I have a similar drone. You can easily spend 20 seconds simply by checking the control settings (like turning on the "multiple flight mode") inside the remote control app. Especially if this was one of the first flights.
OK, can you do that over your own yard, or do you need to fly it a few yards away and hover over someone else's? In this case, the drone was making a return trip to the yard, btw.
So you'd destroy someone's property on the chance that they might be recording you? Do you ask everyone who approaches you to put away their cellphones? Sheesh.
Another stupid response. We are not talking about taking video of a public area, we are talking about taking video of people in the privacy of their back yard. Do you not understand the difference?
I get the gun thing, he shot a gun in a residential area. He should not have. But you seem to excuse the drone operators actions simply because of you position on guns.
That is a long time. It certainly is not just a fly over. If I am in my yard and a drone comes and hovers with a camera on me for 20 seconds, I would not be happy.
does it really matter? so i speed over your property at 30MPH with a 60fps camera. i can review every fine detail of the flyover.
So, you are saying it is OK to film a family in their private back yard? I would say no, it doesn't make that much of a difference, any filming is an invasion of privacy, but to purposely hover and capture video of me in my private backyard is worse than unintentionally capturing a clip in a fly by.
So if someone is fiddling with their smartphone for more than 20 seconds, do you shoot them? They could be filming you after all.
That is simply a stupid response. Did I say anything to indicate that I would shoot someone? Do you understand the difference between destroying an object and shooting a person, and how you cannot compare the two with any sense of reason?
I would be happy to destroy the smartphone of someone who entered my private backyard and started taking video of me and my family. I would not harm the person.
The method the person used to destroy the drone does not excuse the actions of the drone operator, as you seem to think it should.
Its personal opinion how long is too long. There is no right answer. In this case, the drone visited more than one time, and hovered for long enough on its last trip to disturb someone. IMHO, 20 seconds means it is intentionally watching you and your property, not from the road, but in your private back yard.
I don't understand the drone love around here. It is the camera that is the issue.
22 seconds is quite a long time to hover over private property. It is legal to shoot firearms in my neighborhood - I would have shot it down too.
That is a long time. It certainly is not just a fly over. If I am in my yard and a drone comes and hovers with a camera on me for 20 seconds, I would not be happy.
Do these people want us to go back to the Stone Age? Because that's what's going to happen.
These people are opposed to any progress that might actually solve the problems we face, which only leaves us with the option of going backwards.
Fear, lack of understanding, and skewed risk perception. Society has a hard time accepting new things. I remember fear of microwave ovens when they first came out. Unfortunately there is a lack of objective and qualified reporters to help move things along.
At some point, it is going to be up to the content providers to help improve things. I don't mind ads that are static, fit the theme of the content, and load quickly. But animated GIFs and video ads, effing overlays or things that make my page load slow to a crawl are only compelling people to use ad-blockers.
IF you want to get ads in front of me, just cache static ads and deliver with the rest of the page content without making the content unreadable.
They have an extremely healthy positive operating margin of over 20% per car (well better than the industry at large).
You should be careful with such a generic statement. Most other car manufacturers include product specific R&D, overhead, and sales in their margins. There are different acceptable accounting practices, and so comparing apples to apples can't be done without a little digging and pointing out the differences. It appears that Tesla does not include administrative overhead nor sales and marketing in their operating margin calculation, which I think is kind of odd, but that's Wall Street for you. If you include everything but R&D, they are closer to break even.
Tesla's solution to running short on cash is, and has always been, to sell equity. Which is a common approach to startups, and they're still really in a sort of startup mode. It works fine, so long as others think that their plans after scaleup will be profitable. And so far there seems to be plenty of investors who think so.
They also need the stock price to stay high so they can easily raise capital. So the bigger problem is not margin, but it is in missing projections, both in cost and in sales. If you miss your target projections, stock prices will take a hit. A 10 percent drop in sales from projected is pretty bad, not only from a credibility standpoint, but also from a marginal cost of production standpoint. The one thing Tesla has working in its favor is low inventory, so at least they are not likely to get caught in that trap near term. If sales were to drop a lot the next few quarters, they may start seeing inventory issues and greater pricing pressure.
Sales and admin overhead directly related to building and selling Teslas should be counted in their gross profit. It makes sense to keep R&D and separate.
So, now you are moving to assuming the equipment is not capable, nor the operators. Again, that comes not from any insight or understanding, but more from lack of knowledge and misconceptions. It is quite easy to operate radiological test equipment.
Still stuck on your subjectiveness, aren't you. I don't see anything in this post above that is thought out as far as a scientific risk.
I am confident that eating the food is fine because I understand the levels we are dealing with and just how low risk it is. You can call me stupid, but you clearly are the one here that does not understand the underlying methods. You have demonstrated it multiple times in our conversation. And instead of admitting you really don't have the knowledge, you just retreat and call me stupid. Very scientific of you.
You have been clearly influenced by nuclear FUD, and don't even realize it.
You really think detecting the radioactivity from a micro-gram of any radioisotope is difficult? Common lab equipment these days can detect molecules in parts per trillion.
You also need to learn a little more about the transport mechanisms that are in play. You don't get clumping, you have fairly steady dispersion of trace elements. It is easy to do sample testing of areas. Some things like mushroom will collect cesium, those mechanisms are well understood, but you won't just get a high concentration, and I would consider micrograms a huge concentration by comparison, of plutonium. For the samples testing, micrograms are still too big a scale
I'm still chuckling about hour kilograms of plutonium question. Its like asking how many miles long you fingers are. It shows a lack of appreciation of scale, just the kind of thing I have been talking about with regard to risk perception.
You can easily detect even a remotely unsafe concentration of plutonium or radioactive source from quite some distance.
And so, you asked me to cite the methods being used.. and only now you are telling me that you are not aware of have not even looked in to that? How is you ignore such a central thing in your so called "scientific" analysis? Let me know if you really ignored that when making your claims please.
You're spending almost $1000/month on a car and don't think that it would be possible for a service to make that cheaper? I bike most places and take taxis everywhere else and spend a fraction of that - even taking a taxi with a human driver to and from work every day and would be cheaper than you're spending.
He's showing a total cost of $0.45/km. You can get Taxis for a fraction of that?
They will really take off when renting an SDC becomes cheaper than owning a private car. Since private cars spend 96% of their time parked, that should happen very soon after SDCs become street legal.
Driving all the time may not reduce the cost as much as some may thing because it also increases the maintenance cost rate and shortens the life of the vehicle in proportion, an offset to sharing savings. Depreciation losses are most significant early in a car's ownership cycle.
Isotope content is proportional to level of radioactivity. That is why they use that method to screen. Its not that hard to understand. It is the most effective way to measure. The content is under the limits. Your question of how many kilograms of plutonium are in the food is a prime indicator of your ignorance, as there was likely less than 55 grams in total released to atmosphere. Intensive screening plant and ground testing throughout the district shows plutonium contamination is quite minimal (that might be an overstatement, but I'll be conservative). Even with that, screening ensures it is not a problem.
I have ignored no facts, you just like to present only partial info and claim you do not have enough info to judge safety when there are clear standards and methods to do so and they are being followed.
I hate to inform you that similar methods are used to screen toxins from foods we all eat regularly.
Slashdot Mirror
No self-respecting cyclist drunk will ever voluntarily purchase one of these,
This product is worthy of a Lance Armstrong endorsement.
I have a similar drone. You can easily spend 20 seconds simply by checking the control settings (like turning on the "multiple flight mode") inside the remote control app. Especially if this was one of the first flights.
OK, can you do that over your own yard, or do you need to fly it a few yards away and hover over someone else's? In this case, the drone was making a return trip to the yard, btw.
So you'd destroy someone's property on the chance that they might be recording you? Do you ask everyone who approaches you to put away their cellphones? Sheesh.
Another stupid response. We are not talking about taking video of a public area, we are talking about taking video of people in the privacy of their back yard. Do you not understand the difference?
I get the gun thing, he shot a gun in a residential area. He should not have. But you seem to excuse the drone operators actions simply because of you position on guns.
That is a long time. It certainly is not just a fly over. If I am in my yard and a drone comes and hovers with a camera on me for 20 seconds, I would not be happy.
does it really matter? so i speed over your property at 30MPH with a 60fps camera. i can review every fine detail of the flyover.
So, you are saying it is OK to film a family in their private back yard? I would say no, it doesn't make that much of a difference, any filming is an invasion of privacy, but to purposely hover and capture video of me in my private backyard is worse than unintentionally capturing a clip in a fly by.
So if someone is fiddling with their smartphone for more than 20 seconds, do you shoot them? They could be filming you after all.
That is simply a stupid response. Did I say anything to indicate that I would shoot someone? Do you understand the difference between destroying an object and shooting a person, and how you cannot compare the two with any sense of reason?
I would be happy to destroy the smartphone of someone who entered my private backyard and started taking video of me and my family. I would not harm the person.
The method the person used to destroy the drone does not excuse the actions of the drone operator, as you seem to think it should.
Its personal opinion how long is too long. There is no right answer. In this case, the drone visited more than one time, and hovered for long enough on its last trip to disturb someone. IMHO, 20 seconds means it is intentionally watching you and your property, not from the road, but in your private back yard.
I don't understand the drone love around here. It is the camera that is the issue.
22 seconds is quite a long time to hover over private property. It is legal to shoot firearms in my neighborhood - I would have shot it down too.
That is a long time. It certainly is not just a fly over. If I am in my yard and a drone comes and hovers with a camera on me for 20 seconds, I would not be happy.
You must be fucking old.
At some point, you're just glad to be fucking anything.
Do these people want us to go back to the Stone Age? Because that's what's going to happen.
These people are opposed to any progress that might actually solve the problems we face, which only leaves us with the option of going backwards.
Fear, lack of understanding, and skewed risk perception. Society has a hard time accepting new things. I remember fear of microwave ovens when they first came out. Unfortunately there is a lack of objective and qualified reporters to help move things along.
At some point, it is going to be up to the content providers to help improve things. I don't mind ads that are static, fit the theme of the content, and load quickly. But animated GIFs and video ads, effing overlays or things that make my page load slow to a crawl are only compelling people to use ad-blockers.
IF you want to get ads in front of me, just cache static ads and deliver with the rest of the page content without making the content unreadable.
They have an extremely healthy positive operating margin of over 20% per car (well better than the industry at large).
You should be careful with such a generic statement. Most other car manufacturers include product specific R&D, overhead, and sales in their margins. There are different acceptable accounting practices, and so comparing apples to apples can't be done without a little digging and pointing out the differences. It appears that Tesla does not include administrative overhead nor sales and marketing in their operating margin calculation, which I think is kind of odd, but that's Wall Street for you. If you include everything but R&D, they are closer to break even.
Tesla's solution to running short on cash is, and has always been, to sell equity. Which is a common approach to startups, and they're still really in a sort of startup mode. It works fine, so long as others think that their plans after scaleup will be profitable. And so far there seems to be plenty of investors who think so.
They also need the stock price to stay high so they can easily raise capital. So the bigger problem is not margin, but it is in missing projections, both in cost and in sales. If you miss your target projections, stock prices will take a hit. A 10 percent drop in sales from projected is pretty bad, not only from a credibility standpoint, but also from a marginal cost of production standpoint. The one thing Tesla has working in its favor is low inventory, so at least they are not likely to get caught in that trap near term. If sales were to drop a lot the next few quarters, they may start seeing inventory issues and greater pricing pressure.
Sales and admin overhead directly related to building and selling Teslas should be counted in their gross profit. It makes sense to keep R&D and separate.
So, now you are moving to assuming the equipment is not capable, nor the operators. Again, that comes not from any insight or understanding, but more from lack of knowledge and misconceptions. It is quite easy to operate radiological test equipment.
Still stuck on your subjectiveness, aren't you. I don't see anything in this post above that is thought out as far as a scientific risk.
I am confident that eating the food is fine because I understand the levels we are dealing with and just how low risk it is. You can call me stupid, but you clearly are the one here that does not understand the underlying methods. You have demonstrated it multiple times in our conversation. And instead of admitting you really don't have the knowledge, you just retreat and call me stupid. Very scientific of you.
You have been clearly influenced by nuclear FUD, and don't even realize it.
But, we have seen plenty of disruption on PCs in a smaller scale, but essentially zero on gas pumps, and there are a hell of a lot of them out there.
You really think detecting the radioactivity from a micro-gram of any radioisotope is difficult? Common lab equipment these days can detect molecules in parts per trillion.
You also need to learn a little more about the transport mechanisms that are in play. You don't get clumping, you have fairly steady dispersion of trace elements. It is easy to do sample testing of areas. Some things like mushroom will collect cesium, those mechanisms are well understood, but you won't just get a high concentration, and I would consider micrograms a huge concentration by comparison, of plutonium. For the samples testing, micrograms are still too big a scale
I'm still chuckling about hour kilograms of plutonium question. Its like asking how many miles long you fingers are. It shows a lack of appreciation of scale, just the kind of thing I have been talking about with regard to risk perception.
You can easily detect even a remotely unsafe concentration of plutonium or radioactive source from quite some distance.
And so, you asked me to cite the methods being used.. and only now you are telling me that you are not aware of have not even looked in to that? How is you ignore such a central thing in your so called "scientific" analysis? Let me know if you really ignored that when making your claims please.
How do we know if someone is a terrorist?
They could be just pretending...
If one pretends to be a terrorist, then they may see the consequences of being utterly stupid.
You'd think we would see some actual disruption. Seems like pumps have adequate protection thus far.
You're spending almost $1000/month on a car and don't think that it would be possible for a service to make that cheaper? I bike most places and take taxis everywhere else and spend a fraction of that - even taking a taxi with a human driver to and from work every day and would be cheaper than you're spending.
He's showing a total cost of $0.45/km. You can get Taxis for a fraction of that?
They will really take off when renting an SDC becomes cheaper than owning a private car. Since private cars spend 96% of their time parked, that should happen very soon after SDCs become street legal.
Driving all the time may not reduce the cost as much as some may thing because it also increases the maintenance cost rate and shortens the life of the vehicle in proportion, an offset to sharing savings. Depreciation losses are most significant early in a car's ownership cycle.
Isotope content is proportional to level of radioactivity. That is why they use that method to screen. Its not that hard to understand. It is the most effective way to measure. The content is under the limits. Your question of how many kilograms of plutonium are in the food is a prime indicator of your ignorance, as there was likely less than 55 grams in total released to atmosphere. Intensive screening plant and ground testing throughout the district shows plutonium contamination is quite minimal (that might be an overstatement, but I'll be conservative). Even with that, screening ensures it is not a problem.
I have ignored no facts, you just like to present only partial info and claim you do not have enough info to judge safety when there are clear standards and methods to do so and they are being followed.
I hate to inform you that similar methods are used to screen toxins from foods we all eat regularly.
I wasn't really being serious.
2 Wives! Lol. Now, that is the next generous benefit NF should pursue, healthcare coverage for multiple spouses.
Yes, its amazing someone would argue that point, isn't it?