My experience flying around suburbia is that it’s the other way around. Birds will attack your drone if you get too close, so if you fancy landing in one piece, it’s best to stay the hell away from them. Plus, it is already illegal to intentionally harass wildlife.
Sorry your reading comprehension let you down, but I specifically wrote that I wanted a compromise. In this context, it means “looking at the issue from both sides and coming up with a solution that allows each side to get some of what they want.
As an example, my local mall has karaoke night every Friday. Between the horrible food court acoustics and the tone-deaf singers, it’s far worse than listening to the buzz of a drone. Know what I do? I don’t go to the mall on Friday in the evening. Perhaps this “scheduling” concept could’ve been applied to drone use as well. But hey, these are the same people who can’t figure out if you leave parks open without staff, they’ll start overflowing with garbage.
Seems rather fitting that they're filling up garbage and literal shit under Trump's watch. It's just one more mess that will have to be cleaned up in the wake of this idiotic administration.
Personally, I lost all interest in national parks when the powers that be decided they can't come to some compromise between the people who want to fly photography drones and the people who are annoyed by the buzzing noise, so they just banned drones. I could give two shits and a fuck about walking around and enjoying "nature", I just wanted to photograph something other than the dumpster behind Walmart, but no... Stupid lawmakers.
Far cheaper as well, at $0.11 it costs about as much as 2-3 gallons of gas to charge a Tesla from completely flat.
According to the EPA sticker on the Model 3, the estimated savings is $4,500 over 5 years. If the objective is purely to save money, a cheaper car still wins hands down.
The Prius was used as an example because the battery packs are showing that they are outlasting the idiot naysayers like yourself by leaps and bounds.
Being utilized in a hybrid, the Prius batteries aren't subject to the same usage patterns as an EV. We already do know what happens to EV batteries when they're run hard with improper cooling - older Nissan Leafs have extremely poor resale value due to suffering extreme battery degradation. It is also reasonable to assume that since the lithium battery technology used in current generation EVs is similar to battery technology used in portable electronics, that expecting them to last well over a decade (again, the average vehicle age in the USA) might be a bit too optimistic.
Which is a strawman argument. Just because you can spend as much on an ICE vehicle as an EV, it doesn't change the fact that new EVs start at approximately double the cost of the cheapest ICE car. The cheapest new ICE car is the 2019 Nissan Versa S Sedan at a MSRP of $13,255.
"Range anxiety" is a non issue for the vast majority
Knowing you can just stop almost anywhere and quickly fill up is like having insurance. It's comforting to know it's there, even if most of the time you don't need it.
Given that there are early gen Prius
The Prius is a hybrid, and can still limp along on its ICE if the battery is depleted. The average age of a car in the USA is 11.6 years. Most lithium batteries will be shot to shit at that point.
So, you can stop with the FUD and bullshit about electric cars
I'd love nothing more than to see the technology become truly affordable and match ICE vehicles for longevity. We're not even close to that point, yet.
A lot of them just seem to enjoy upsetting "liberals", in the broadest possible sense.
Your typical "liberal" probably drives around in a Craigslist beater that burns almost as much oil as it does gas. I'd venture a guess most Tesla owners in areas where there are a lot of "good ol' boys" are just as conservative as the idiots blocking their charging station. You don't get to be that successful by asking Uncle Sam to take more of your hard-earned money.
The inevitable EV revolution is being attacked on many fronts.
There is no great conspiracy against EVs. It's a combination of:
Range anxiety. They're too damn expensive to build, compared to ICE vehicles. Electricity isn't cheap (especially so, if you buy it from a charging station) enough to make a quick ROI. In most of the USA, electricity generation isn't particularly "green". Used EVs don't become really affordable (compared to an ICE vehicle of the same vintage) until the batteries have become sufficiently degraded.
It's a market friendly solution to pollution but wouldn't you know it there are people who are against accepting personal responsibility for their own actions.
So, people living paycheck-to-paycheck have to pay more for gas? I suppose that means less food for their kids, because "Sorry little Billy, we've gotta save the planet!".
Look, I'm all for environmental stewardship, but do it in a way that doesn't fuck up the standard of living for people who are struggling to get by. Perhaps, oh, I don't know, maybe find a way to make the 1%ers pay for it? Those who derived the biggest benefits from society should bear the lion's share of the financial burden to maintain it. I know, not a popular idea in the USA where we're more inclined to punish the poor for their failure to be successful, than require the rich to give back a bit of their success.
This is explicit evidence that the phase out of the tax credit is justified.
You actually can witness this shit every time eBay does one of their "X% Off Everything!" coupons. The sellers jack up the prices proportionally. Subsidizing the cost of things in a free market doesn't actually make them cheaper.
the goal of the tax credits was to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs.
Giving rich people a tax breaks on electric cars is just crony capitalism. The government should only step in when the free market has completely failed (healthcare/drug costs, monopolies, those sorts of things).
The iPhone has been jack-less since the 7. The iPhone jumped the shark with the X - when Apple decided to go fucking nuts with the "flagship" model starting at $1k, and they haven't looked back.
Dare I say it, the other problem with the X and later models, is that the iPhone has ceased to be intuitive to operate. You have to just know where/how you're supposed to swipe to make stuff happen, and Steve Jobs is probably spinning in his grave. I'm sure this has put off a lot of the older generations from upgrading.
There were no deals which would have avoided me paying a monthly fee on top of my mobile service costs.
This is exactly what bit Apple in the ass. The carriers got greedy and spun it like they were doing you a favor ("No contracts! No more ETFs!"), when in reality it just enabled them to jack up the costs of the phones (since now you're generally financing the full MSRP). And yeah, initially the cost of service did go down, but looking at today's plan prices, we seem to be right back to where we started back when carriers used to give you a new flagship phone for $200 with contract - except now you don't get the discounted phone.
Oh come on, you don't think every Alt-Righter and SJW salivates at the thought of the power to completely cut someone off from economically interacting with society?
Our entire economy is based on people pushing imaginary numbers from place to place. If those numbers could suddenly vanish, it would undermine faith in the entire system.
To people with bigger imaginary numbers in their accounts, the public faith in those numbers is their power. You truly believe they'd want to fuck that up?
Because you just take it out of a box and put batteries in it and use it to create Youtube videos for revenue.
That bird has flown. It's difficult enough to monetize YouTube videos even if you're producing content people want to watch. Without the knowledge and luck required to become a successful content producer, a drone will just be tits on a bull.
Video game streaming is the same way - a few people do make money doing it, but the majority don't.
However, as I said, I'm guessing NYPD may use one a bit larger, not the popular $1,000-$2,000 ones like the DJ Mavic or Phantom.
This article claims the drone will be operated away from crowds and tethered to a building. Essentially, they could've accomplished the same thing with a camera on a pole, but methinks NYPD is just anxious to play with their new toys.
Though cash can be stolen, it is way more difficult for "authorities" or whoever to revoke remotely.
Paranoid much?
It's far more likely some crackhead will mug you for the cash in your wallet, than your tin-foil-hat scenario (the secret government will seize my bank account, oh noes!) ever transpiring.
Times Square on New Year's Eve has always been a shitshow made for ignorant tourists.
I honestly had no idea, but yeah, after reading this, it's definitely off my bucket list. Quote from the local NY ABC news:
Officers will also install over 200 cement blocks in addition to more permanent metal bollards in and around Times Square.
More than 50 canine teams will survey the crowds on alert for explosive material.
These teams will include the newly added German Shepherds and Malinoises.
For the first time, the NYPD will deploy its new fleet of drones to keep watch over the festivities.
Those attending the festivities will face multiple screening points. Certain items are prohibited, including backpacks, large bags, umbrellas, and alcohol.
Property may not be left checkpoints. At approximately 11 a.m., attendees will be directed by police officers to gather in separate viewing pens. As the pens get populated, the entertainment from 43rd Street between Sixth and Eighth Avenues will continue to move north up to Central Park, due to the ball drop from the southern end. Please note, attendees who leave before the ball drops will not be able to regain entry to their original viewing area.
Dear God, that is some serious dystopian shit right there. You'll be sniffed by dogs, herded into holding pens, and watched by drones. You can't even celebrate the new year with a glass of champagne. Damn it New York, the movie Demolition Man wasn't supposed to be a how-to guide.
You rent your home full of your stuff to a total stranger. What do you expect?
Most of the shit rich people have in their mansion ends up going for pennies on the dollar, if they have to liquidate it. Get someone to trash your house/steal your stuff and insurance picks up the tab. This whole thing smells exactly like when people stage a car accident (for the insurance money).
I can't imagine their finances were that stable to begin with, if they were having to rent the place out.
very few people would buy a product that doesn't have a 3.5mm port, and the demand would be filled by other manufacturers
You're not factoring in that for many people, it's not a dealbreaker. I primarily listen to music in my car or at home, and in both places Bluetooth is more convenient than cords. The pair of headphones I own (Samsung Level On), I charge roughly twice a month. They don't get much use because I don't listen to music on headphones as much, now that I'm pushing 40.
This has nothing to do with religious puritans, and is very much the work of the social justice crowd.
Tumblr getting out of porn sounds like a great business opportunity for someone who wants to take their place. I'm sure there's a Ferengi Rule of Acquisition for that.
Which is fine if you're 18 and living at your parents place. If you're pushing 40 and feel like an old dog who doesn't want to learn any new tricks, it comes across as condescending.
Granted, Trump's "MAGA" was a bullshit snake oil pitch, but some people would just rather hear the fairy tale where you go back to work in the coal mine, rather than the one where you get to star in your own remake of Billy Madison.
Most of the people who vote (R) aren't doing so because they believe themselves to be part of the privileged few. They believe the Democrats are going to take more of what little they do earn, and give it to people who (in their view) don't deserve it.
Even though I support the lesser of the evils in our two party system, I'm not blind to the idiocy which frequently comes from the left almost as often as it does from the right. A few examples:
Cash for clunkers - Didn't benefit me at all, because the vehicle I wanted to trade in was 1 MPG too efficient to qualify, even though the vehicle I wanted to purchase (a compact economy car) would've resulted in a larger net benefit to the environment, versus the hypothetical situation of someone trading in a vehicle which did qualify, towards the purchase of another gas guzzling SUV. The program didn't take into account fuel efficiency gains of what you intended to purchase, only the inefficiency of your trade-in.
Solar tax rebates - A nice handout to the rich who could afford to have photovoltaics installed on their home.
EV tax rebates - Another handout to the rich. The average hard working American can't afford this shit, with or without the rebate.
The ACA (Obamacare) - Crony capitalism meets healthcare. It is absolutely abhorrent to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the cost of private insurance, and penalizing people on their taxes if they refused to purchase what is essentially a commercial product truly is unconstitutional. This would be like the RIAA getting a law passed requiring a penalty be paid if you're not subscribed to Spotify/Apple Music/Pandora/etc., because their business model can only work if everyone pays!
Now here's the part where I say despite all this, I still hold my nose and vote (D), because the Republican party's disregard for the environment, moronic trade policies, and pandering to the "religious right" bothers me much more than misuse of my tax dollars (which the Republican party is presently doing in true "hold my beer!" style, anyway).
If you want openness, you just go and get an Android -- which has long ceased to be an inferior option.
Openness on Android just means more businesses are able to vie for your money and/or personal information. Most smartphone manufacturers lock down the bootloader to prevent you from modifying the OS, and some (Samsung's phones sold in the USA comes to mind) don't even allow you to unlock it.
Even if you do unlock your bootloader and root your phone, Google's SafetyNet API necessitates all sort of nasty hacks to retain any semblance of usability, since these days many apps refuse to run in an insecure environment. If you want your smartphone to "just work", chances are, you're not going to be hacking it anyway. iOS has workarounds for side-loading apps, so the difference between walled gardens is academic at this point. The battle for an truly open mobile OS has been lost.
Why are the people in the "Bluetooth" camp always making this out as though we have to choose one or the other?
That wasn't the implication. I was postulating as to why manufacturers don't see removing the headphone jack as a problem: its absence is not a deal-breaker for most users. Even though plenty of people still smoke, most cars don't come with ash trays these days, either. It's just part of modern design aesthetics to remove superfluous elements.
Slashdot Mirror
Drones can scare off birds
My experience flying around suburbia is that it’s the other way around. Birds will attack your drone if you get too close, so if you fancy landing in one piece, it’s best to stay the hell away from them. Plus, it is already illegal to intentionally harass wildlife.
So let me get this straight...
Sorry your reading comprehension let you down, but I specifically wrote that I wanted a compromise. In this context, it means “looking at the issue from both sides and coming up with a solution that allows each side to get some of what they want.
As an example, my local mall has karaoke night every Friday. Between the horrible food court acoustics and the tone-deaf singers, it’s far worse than listening to the buzz of a drone. Know what I do? I don’t go to the mall on Friday in the evening. Perhaps this “scheduling” concept could’ve been applied to drone use as well. But hey, these are the same people who can’t figure out if you leave parks open without staff, they’ll start overflowing with garbage.
Seems rather fitting that they're filling up garbage and literal shit under Trump's watch. It's just one more mess that will have to be cleaned up in the wake of this idiotic administration.
Personally, I lost all interest in national parks when the powers that be decided they can't come to some compromise between the people who want to fly photography drones and the people who are annoyed by the buzzing noise, so they just banned drones. I could give two shits and a fuck about walking around and enjoying "nature", I just wanted to photograph something other than the dumpster behind Walmart, but no... Stupid lawmakers.
Nope, guess again redneck
I was born well north of the Mason–Dixon line, but thanks for playing the "irrelevant personal attack" card.
the average new car price in the US last was $36,978
The average is skewed by wealth inequality in the US. The average middle class American can't afford a new car priced at the median average.
Far cheaper as well, at $0.11 it costs about as much as 2-3 gallons of gas to charge a Tesla from completely flat.
According to the EPA sticker on the Model 3, the estimated savings is $4,500 over 5 years. If the objective is purely to save money, a cheaper car still wins hands down.
The Prius was used as an example because the battery packs are showing that they are outlasting the idiot naysayers like yourself by leaps and bounds.
Being utilized in a hybrid, the Prius batteries aren't subject to the same usage patterns as an EV. We already do know what happens to EV batteries when they're run hard with improper cooling - older Nissan Leafs have extremely poor resale value due to suffering extreme battery degradation. It is also reasonable to assume that since the lithium battery technology used in current generation EVs is similar to battery technology used in portable electronics, that expecting them to last well over a decade (again, the average vehicle age in the USA) might be a bit too optimistic.
Plenty of gas cars cost more than a base model 3.
Which is a strawman argument. Just because you can spend as much on an ICE vehicle as an EV, it doesn't change the fact that new EVs start at approximately double the cost of the cheapest ICE car. The cheapest new ICE car is the 2019 Nissan Versa S Sedan at a MSRP of $13,255.
"Range anxiety" is a non issue for the vast majority
Knowing you can just stop almost anywhere and quickly fill up is like having insurance. It's comforting to know it's there, even if most of the time you don't need it.
Given that there are early gen Prius
The Prius is a hybrid, and can still limp along on its ICE if the battery is depleted. The average age of a car in the USA is 11.6 years. Most lithium batteries will be shot to shit at that point.
So, you can stop with the FUD and bullshit about electric cars
I'd love nothing more than to see the technology become truly affordable and match ICE vehicles for longevity. We're not even close to that point, yet.
A lot of them just seem to enjoy upsetting "liberals", in the broadest possible sense.
Your typical "liberal" probably drives around in a Craigslist beater that burns almost as much oil as it does gas. I'd venture a guess most Tesla owners in areas where there are a lot of "good ol' boys" are just as conservative as the idiots blocking their charging station. You don't get to be that successful by asking Uncle Sam to take more of your hard-earned money.
The inevitable EV revolution is being attacked on many fronts.
There is no great conspiracy against EVs. It's a combination of:
Range anxiety.
They're too damn expensive to build, compared to ICE vehicles.
Electricity isn't cheap (especially so, if you buy it from a charging station) enough to make a quick ROI.
In most of the USA, electricity generation isn't particularly "green".
Used EVs don't become really affordable (compared to an ICE vehicle of the same vintage) until the batteries have become sufficiently degraded.
It's a market friendly solution to pollution but wouldn't you know it there are people who are against accepting personal responsibility for their own actions.
So, people living paycheck-to-paycheck have to pay more for gas? I suppose that means less food for their kids, because "Sorry little Billy, we've gotta save the planet!".
Look, I'm all for environmental stewardship, but do it in a way that doesn't fuck up the standard of living for people who are struggling to get by. Perhaps, oh, I don't know, maybe find a way to make the 1%ers pay for it? Those who derived the biggest benefits from society should bear the lion's share of the financial burden to maintain it. I know, not a popular idea in the USA where we're more inclined to punish the poor for their failure to be successful, than require the rich to give back a bit of their success.
This is explicit evidence that the phase out of the tax credit is justified.
You actually can witness this shit every time eBay does one of their "X% Off Everything!" coupons. The sellers jack up the prices proportionally. Subsidizing the cost of things in a free market doesn't actually make them cheaper.
the goal of the tax credits was to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs.
Giving rich people a tax breaks on electric cars is just crony capitalism. The government should only step in when the free market has completely failed (healthcare/drug costs, monopolies, those sorts of things).
I bet if they added headphone jacks again
The iPhone has been jack-less since the 7. The iPhone jumped the shark with the X - when Apple decided to go fucking nuts with the "flagship" model starting at $1k, and they haven't looked back.
Dare I say it, the other problem with the X and later models, is that the iPhone has ceased to be intuitive to operate. You have to just know where/how you're supposed to swipe to make stuff happen, and Steve Jobs is probably spinning in his grave. I'm sure this has put off a lot of the older generations from upgrading.
There were no deals which would have avoided me paying a monthly fee on top of my mobile service costs.
This is exactly what bit Apple in the ass. The carriers got greedy and spun it like they were doing you a favor ("No contracts! No more ETFs!"), when in reality it just enabled them to jack up the costs of the phones (since now you're generally financing the full MSRP). And yeah, initially the cost of service did go down, but looking at today's plan prices, we seem to be right back to where we started back when carriers used to give you a new flagship phone for $200 with contract - except now you don't get the discounted phone.
Oh come on, you don't think every Alt-Righter and SJW salivates at the thought of the power to completely cut someone off from economically interacting with society?
Our entire economy is based on people pushing imaginary numbers from place to place. If those numbers could suddenly vanish, it would undermine faith in the entire system.
To people with bigger imaginary numbers in their accounts, the public faith in those numbers is their power. You truly believe they'd want to fuck that up?
Because you just take it out of a box and put batteries in it and use it to create Youtube videos for revenue.
That bird has flown. It's difficult enough to monetize YouTube videos even if you're producing content people want to watch. Without the knowledge and luck required to become a successful content producer, a drone will just be tits on a bull.
Video game streaming is the same way - a few people do make money doing it, but the majority don't.
However, as I said, I'm guessing NYPD may use one a bit larger, not the popular $1,000-$2,000 ones like the DJ Mavic or Phantom.
This article claims the drone will be operated away from crowds and tethered to a building. Essentially, they could've accomplished the same thing with a camera on a pole, but methinks NYPD is just anxious to play with their new toys.
Though cash can be stolen, it is way more difficult for "authorities" or whoever to revoke remotely.
Paranoid much?
It's far more likely some crackhead will mug you for the cash in your wallet, than your tin-foil-hat scenario (the secret government will seize my bank account, oh noes!) ever transpiring.
Times Square on New Year's Eve has always been a shitshow made for ignorant tourists.
I honestly had no idea, but yeah, after reading this, it's definitely off my bucket list. Quote from the local NY ABC news:
Officers will also install over 200 cement blocks in addition to more permanent metal bollards in and around Times Square.
More than 50 canine teams will survey the crowds on alert for explosive material.
These teams will include the newly added German Shepherds and Malinoises.
For the first time, the NYPD will deploy its new fleet of drones to keep watch over the festivities.
Those attending the festivities will face multiple screening points. Certain items are prohibited, including backpacks, large bags, umbrellas, and alcohol.
Property may not be left checkpoints. At approximately 11 a.m., attendees will be directed by police officers to gather in separate viewing pens. As the pens get populated, the entertainment from 43rd Street between Sixth and Eighth Avenues will continue to move north up to Central Park, due to the ball drop from the southern end. Please note, attendees who leave before the ball drops will not be able to regain entry to their original viewing area.
Dear God, that is some serious dystopian shit right there. You'll be sniffed by dogs, herded into holding pens, and watched by drones. You can't even celebrate the new year with a glass of champagne. Damn it New York, the movie Demolition Man wasn't supposed to be a how-to guide.
You rent your home full of your stuff to a total stranger. What do you expect?
Most of the shit rich people have in their mansion ends up going for pennies on the dollar, if they have to liquidate it. Get someone to trash your house/steal your stuff and insurance picks up the tab. This whole thing smells exactly like when people stage a car accident (for the insurance money).
I can't imagine their finances were that stable to begin with, if they were having to rent the place out.
very few people would buy a product that doesn't have a 3.5mm port, and the demand would be filled by other manufacturers
You're not factoring in that for many people, it's not a dealbreaker. I primarily listen to music in my car or at home, and in both places Bluetooth is more convenient than cords. The pair of headphones I own (Samsung Level On), I charge roughly twice a month. They don't get much use because I don't listen to music on headphones as much, now that I'm pushing 40.
This has nothing to do with religious puritans, and is very much the work of the social justice crowd.
Tumblr getting out of porn sounds like a great business opportunity for someone who wants to take their place. I'm sure there's a Ferengi Rule of Acquisition for that.
It's simply less economically feasible and reduces efficiency, which leads to economic hardship caused by systemic discrimination.
It's the exactly the same argument made by the gays who wanted that wedding cake. Go to another bakery, or start your own.
Her solution to everything was more education.
Which is fine if you're 18 and living at your parents place. If you're pushing 40 and feel like an old dog who doesn't want to learn any new tricks, it comes across as condescending.
Granted, Trump's "MAGA" was a bullshit snake oil pitch, but some people would just rather hear the fairy tale where you go back to work in the coal mine, rather than the one where you get to star in your own remake of Billy Madison.
You are not a member of the elite.
Most of the people who vote (R) aren't doing so because they believe themselves to be part of the privileged few. They believe the Democrats are going to take more of what little they do earn, and give it to people who (in their view) don't deserve it.
Even though I support the lesser of the evils in our two party system, I'm not blind to the idiocy which frequently comes from the left almost as often as it does from the right. A few examples:
Cash for clunkers - Didn't benefit me at all, because the vehicle I wanted to trade in was 1 MPG too efficient to qualify, even though the vehicle I wanted to purchase (a compact economy car) would've resulted in a larger net benefit to the environment, versus the hypothetical situation of someone trading in a vehicle which did qualify, towards the purchase of another gas guzzling SUV. The program didn't take into account fuel efficiency gains of what you intended to purchase, only the inefficiency of your trade-in.
Solar tax rebates - A nice handout to the rich who could afford to have photovoltaics installed on their home.
EV tax rebates - Another handout to the rich. The average hard working American can't afford this shit, with or without the rebate.
The ACA (Obamacare) - Crony capitalism meets healthcare. It is absolutely abhorrent to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the cost of private insurance, and penalizing people on their taxes if they refused to purchase what is essentially a commercial product truly is unconstitutional. This would be like the RIAA getting a law passed requiring a penalty be paid if you're not subscribed to Spotify/Apple Music/Pandora/etc., because their business model can only work if everyone pays!
Now here's the part where I say despite all this, I still hold my nose and vote (D), because the Republican party's disregard for the environment, moronic trade policies, and pandering to the "religious right" bothers me much more than misuse of my tax dollars (which the Republican party is presently doing in true "hold my beer!" style, anyway).
If you want openness, you just go and get an Android -- which has long ceased to be an inferior option.
Openness on Android just means more businesses are able to vie for your money and/or personal information. Most smartphone manufacturers lock down the bootloader to prevent you from modifying the OS, and some (Samsung's phones sold in the USA comes to mind) don't even allow you to unlock it.
Even if you do unlock your bootloader and root your phone, Google's SafetyNet API necessitates all sort of nasty hacks to retain any semblance of usability, since these days many apps refuse to run in an insecure environment. If you want your smartphone to "just work", chances are, you're not going to be hacking it anyway. iOS has workarounds for side-loading apps, so the difference between walled gardens is academic at this point. The battle for an truly open mobile OS has been lost.
Why are the people in the "Bluetooth" camp always making this out as though we have to choose one or the other?
That wasn't the implication. I was postulating as to why manufacturers don't see removing the headphone jack as a problem: its absence is not a deal-breaker for most users. Even though plenty of people still smoke, most cars don't come with ash trays these days, either. It's just part of modern design aesthetics to remove superfluous elements.