 1 student to teacher ratios, and nearly 15 to 1 student to staff ratios, they should be a whole lot more efficient at this than my 2 student operation.
However, I'd like to point out that there is a *reason* public schools are like the /dev/null of money streams. It's because they do a whole lot of things other than actual teaching of students. Much of that is not their fault, but is a direct result of the patchwork of laws, programs and grants that push social engineering stupidity onto the schools at the expense of education. It's about securing the various funding streams now, not educating kids. Their priorities are messed up.
Look, sorry if I offended you but you didn't read my whole post...
The only valid reason to play, IMHO, is for entertainment value, which is pretty limited. If you want to bet for entertainment, hit the blackjack tables after you learn the rules of how you play. Blackjack is a better deal because the entertainment lasts longer for the same cost, on average.
IF you get enjoyment out of playing the lottery and have money to spend on such entertainment, have fun, buy your tickets. You know what the odds mean and that you won't win but you enjoy the thrill making sure and finding that if you had matched ONE more number, they would have paid you $5.
However, you are not the target audience of lotteries. People like you don't buy that many tickets. People who are poor, don't have disposable income, who are inclined to make stupid financial decisions are the same folks who more often buying lottery tickets. It amounts to a tax on foolishness and stupidity.
I'm not so sure it's all that hard to do myself. I can imagine a number of ways which may allow you to take out a bit of randomness by adjusting the size and weight of things and stack the odds in a way you could profit from. How you could do such a thing without getting caught though is an issue, but I'm sure somebody is clever enough to work out that detail if they could engineer the necessary changes to the physical system.
Think of it as the same kind of gaming the system as card counting is in blackjack.. You don't rig the game to win all the time, you just want to win more than you loose over the long term. Win a little bit at a time... Just not so much you draw too much attention to yourself..
Depending on what kind of full time job you had to give up, it could have cost upwards of $50,000 or $100,000 per year for you to educate your 2 kids, given the opportunity cost. Don't get me wrong, I can think of lots of *good* reasons to home school your kids, but saving money isn't one of them.
And it wasn't my reason either.. I was simply saying that my little two student homeschool cost less per student than what gets spent per student at the big public school up the street and that the public school system is a money pit that really doesn't fulfill it's primary purpose anymore..
So your grandpa was a Lt Col and a Marine and that makes you an expert in Shotguns... Well excuse me Mr. Expert, obviously I'm not as well educated in firearms as you must be having grown up hunting with an Eagle scout raised by a career Army Sarget for a father... (sarcasm off)
You don't shoot airborne targets with slugs, you use shot, which is NOT very effective at even 100 yards... If you are hitting ducks with slugs at 150 yards (heck if you can hit them with SHOT at that distance), you need to drop this Slashdot gig and do some professional shooting. The pros generally shoot at under 60 yards in competition, you should find the experience easy given you are good enough to shoot out at 150 yards so well, just lead the target a bit more...
Come on, I'm not claiming to be an expert marksman, or even a good shooter, but I do know the physical limitations of the shotgun, what it was designed to do, what it can do, and what it cannot. Shooting an airborne target at 150 yards is clearly something that a shotgun cannot do effectively. Even at half that distance shotguns would be only somewhat effective in the hands of your average shooter, there is no way 150 yards is going to work.
This is why the lotto should stick to the time-proven technology of a giant cage of numbered balls rolling down a chute.
Like that's never been rigged....
So you're calling lottery players stupid. You seem nice.
If he's not, I will.
Lotteries are a tax on stupidity. I call them a foolishness tax. Because most who play the lottery are stupid fools who are just wasting their money.
The only valid reason to play, IMHO, is for entertainment value, which is pretty limited. If you want to bet for entertainment, hit the blackjack tables after you learn the rules of how you play. Blackjack is a better deal because the entertainment lasts longer for the same cost, on average.
What? Bit Coin?
How many criminals are smart enough to think long term like this? Not many I'm afraid...
So when this trusted friend claims the $14m and then decides to keep it all, what do you do then?
Find somebody else you trust and do it again.... Eventually you will find a honorable criminal to share the wealth with... Better yet, blackmail the winners by threatening to turn yourself in if they don't keep you flush with spending money.
He was going to get caught anyway, it was just a matter of time. ANYBODY who won the lottery who started transferring large sums of money to someone who currently or even used to work for the lottery is asking for a real close look by authorities.
They said it would benefit schools. Here we are 30 years later and our schools still struggle asking for donations of supplies.
Public schools are money pits. They will take as much money as you have and a few dollars more and provide just about the same level of education as they would on half the resources. They struggle because they have HUGE administrative costs and they are not effective at providing education because there is no incentive to perform.
I homeschooled my two children for about $800/year in supplies and about 4 hours a day of labor. We had a student to Teacher ratio of 2 to 1, spent only a fraction of what it cost at the local public school, and the kids got as good or better educations in the process. My results may not be typical, but my oldest is currently an honors student in college going after a PHD in Physics and my youngest seems to be on track to do better than the first.
First clue something was wrong was the winning number was 1-2-3-4-5-6.
Due, this was in C/C++... It was 0-1-2-3-4-5.....
Did he buy tickets with credit cards? Or he just couldn't find someone he trusted to not run away with the $14million?
The latter. You can't buy tickets with credit cards, because people are dumb and must be protected from their own dumb selves.
How untrue. We don't protect the dumb from theirselves... We DO have the lottery after all... I call it a tax on foolishness myself, but you can call it being dumb or stupid when people play..
Oh, so now you are talking sabotage? Yea, not going there myself... Maybe an assembly or handling error, but not what you are suggesting...
While there were a significant number of struts that failed at 6,000 lbs (3x what's needed) rather than the rated 10,000 lbs, only 1 in a batch of 1,000 struts failed at 2,000 lbs. They found a 0.1% failure rate. Random testing from a batch would not have found the needle in the haystack. SpaceX (Elon) has said they will test each and every strut now, not just a few.
Well testing found ONE, but the launch found another... You miss my point though. Their process allowed one of the two bad parts into flight ready hardware where it broke and cost them the vehicle. This is a process problem...
Want to know how I know you've never fired a real gun before?
Magnum slugs alone on an unchoked barrel can be accurate up to 150 yards.
You are wrong, I grew up hunting. I even did a bit of competitive shotgun shooting for a time, though I'm not that good.
You are not going to hit a small moving airborne target with slugs at 150 yards using a shot gun without making an extremely lucky shot. Shooting a stationary target with a shotgun slug at 150 yards is difficult in its own right, unless the target is the broad side of a barn.
I'm not so sure you know what you are talking about, but I wouldn't want to take bets on how much experience you have with firearms....