they're either salaried and expected to work more than 40 a week (Publix expects managers to clock 55+ a week, though they do pay managers quite well)...
or they're minimum wage (or low anyway) and working multiple jobs (which in itself is a feat of accomplishment, given how often low wage employers tend to make getting a 2nd job impossible by giving you a random inconsistent schedule).
impractical. designing for major events is pssible. we could make a totally earthquake building, one that could withstand the strongest hurricane or tornado.... but no one actually does it, because it was cost eleventy gajillion dollars. its not cost justifiable. the cost increases as a faster (exponential even) rate than the additional strength of the structure does.
its why structural engineers dont plan for the biggest flood ever, the biggest wind ever, or the biggest quake ever. they do statistical anallysis and plan for the 100 year flood (or sometimes 500 year flood), or equivalents for the other natural disasters, because that covers 99.99%.
all that said, in the midwest, youre going to be hard pressed to replace manufactured housing (note: different frm a trailer) becauwe when you get way out in the boonies, its just much easier to truck in a modular house that was assembled elsewhere than to have one built on site.
there is also the small matter of all the economic devatstation. both to the economy, and those displaced by the tornados. a tornado doesnt have to kill you to ruin your life.
its not a big fat no. its a "no, wait until we establish some reasonable rules and have some discussion".
That's the problem: everyone is tryng to stop the FAA frm even having the discussion to determine whats reasonable first. they just want to go build and lfy drones, and "safety and relilabilty concerns be damned, we'll figure it out as we go along". you have to make a decision about at which point you want regulations to take effect. is it based on operating altitude? vehicle size? you have to have these discussions. prefereably before people get hurt.
has nothing to do with clamping down on innovation, and the idea you think it does, and that a wild west everything goes style approach is preferable only reveals your ignorance. there was a reason the FAA was created. history teaches some hard lessons, if you would but pay attention.
these drones wont always be small. they wont always be at low altitude. you really think Amazon is going to operate a fleet in the 10s of millions of drones, all flying 1 package to 1 address? No. They're setting their sights on taking UPS and FedEx out of the equation, similar to how walmart internalized their logistics. We're talking about large scale UAVs as a parcel delivery device. an unmanned flying FedEx truck. that's where this is going.
also,re: "Amazon would have insurance": 2 comments: 1) I find your faith in a corporation doing the right thing, amusing 2) insurance against "bad things that may happen" is no wehere near as comforting as preventing the bad things frm happening in the first place. A check is kind of meaningless in a grave.
there is zero reason to take it as a given that commercial drones dont or wont operate in a given airspace.... certainly no technical reasons.... no, the only real reason would be if you make it part of the regulation of that class of aircraft... which is pretty much exactly the way the FFA fulfills their mission...
your analysis of the EPA is also flawed btw. and SCOTUS didnt not smack them down. w/e. youre still an idiot.
plus they consistantly fail to consider that (in the package example) we arent really talking about Amazon running tens of millions of drones.
That concept is simply not economical.
What we're talking about is the eventual creation of an automated flying UPS truck. The question is simply whether that will happen before driverless cars do, allowing the creation of an automated driving UPS truck. (But chances are both will happen, in order to service different shipping time requirements for customers)
Apparently the number of libertarian, small government leaning folks on/., and in tech in general, has exploded exponentially. It's almost as if they had no experience operating in a world with severaldozen competeing incompatible standards instead of a centralized industry standard that everyone can use.
No. Decentralization is NOT the answer. We dont need a patchwork of 50 million different airspace codes. And not all drones are your dinky little RC helicopter.
Face it, the economies of scale for 1 drone per package simply arent there. To be truly economical, for this to truly work, it has to operate in the same service-space as UPS and FedEx, and that means multiple packages per drone. Eve n if they do somehow get a 1 drone/package system off the ground, it just simply wont last, because costs and efficiency will be higher with the UPS model. Which basically means a flying automated UPS truck.
And that is no longer a small dinky little quadcopter, but very quickly approaching "fullsize" aircraft status.
And thus, the reason why all this nonsense about why "the FAA shouldnt be involved" is just that: Nonsense. The Federal Aviation Adminstration absolutely should be involved in the commercialization of UAVs from the very begining. All claims to the contrary are pure idiocy.
the potential energy of falling from a great hieght is significantly more threatening. plus humans somewhat evolved to detect threats on a horizaontal plane, not the vertical, so situational awareness is also at a disadvantage.
you're still trumping out that horriblly stupid idea that independent agencies have no power, regardless of what their founding mission was.
Its really simple. is it airspace? then the FAA regulates it. the navigable thing, should it go to higher courts, and it will, will be struck down. because its a meaningless canard. there is only 1 airspace. Different rules for different air levels, administered by different agencies is a recipe for disaster. its a classic scenario for where the best solution is the simplest: a single agency overseeing it, however they may choose to delegate it to subagencies, but bring everything under one overall roof for consistency and safety.
news/traffic/police choppers operate within the space you would say teh FFA cant control. its...you know what im not typing anymore. I'm too tired and your comments are too consistently stupid. you say an awful lot, the gist is nearly always the same, and wrong.
Constitutional exclusion doesnt have no effect. It most definitely does. But its not a blanket immunity either; its limited. The onyl way in which might be considered to have no effect, is because the POTUS has rarely tried to arrest them, specifically because of the potential to be construed as abuse, and the USC protects against such things.
there are many rights taken for granted that arent in the constitution explicitly, but that we expect as a fact of modern life. freedom of movement is one such fundamental human right.
work, family, whatever the situation, there are many things that may require travel, and may be time senstitive. the ability to travel quickly, which means via air, is the status quo in these situations. to be denied that, is to be denied a basic freedom of movement. yes you can still go by train or car, but these are so much slower, that they effectively become impractical. you become put at a disadvantage, particuarly economically ("you can't fly? no job for you"), emotionally ("tell dad not to die, it'll take me 3 days to get there on the road"), etc.
so while the USC may not explicitly grant a right to fly, the idea of a no fly list fundamentally afects how we can live our lives, and the quality of those lives. as such, there needs to be a very compelling government interest, as a representation of the people will to impose something upon ourselves, in doing so.
So what you're saying is, I should give your something extra for free....how about no. "the minimum to get paid"... thats called economics. free trade, etc. You want fair days work from me? You better pay me a fair days wage.
History. You should learn it sometime: There's a reason we instituted the 40 hours work week, and basically every other workplace/worker protection.
yes. a texas (oil state) researcher (funded by oil companies) thinks the reason the ice sheet is melting is underwater volcanos.
which totally explains why the ice sheet is losing mass from its boundaries and upper surface, instead of the bottom surface directly and in closest contact with said theorized volcanoes....totally logical right?
do your part to stop the spread of misinformation: stop posting.
Actually solyndra looked solid to both public and private investors. What nailed them and Abound Solar (think that was the other one) was the price dropping out hte bottom on solar panels because of China. The level of subsidy they poured in to their panel maker was rather unexpected by the global market being seen as an extremely remote possibility.
As for the conspiracy theories: no. Wasn't a handout. Wasn't a payoff. Those are long debunked myths.
Slashdot Mirror
they're either salaried and expected to work more than 40 a week (Publix expects managers to clock 55+ a week, though they do pay managers quite well)...
or they're minimum wage (or low anyway) and working multiple jobs (which in itself is a feat of accomplishment, given how often low wage employers tend to make getting a 2nd job impossible by giving you a random inconsistent schedule).
impractical.
designing for major events is pssible.
we could make a totally earthquake building, one that could withstand the strongest hurricane or tornado....
but no one actually does it, because it was cost eleventy gajillion dollars. its not cost justifiable. the cost increases as a faster (exponential even) rate than the additional strength of the structure does.
its why structural engineers dont plan for the biggest flood ever, the biggest wind ever, or the biggest quake ever.
they do statistical anallysis and plan for the 100 year flood (or sometimes 500 year flood), or equivalents for the other natural disasters, because that covers 99.99%.
all that said, in the midwest, youre going to be hard pressed to replace manufactured housing (note: different frm a trailer) becauwe when you get way out in the boonies, its just much easier to truck in a modular house that was assembled elsewhere than to have one built on site.
Along those lines, the Obligatory XKCD....and SMBC's Lifecycle of a Physicist
http://xkcd.com/793/
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id...
there is also the small matter of all the economic devatstation.
both to the economy, and those displaced by the tornados.
a tornado doesnt have to kill you to ruin your life.
Your data on Mexico is sorely lacking.
Basically nothing you said is true.
its not a big fat no. its a "no, wait until we establish some reasonable rules and have some discussion".
That's the problem: everyone is tryng to stop the FAA frm even having the discussion to determine whats reasonable first.
they just want to go build and lfy drones, and "safety and relilabilty concerns be damned, we'll figure it out as we go along".
you have to make a decision about at which point you want regulations to take effect. is it based on operating altitude? vehicle size? you have to have these discussions. prefereably before people get hurt.
has nothing to do with clamping down on innovation, and the idea you think it does, and that a wild west everything goes style approach is preferable only reveals your ignorance. there was a reason the FAA was created. history teaches some hard lessons, if you would but pay attention.
these drones wont always be small.
they wont always be at low altitude.
you really think Amazon is going to operate a fleet in the 10s of millions of drones, all flying 1 package to 1 address?
No. They're setting their sights on taking UPS and FedEx out of the equation, similar to how walmart internalized their logistics.
We're talking about large scale UAVs as a parcel delivery device. an unmanned flying FedEx truck. that's where this is going.
also,re: "Amazon would have insurance": 2 comments:
1) I find your faith in a corporation doing the right thing, amusing
2) insurance against "bad things that may happen" is no wehere near as comforting as preventing the bad things frm happening in the first place. A check is kind of meaningless in a grave.
there is zero reason to take it as a given that commercial drones dont or wont operate in a given airspace....
certainly no technical reasons....
no, the only real reason would be if you make it part of the regulation of that class of aircraft...
which is pretty much exactly the way the FFA fulfills their mission...
your analysis of the EPA is also flawed btw.
and SCOTUS didnt not smack them down.
w/e. youre still an idiot.
plus they consistantly fail to consider that (in the package example) we arent really talking about Amazon running tens of millions of drones.
That concept is simply not economical.
What we're talking about is the eventual creation of an automated flying UPS truck.
The question is simply whether that will happen before driverless cars do, allowing the creation of an automated driving UPS truck.
(But chances are both will happen, in order to service different shipping time requirements for customers)
Apparently the number of libertarian, small government leaning folks on /., and in tech in general, has exploded exponentially.
It's almost as if they had no experience operating in a world with severaldozen competeing incompatible standards instead of a centralized industry standard that everyone can use.
No. Decentralization is NOT the answer. We dont need a patchwork of 50 million different airspace codes.
And not all drones are your dinky little RC helicopter.
Face it, the economies of scale for 1 drone per package simply arent there.
To be truly economical, for this to truly work, it has to operate in the same service-space as UPS and FedEx, and that means multiple packages per drone. Eve n if they do somehow get a 1 drone/package system off the ground, it just simply wont last, because costs and efficiency will be higher with the UPS model. Which basically means a flying automated UPS truck.
And that is no longer a small dinky little quadcopter, but very quickly approaching "fullsize" aircraft status.
And thus, the reason why all this nonsense about why "the FAA shouldnt be involved" is just that: Nonsense.
The Federal Aviation Adminstration absolutely should be involved in the commercialization of UAVs from the very begining.
All claims to the contrary are pure idiocy.
the potential energy of falling from a great hieght is significantly more threatening. plus humans somewhat evolved to detect threats on a horizaontal plane, not the vertical, so situational awareness is also at a disadvantage.
ya, god forbid we demand safety and reliabilty first.
those are obviously things for the market to sort out!
you're still trumping out that horriblly stupid idea that independent agencies have no power, regardless of what their founding mission was.
Its really simple.
is it airspace?
then the FAA regulates it.
the navigable thing, should it go to higher courts, and it will, will be struck down. because its a meaningless canard.
there is only 1 airspace. Different rules for different air levels, administered by different agencies is a recipe for disaster. its a classic scenario for where the best solution is the simplest: a single agency overseeing it, however they may choose to delegate it to subagencies, but bring everything under one overall roof for consistency and safety.
news/traffic/police choppers operate within the space you would say teh FFA cant control.
its...you know what im not typing anymore. I'm too tired and your comments are too consistently stupid. you say an awful lot, the gist is nearly always the same, and wrong.
Constitutional exclusion doesnt have no effect.
It most definitely does.
But its not a blanket immunity either; its limited.
The onyl way in which might be considered to have no effect, is because the POTUS has rarely tried to arrest them, specifically because of the potential to be construed as abuse, and the USC protects against such things.
there are many rights taken for granted that arent in the constitution explicitly, but that we expect as a fact of modern life.
freedom of movement is one such fundamental human right.
work, family, whatever the situation, there are many things that may require travel, and may be time senstitive. the ability to travel quickly, which means via air, is the status quo in these situations. to be denied that, is to be denied a basic freedom of movement. yes you can still go by train or car, but these are so much slower, that they effectively become impractical. you become put at a disadvantage, particuarly economically ("you can't fly? no job for you"), emotionally ("tell dad not to die, it'll take me 3 days to get there on the road"), etc.
so while the USC may not explicitly grant a right to fly, the idea of a no fly list fundamentally afects how we can live our lives, and the quality of those lives. as such, there needs to be a very compelling government interest, as a representation of the people will to impose something upon ourselves, in doing so.
Rush hour in atlanta.
(Ugh...never going back)
We need more mass transit.
More cities with GOOD metro lines.
High speed commuter rail.
Etc.
So what you're saying is, I should give your something extra for free....how about no. ... thats called economics. free trade, etc.
"the minimum to get paid"
You want fair days work from me? You better pay me a fair days wage.
History. You should learn it sometime: There's a reason we instituted the 40 hours work week, and basically every other workplace/worker protection.
That's why we need more mandatory paid time off, like almost every other developed nation.
Facts are not trolling.
Stop abusing mod points.
Ma, the anti union troll is talking again.
RTFS
yes. a texas (oil state) researcher (funded by oil companies) thinks the reason the ice sheet is melting is underwater volcanos.
which totally explains why the ice sheet is losing mass from its boundaries and upper surface, instead of the bottom surface directly and in closest contact with said theorized volcanoes....totally logical right?
do your part to stop the spread of misinformation: stop posting.
note, this is not a troll post.
stop abusing mod points.
Actually solyndra looked solid to both public and private investors. What nailed them and Abound Solar (think that was the other one) was the price dropping out hte bottom on solar panels because of China. The level of subsidy they poured in to their panel maker was rather unexpected by the global market being seen as an extremely remote possibility.
As for the conspiracy theories: no. Wasn't a handout. Wasn't a payoff. Those are long debunked myths.
Government is us.
So yes it cares.
I dont know what civics lessons they taught you, but they were obviously lacking on content.