Well they expect to raise $50 billion from the new $5000 "untidy yard" fine that will automatically be added to people's property tax when the drone starts taking pictures of people's yards.
I am joking of course, but this is how governments think.
We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world.
The rest of the world? I constantly have World War I and II shoved into my British face by every American I meet. We've had almost 100 years of "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for us". So I wouldn't limit grudges to "the rest of the world" only.
Your argument is like saying that a 600,000 volt stun gun is only powered by one 9 volt battery.
Not really. While you can up the volts at the expense of the amps, in a stun gun the total amount of power you deliver is actually quite small, which is why it doesn't kill you.
The watt however is a measure of power. When you receive a watt you cannot receive more than a watt. In fact you receive much less because some of that energy is absorbed by the air between you and the source, and some is reflected away by the cockpit glass. And then take into account the much wider beam. This is basic physics.
I'd encourage you to test the effects of a green laser to the eyes from 3 miles away.
PS: You cannot calculate the odds of a set of independent events - if you could do that, you could predict the future. All you can say is that after 1,000,000 rolls, it's likely you'll have rolled a 6 around 166,000 times.
Now put it a couple miles away. Now if you want a properly collimated laser that is capable of say, burning cardboard at close range, you're going to be paying upwards of $700 for it. Somehow I think people who can afford a $700 laser have better things to do than shine it at aircraft. You are the one who should do a little fact checking.
Or maybe you think that this is a new "terroristic" attack... then take comfort in the fact that we'll all be dead by the end of next year.
Bzzt no thanks for playing. I suggest you take your theory out to your local casino or stock market but make sure you bet a lot of money.
If there is no connection between events in a sequence, there is no reason why it should get harder and harder to "maintain" the sequence. Over a VERY LARGE number of events, the results will end up distributed according to the laws of probability. However for a few dozen or even a few hundred events, there's no guarantee that you will be able to fill your categories evenly. And certainly there's no reason why results would be mixed in a homogenous manner into your data.
Rolling 2 dice gets you a 1/36 chance of getting a "12" only because there is one and ONLY ONE combination of dice that will get you that specific result. The events are connected. Rolling 3 dice means a 1/216 chance of getting an "18". But the chance of any particular die coming up "6" is exactly 1/6th, every damned time.
It is you, sir, who fails to understand probability.
A die roll has no memory of previous dice rolls and is not affected by it. You are confusing rolling dice and coming up with a specific combination with rolling one die several times.
If I roll a die the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6th. If I pick up the die and roll again, the probability of getting a 6 is once again, 1/6th.
Rolling a single die twice is not the same as rolling two dice at the same time and expecting, say, a "12". That is a combination, with a 1/36 chance. However each roll is an independent event. Rolling two dice again has a 1/26 chance of getting a 12. The previous rolls, however, have nothing to do with it. This is why casinos and lotteries make money. People think and "expect" that if a number hasn't come up, it's "bound" to come up. It doesn't have to. In a truly random universe, you could roll 6's all night.
No, I would rather live in a world where people behaved responsibly. Sadly that is impossible.
I accept your argument, and I accept that night vision can be diminished by even a brief flash of light at night. I'm too lazy to calculate the energy density of a "wide", poorly collimated laser beam at 3 miles, however considering that these beams are usually powered by 5/1000ths of a watt or so, it's not a lot of energy to start with (the sun puts out around 24 times much energy per square centimeter). It's far less than 5 mW if you're not getting the whole "beam". I suspect that the impact on night vision is not much greater than looking at the instruments (which also emit light in a dark cockpit, and have to be checked quite often as you know).
Rather than destroying vision I would claim that the biggest problem is surprise, and the chance of momentarily over-reacting or losing situational awareness because of that surprise. I agree that a pilot is quite busy during take off and landing, especially in weather and traffic, and anything unexpected is not good at all.
What I hate, however, is an argument brought to the table for the wrong reasons. I hate to think of laser pointers being controlled or outlawed because of a handful of idiots since they do have their uses besides entertaining pets. The blurb said that there are well over 2000 incidents per year. I would point out that despite this, there has not been a single accident. So I do not condone taking people who point lasers at planes and burning them at the stake or, as is likely, charging them with PAX # counts of attempted murder, to be served consecutively.
I still challenge that lost eyesight is the least of a pilot's worries, but this is the argument that is put forward. The pussies comment was a generalization based upon my opinion of a particular event in the news, because a flight crew came across as especially whiny and were threatening to sue the whole world because of this.
OK I'll accept your point. But you would need some pretty expensive equipment to keep the beam steady, correct for the speed and altitude change of the aircraft if it's on glideslope, and make sure your beam is steady over the spot that exactly lines up between the pilot's eyes and the runway.
Methane? What happens to the rate of decomposition (which produces methane) when you turn up the heat? Especially when you have a larger plant biomass, due to all that delicious CO2.
Lasers pointed at cockpits can temporarily blind pilots
Please cite examples of pilots who have temporarily been "blinded" by a laser.
While it's a nuisance to see someone shine a laser beam around your cockpit, the plane's speed, the shakiness of human hands, and the distance from the person pointing it makes it unlikely that the laser beam will find its way directly into one of the two pupils a pilot may have for more than a fraction of a second.
But America has given up on things like trigonometry, math and science, in favor of bullshit like this. The current situation is 1) Pilot and copilot see red dot jump momentarily around the cockpit and decide to report the incident, 2) Pilot and copilot agree to overstate the harm done to them in an effort to persuade authorities that this is a "serious problem" 3) The media gets hold of the story and distorts it further, screaming for the death penalty for anyone who owns a laser pointer and lives within 10 miles of an airport. But no one is willing to do the math.
Yeah it's irresponsible to point lasers at airplanes. Call me if ever there's a serious incident that puts an aircraft in danger.
Er no, it doesn't. The data from the last 200 years does. However I invite you to look a little further back than that considering that the Earth is not 200 years old.
Seriously you have never wondered why marine fossils get found in the middle of a continent? Hello. But some people are desperate to cling to lies and I will never understand why.
CO2 levels have been detected in ice core samples, and they do indicate higher CO2 levels that begin AFTER warm periods start. It is not, however, the "end of the world". And it certainly wasn't "man made" millions of years ago, we weren't even around.
Here's another fact - look a little further back than 200 years and you will see that oceans have had higher sea levels than today+30 meters. Think that the last ice age was only 20,000 years or so ago so there is an overall warming trend. Recognize that increased temperatures produce greater CO2 and methane levels all on their own, in fact ice core data supports this - there is always a rise in CO2 AFTER a warm period and this makes sense because the decomposition of carbonic acid (in sea water) is endothermic (it requires energy). So if you heat sea water with CO2 dissolved in it, you will get CO2 back.
But of course it's useless to argue with you. I don't even know why I bother.
How can you be so sure that there is little we can do to stop it?
How do you know that there is something we can do to stop it? I can point out that this has happened before - indeed on a far greater scale. Where's your data?
While it's sensible to make the best possible use of resources and protect the environment, if we pervert and corrupt science in the process then we take a step backwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Well they expect to raise $50 billion from the new $5000 "untidy yard" fine that will automatically be added to people's property tax when the drone starts taking pictures of people's yards.
I am joking of course, but this is how governments think.
If you don't understand the difference between Google and the police department, you deserve to have your civil rights violated.
Breaking the law is not a loophole. That the rest of the government is looking the other way when the police do it is a different matter.
it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure
Dude you are just begging for Godwin's law to be invoked for this comment.
This "excuse" didn't work at the Nuremberg trials. Why should it work today?
Already have...
We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world.
The rest of the world? I constantly have World War I and II shoved into my British face by every American I meet. We've had almost 100 years of "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for us". So I wouldn't limit grudges to "the rest of the world" only.
"I read about it on the internet so it must be true"
It strikes me as fairly easy to publish propaganda this way. I wonder who is behind these "leaks".
Your argument is like saying that a 600,000 volt stun gun is only powered by one 9 volt battery.
Not really. While you can up the volts at the expense of the amps, in a stun gun the total amount of power you deliver is actually quite small, which is why it doesn't kill you.
The watt however is a measure of power. When you receive a watt you cannot receive more than a watt. In fact you receive much less because some of that energy is absorbed by the air between you and the source, and some is reflected away by the cockpit glass. And then take into account the much wider beam. This is basic physics.
I'd encourage you to test the effects of a green laser to the eyes from 3 miles away.
OK, but I need to borrow your eyes.
PS: You cannot calculate the odds of a set of independent events - if you could do that, you could predict the future. All you can say is that after 1,000,000 rolls, it's likely you'll have rolled a 6 around 166,000 times.
You realize that 1000mw is 1 watt, right?
Now put it a couple miles away. Now if you want a properly collimated laser that is capable of say, burning cardboard at close range, you're going to be paying upwards of $700 for it. Somehow I think people who can afford a $700 laser have better things to do than shine it at aircraft. You are the one who should do a little fact checking.
Or maybe you think that this is a new "terroristic" attack... then take comfort in the fact that we'll all be dead by the end of next year.
A laser that has been properly collimated does. But if it's not a dot, then 1/d^2 right?
Bzzt no thanks for playing. I suggest you take your theory out to your local casino or stock market but make sure you bet a lot of money.
If there is no connection between events in a sequence, there is no reason why it should get harder and harder to "maintain" the sequence. Over a VERY LARGE number of events, the results will end up distributed according to the laws of probability. However for a few dozen or even a few hundred events, there's no guarantee that you will be able to fill your categories evenly. And certainly there's no reason why results would be mixed in a homogenous manner into your data.
Rolling 2 dice gets you a 1/36 chance of getting a "12" only because there is one and ONLY ONE combination of dice that will get you that specific result. The events are connected. Rolling 3 dice means a 1/216 chance of getting an "18". But the chance of any particular die coming up "6" is exactly 1/6th, every damned time.
It is you, sir, who fails to understand probability.
1/36 not 1/26, that was a typo.
A die roll has no memory of previous dice rolls and is not affected by it. You are confusing rolling dice and coming up with a specific combination with rolling one die several times.
If I roll a die the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6th. If I pick up the die and roll again, the probability of getting a 6 is once again, 1/6th.
Rolling a single die twice is not the same as rolling two dice at the same time and expecting, say, a "12". That is a combination, with a 1/36 chance. However each roll is an independent event. Rolling two dice again has a 1/26 chance of getting a 12. The previous rolls, however, have nothing to do with it. This is why casinos and lotteries make money. People think and "expect" that if a number hasn't come up, it's "bound" to come up. It doesn't have to. In a truly random universe, you could roll 6's all night.
No, I would rather live in a world where people behaved responsibly. Sadly that is impossible.
I accept your argument, and I accept that night vision can be diminished by even a brief flash of light at night. I'm too lazy to calculate the energy density of a "wide", poorly collimated laser beam at 3 miles, however considering that these beams are usually powered by 5/1000ths of a watt or so, it's not a lot of energy to start with (the sun puts out around 24 times much energy per square centimeter). It's far less than 5 mW if you're not getting the whole "beam". I suspect that the impact on night vision is not much greater than looking at the instruments (which also emit light in a dark cockpit, and have to be checked quite often as you know).
Rather than destroying vision I would claim that the biggest problem is surprise, and the chance of momentarily over-reacting or losing situational awareness because of that surprise. I agree that a pilot is quite busy during take off and landing, especially in weather and traffic, and anything unexpected is not good at all.
What I hate, however, is an argument brought to the table for the wrong reasons. I hate to think of laser pointers being controlled or outlawed because of a handful of idiots since they do have their uses besides entertaining pets. The blurb said that there are well over 2000 incidents per year. I would point out that despite this, there has not been a single accident. So I do not condone taking people who point lasers at planes and burning them at the stake or, as is likely, charging them with PAX # counts of attempted murder, to be served consecutively.
I still challenge that lost eyesight is the least of a pilot's worries, but this is the argument that is put forward. The pussies comment was a generalization based upon my opinion of a particular event in the news, because a flight crew came across as especially whiny and were threatening to sue the whole world because of this.
OK I'll accept your point. But you would need some pretty expensive equipment to keep the beam steady, correct for the speed and altitude change of the aircraft if it's on glideslope, and make sure your beam is steady over the spot that exactly lines up between the pilot's eyes and the runway.
Methane? What happens to the rate of decomposition (which produces methane) when you turn up the heat? Especially when you have a larger plant biomass, due to all that delicious CO2.
I linked to a graph there. Did you see it? Can you actually read a graph?
Lasers pointed at cockpits can temporarily blind pilots
Please cite examples of pilots who have temporarily been "blinded" by a laser.
While it's a nuisance to see someone shine a laser beam around your cockpit, the plane's speed, the shakiness of human hands, and the distance from the person pointing it makes it unlikely that the laser beam will find its way directly into one of the two pupils a pilot may have for more than a fraction of a second.
But America has given up on things like trigonometry, math and science, in favor of bullshit like this. The current situation is 1) Pilot and copilot see red dot jump momentarily around the cockpit and decide to report the incident, 2) Pilot and copilot agree to overstate the harm done to them in an effort to persuade authorities that this is a "serious problem" 3) The media gets hold of the story and distorts it further, screaming for the death penalty for anyone who owns a laser pointer and lives within 10 miles of an airport. But no one is willing to do the math.
Yeah it's irresponsible to point lasers at airplanes. Call me if ever there's a serious incident that puts an aircraft in danger.
Er no, it doesn't. The data from the last 200 years does. However I invite you to look a little further back than that considering that the Earth is not 200 years old.
Seriously you have never wondered why marine fossils get found in the middle of a continent? Hello. But some people are desperate to cling to lies and I will never understand why.
Er, every roll is an independent event. After you roll a "6", the chance of rolling another 6 is 1 in 6.
CO2 levels have been detected in ice core samples, and they do indicate higher CO2 levels that begin AFTER warm periods start. It is not, however, the "end of the world". And it certainly wasn't "man made" millions of years ago, we weren't even around.
Here's another fact - look a little further back than 200 years and you will see that oceans have had higher sea levels than today+30 meters. Think that the last ice age was only 20,000 years or so ago so there is an overall warming trend. Recognize that increased temperatures produce greater CO2 and methane levels all on their own, in fact ice core data supports this - there is always a rise in CO2 AFTER a warm period and this makes sense because the decomposition of carbonic acid (in sea water) is endothermic (it requires energy). So if you heat sea water with CO2 dissolved in it, you will get CO2 back.
But of course it's useless to argue with you. I don't even know why I bother.
Nah slash has turned into the trendy hangout for creationists, Apple and Microsoft fans and of course the anthropogenic global warming crowd.
How can you be so sure that there is little we can do to stop it?
How do you know that there is something we can do to stop it? I can point out that this has happened before - indeed on a far greater scale. Where's your data?
While it's sensible to make the best possible use of resources and protect the environment, if we pervert and corrupt science in the process then we take a step backwards.