But do you consider it moral when a significant segment of the best jobs are essentially exclusive to a small sub-set of humanity?
That's just a fact of life. When the best jobs are something everyone can do, you're either in a utopia or dystopia.
And for the vast majority of such jobs, being a geek is not a requirement to doing an acceptable job.
Nobody said it was. However, being intolerant of geeks is a pretty strong disqualifier.
I feel at this point, making any significant group (say more than 1%) feel excluded because of company culture is not particularly acceptable.
But it's OK to make geeks feel excluded because....?
The problem with success is that eventually having your company be your clubhouse (and I mean this in a fun, good way) is no longer morally acceptable. It's a bit sad, but that's the cost of growing up to be a responsible member of *all* of society, not just your niche.
Labeling the particular set of standards you prefer as "growing up" is just a rhetorical trick; it doesn't demonstrate anything.
Ah, the "cut your hair and put on a suit" contingent is heard from.
In general, it's time to professionalize the field. And yes, that does mean removing the "fun" bonding that is available to a monoculture where you don't have to accommodate the a wide range of expectations of behaviour, interests, taboos, etc.
The field's already professional. I know this because I can look around and see people getting paid for what they do. And it's certainly anything but a monoculture; it may be lopsided in terms of gender but it's full of people of different nationalities and religions. Fortunately the company I work for has as one of its tenets that the sort of anti-fun corporate beige professionalism you're advocating is unnecessary.
Try Google+. The post is linked by a few people in the comments for ESRs original blog post.
"I know ESR and have had the 'joy' of having him try to grope me and boast about his swinger lifestyle at various conferences."
"The number of stories I've heard from friends about him in the past few days is rather horrific."
"He must be excised. Possibly violently so."
"I first met him around 2001/02 IIRC. And it felt creepy and uncomfortable watching him walk around a party."
"He creeped on a close friend of mine's wife at a conference in the early Oughts."
"All that said, please do not take any of this as a defense of ESR, of his irresponsible claims from an anonymous source, or his sexist and harassing activities"
Anyway, empathy has become a snarl word to be used against nerds, much like claims of social underdevelopment or social awkwardness. It's common to see screeds claiming nerds lack "empathy" while at the same time belittling them and explicitly declaring that their problems are unimportant compared to those of the writer.
The irony seems to be lost on those writers... or, and this is my theory, it's intentional and is intended to signal the fact that the writer holds so much relative status that they can pull off a blatantly hypocritical attack and still have their version accepted. Much like a bully grabbing someone's arm and slapping them with their own hand while saying "Stop hitting yourself". Or slamming their head multiple times against a police car while saying "watch your head".
Mention Eric S. Raymond on Slashdot and watch the hate mob of social justice screech about it as if he was eating babies.
It didn't take too long after he passed on a (perhaps paranoid, but perhaps not) warning about some people trying to entrap high-profile Open Source people into sexual harassment complaints at conferences before a few women posted some vague accusations of Raymond "creeping" on them at conferences. Including some he wasn't at.
Weev's a dick, if I may use that term. But he's not the general case, any more than his ex-girlfriend Shanley is representative of women in tech. There's a group of people, or several, intent on pushing a narrative of "those horrible misogynistic nerds are driving women out of Open Source" (or substitute for Open Source: "tech" or "gaming" or "comics" or a bunch of other things).
Sometimes we're supposedly horrible in the classic hit-on-anything-with-a-skirt way. Sometimes it's "women wouldn't pay attention to you smelly nerds in high school and now you mistreat them in revenge." Sometimes it's "Your geeky antics offend normal women; grow up and put away your toys you babies"; there's one researcher who has made her career promoting badly designed studies about how geeky items like Star Wars posters drive away women. And sometimes it's "You horrible nerds are so socially maladjusted that you drive women away by accident".
Problem is, it's all BS. There isn't any attempt to drive women out of any of those things; once you accept that there is, you've accepted a false premise and are likely to come to false conclusions. Misogynists in tech? Sure; it's not like techies are exempt from human failings. More than in, say, finance or advertising or medicine? I doubt it. Looking for special reasons techies are especially bad is putting the cart before the horse; first you must show that techies are especially bad.
the main antagonist on-screen fights a constant struggle between his dedication to the dark side being thrown off by stiil having feelings for his father
I don't know what movie you watched, but in the version I watched there was no such struggle. The only feeling he demonstrated (unless you count adolescent petulance expressed as temper tantrums) was inadequacy towards his grandfather. His father? Nothing.
And apparently you're a fan of the concept of "women as prizes"? Win a battle, get a woman FREE, right?
Oh no, winning the battle is only the qualifying round. And who do you think defines the terms of the contest?
There is no 400-foot rule (or any other altitude rule) in FMRA section 336.
The FAA, by promulgating this registration regulation, is treating 336 as a dead letter anyway. Furthermore, 336 provides no regulatory authority to the FAA; it only takes it away.
There is no law or FAA regulation requiring model aircraft to fly below 400 feet. If you accept the FAA's definition of model aircraft being aircraft as defined by the statutes and regulations, the regulation actually says that except for helicopters and except for takeoff and landing approaches, aircraft must stay ABOVE 500 feet. The 400-foot rule is an asspull published in an advisory circular (advisory meaning it does not set any rules). If you do not accept the FAA's definition of model aircraft being aircraft as defined by the statutes and regulations, the FAA has no authority to regulate model aircraft in the first place.
"I will fly within visual line of sight"
Once again, reflects only guidance published in an advisory document.
"I will be aware of FAA airspace requirements"
These are published in NOTAMs -- notices to airmen. Model aircraft operators are not airmen (unless they have airman's certificates for full-scale flight). Note that if model aircraft are "aircraft", the regs make it illegal to fly one without such a certificate, so registration will not make you legal.
"I will not fly directly over people"
Probably a good idea, but another asspull. If model aircraft are "aircraft", flying over people is normal and expected.
"I will not fly over stadiums and sports events"
NOTAMs are often issued for sports events, so this one can be fitted into a consistent intepretation.
"I will not fly near emergency response efforts such as fires"
Same thing concerning NOTAMS.
"I will not fly near aircraft, especially near airports"
Not sure why it's any safer to fly near aircraft when you're not near an airport. Note that if the FAA interpretation is correct, a model airport (including a piece of ground you land your heli or quad) is an airport. And that this would prohibit flying in proximity to other model aircraft (because model aircraft are aircraft, right?)
The AMA is either credulous idiots or they're deliberately sacrificing the DC fields in hopes for later concessions. Which, come to think it, also makes them credulous idiots. The FAA isn't going to come to an agreement in mid-January. They're going to delay, say until March or May. Then when that deadline rolls around, they'll delay until November or something. Once they've strung it out long enough that everyone's resigned to the situation they'll tell the AMA "Sorry, but we really can't allow model aircraft in the SFRA ever". This is more or less standard operating procedure.
Most model aircraft don't use bluetooth, they use either FM 72Mhz (for the very old school people) or some sort of spread spectrum 2.4Ghz. Range is up to three miles. There are also very long range UHF systems available, though I think technically you need a ham license to operate them. (35 multiple choice questions, need 26 to pass... it's dead easy if you actually want to do it. But no one checks anyway)
I can't wait to see little SAM sites show up at parks known for repeat offenders of fun
If they blew one of my models up with a mini-SAM I woudn't even be mad. Not even my expensive ones. Well, provided I got it on video anyway. That would be cool. Probably counterproductive, though, as I'd start buying the cheapest crap models that could fly and getting them blown up just for the thrill.
Although, you might be required to actually break their regulation, and get them to put you in jail, and until that happens, the courts will not even hear a case against this abuse.
Oh, it's even better than that. There isn't any regulation. The FAA has several ways to make rules about the airspace. They can publish regulations in the Federal Register; this is the hard way. Or they can issue a NOTAM, a Notice to Airmen, containing restrictions in the airspace. This is the easy way. The NOTAM for the DC SFRA is here.
It talks about model aircraft once: "THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: [...] MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS"
Note "DC FRZ". The DC FRZ (Flight Restricted Zone) is a 15-mile radius area centered on Reagan National. The SFRA is a 30-mile radius area centered on the same point. So where's the restriction for the whole SFRA? Well, they've published it on their website, and also in something called AC 91-57A. Thing is, "AC" stands for "Advisory Circular". By definition, it doesn't set any rules; it's advisory.
So it's really tough to challenge the regulation, because _no such regulation exists_. The FAA has told the police to shut down fields, and told the (private) Academy for Model Aeronautics to shut down fields, or else. But they haven't bothered to make an actual regulation to back up their orders.
If you support this registry on the basis of fear you might as well support registering everyone at the moment of their birth, and full tracking of everything they do throughout their entire lives.
Aren't we already there? We've got birth certificates and the NSA.
We evil drone operators have known about Section 336 for a long time. It's not actually the only thing wrong with the current rules, but its a major one. The FAA asserts that "model aircraft" are included in the category of "aircraft" covered by pre-2012 regulations, and therefore they can regulate according to them and 336 doesn't apply. This is dubious already. But it's even more dubious when you find that
1) All "aircraft" must be registered, by statute and by regulation, already. 2) All "aircraft" require a airman's certificate to operate or to repair, again by statute and regulation. 3) All "aircraft" except helicopters, by regulation, are required to stay above 500 feet except on takeoff and landing.
Which means that model aircraft have been flown completely illegally for the entire time the FAA has been in existence. This interpretation seems absurd, hence the FAAs claim about "model aircraft" being covered under "aircraft" must be wrong. Either that or it's time to paint a little Jolly Roger on all the models.
There isn't any situation I can think of where speeding up will end up saving lives
You're driving in the left lane, passing a slower car in the right lane. With his bumper aligned with your trunk, the driver in the right lane decides it's a good idea to move into your lane without warning. Had it happen to me exactly once. I can't promise that anyone would have died had I taken some other option, but it was the only option that wouldn't have resulted in a collision. Maintain speed: certain collision (probably followed by a spin and secondary collisions), slowing down: certain collision, moving left: collision with median barrier (very narrow shoulder there), moving right: really dumb.
nor does anybody teach swerving into the left hand (on-coming) lane to avoid an accident.
I don't know if they do, but they sure should. If you've been maintaining your situational awareness you know, when something comes up in your lane, whether the other lane is clear enough to use for that.
You cannot get gridlock in a traffic system where all rules are followed.
If the rule exists that you may not enter the intersection until you have an opening on the other side, this is literally true. But you can certainly get results where some can make no forward progress. For example, consider two intersections in a row. You're sitting at the first one, with a green light but no room. The second one turns green, but before you get an opening, the first one turns red. By the time the first light turns green again, there is again no opening due to cars coming from the other directions.
The battery alone for my largest heli (and it isn't big as helis go) weights 350g. I will not register it. I might possibly attack a sticker with a picture of Snoopy in aviation gear on his doghouse, shot up and streaming smoke... would that be an acceptable substitute?
Daguerrotype is even more retro, but trying to get the chemicals gets you on the ATF and DEA watchlists and the EPA shitlist. (Bromine, iodine crystals, nitric acid, chlorine, mercury, and sodium hyposulfite)
Slashdot Mirror
That's just a fact of life. When the best jobs are something everyone can do, you're either in a utopia or dystopia.
Nobody said it was. However, being intolerant of geeks is a pretty strong disqualifier.
But it's OK to make geeks feel excluded because....?
Labeling the particular set of standards you prefer as "growing up" is just a rhetorical trick; it doesn't demonstrate anything.
Ah, the "cut your hair and put on a suit" contingent is heard from.
The field's already professional. I know this because I can look around and see people getting paid for what they do. And it's certainly anything but a monoculture; it may be lopsided in terms of gender but it's full of people of different nationalities and religions. Fortunately the company I work for has as one of its tenets that the sort of anti-fun corporate beige professionalism you're advocating is unnecessary.
...until I learned this was the North Texas scammer. It's the scammers who operate in the Eastern District of Texas who are the real problem there.
Saturday Night Live has an instructional video on this topic.
With that much excessively verbose pomposity in the summary, the article must be insufferable.
Come now, that's almost self-answering. She wanted it to be noticed... by someone else.
Try Google+. The post is linked by a few people in the comments for ESRs original blog post.
"I know ESR and have had the 'joy' of having him try to grope me and boast about his swinger lifestyle at various conferences."
"The number of stories I've heard from friends about him in the past few days is rather horrific."
"He must be excised. Possibly violently so."
"I first met him around 2001/02 IIRC. And it felt creepy and uncomfortable watching him walk around a party."
"He creeped on a close friend of mine's wife at a conference in the early Oughts."
"All that said, please do not take any of this as a defense of ESR, of his irresponsible claims from an anonymous source, or his sexist and harassing activities"
Wall of text, did not read.
Anyway, empathy has become a snarl word to be used against nerds, much like claims of social underdevelopment or social awkwardness. It's common to see screeds claiming nerds lack "empathy" while at the same time belittling them and explicitly declaring that their problems are unimportant compared to those of the writer.
The irony seems to be lost on those writers... or, and this is my theory, it's intentional and is intended to signal the fact that the writer holds so much relative status that they can pull off a blatantly hypocritical attack and still have their version accepted. Much like a bully grabbing someone's arm and slapping them with their own hand while saying "Stop hitting yourself". Or slamming their head multiple times against a police car while saying "watch your head".
It didn't take too long after he passed on a (perhaps paranoid, but perhaps not) warning about some people trying to entrap high-profile Open Source people into sexual harassment complaints at conferences before a few women posted some vague accusations of Raymond "creeping" on them at conferences. Including some he wasn't at.
Which of you humorless cusses moderated this "Troll" instead of "Funny"?
Weev's a dick, if I may use that term. But he's not the general case, any more than his ex-girlfriend Shanley is representative of women in tech. There's a group of people, or several, intent on pushing a narrative of "those horrible misogynistic nerds are driving women out of Open Source" (or substitute for Open Source: "tech" or "gaming" or "comics" or a bunch of other things).
Sometimes we're supposedly horrible in the classic hit-on-anything-with-a-skirt way. Sometimes it's "women wouldn't pay attention to you smelly nerds in high school and now you mistreat them in revenge." Sometimes it's "Your geeky antics offend normal women; grow up and put away your toys you babies"; there's one researcher who has made her career promoting badly designed studies about how geeky items like Star Wars posters drive away women. And sometimes it's "You horrible nerds are so socially maladjusted that you drive women away by accident".
Problem is, it's all BS. There isn't any attempt to drive women out of any of those things; once you accept that there is, you've accepted a false premise and are likely to come to false conclusions. Misogynists in tech? Sure; it's not like techies are exempt from human failings. More than in, say, finance or advertising or medicine? I doubt it. Looking for special reasons techies are especially bad is putting the cart before the horse; first you must show that techies are especially bad.
I don't know what movie you watched, but in the version I watched there was no such struggle. The only feeling he demonstrated (unless you count adolescent petulance expressed as temper tantrums) was inadequacy towards his grandfather. His father? Nothing.
Oh no, winning the battle is only the qualifying round. And who do you think defines the terms of the contest?
There is no 400-foot rule (or any other altitude rule) in FMRA section 336.
The FAA, by promulgating this registration regulation, is treating 336 as a dead letter anyway. Furthermore, 336 provides no regulatory authority to the FAA; it only takes it away.
There is no law or FAA regulation requiring model aircraft to fly below 400 feet. If you accept the FAA's definition of model aircraft being aircraft as defined by the statutes and regulations, the regulation actually says that except for helicopters and except for takeoff and landing approaches, aircraft must stay ABOVE 500 feet. The 400-foot rule is an asspull published in an advisory circular (advisory meaning it does not set any rules). If you do not accept the FAA's definition of model aircraft being aircraft as defined by the statutes and regulations, the FAA has no authority to regulate model aircraft in the first place.
Once again, reflects only guidance published in an advisory document.
These are published in NOTAMs -- notices to airmen. Model aircraft operators are not airmen (unless they have airman's certificates for full-scale flight). Note that if model aircraft are "aircraft", the regs make it illegal to fly one without such a certificate, so registration will not make you legal.
Probably a good idea, but another asspull. If model aircraft are "aircraft", flying over people is normal and expected.
NOTAMs are often issued for sports events, so this one can be fitted into a consistent intepretation.
Same thing concerning NOTAMS.
Not sure why it's any safer to fly near aircraft when you're not near an airport. Note that if the FAA interpretation is correct, a model airport (including a piece of ground you land your heli or quad) is an airport. And that this would prohibit flying in proximity to other model aircraft (because model aircraft are aircraft, right?)
This one can be read consistently.
The AMA is either credulous idiots or they're deliberately sacrificing the DC fields in hopes for later concessions. Which, come to think it, also makes them credulous idiots. The FAA isn't going to come to an agreement in mid-January. They're going to delay, say until March or May. Then when that deadline rolls around, they'll delay until November or something. Once they've strung it out long enough that everyone's resigned to the situation they'll tell the AMA "Sorry, but we really can't allow model aircraft in the SFRA ever". This is more or less standard operating procedure.
Most model aircraft don't use bluetooth, they use either FM 72Mhz (for the very old school people) or some sort of spread spectrum 2.4Ghz. Range is up to three miles. There are also very long range UHF systems available, though I think technically you need a ham license to operate them. (35 multiple choice questions, need 26 to pass... it's dead easy if you actually want to do it. But no one checks anyway)
If they blew one of my models up with a mini-SAM I woudn't even be mad. Not even my expensive ones. Well, provided I got it on video anyway. That would be cool. Probably counterproductive, though, as I'd start buying the cheapest crap models that could fly and getting them blown up just for the thrill.
Oh, it's even better than that. There isn't any regulation. The FAA has several ways to make rules about the airspace. They can publish regulations in the Federal Register; this is the hard way. Or they can issue a NOTAM, a Notice to Airmen, containing restrictions in the airspace. This is the easy way. The NOTAM for the DC SFRA is here.
It talks about model aircraft once:
"THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: [...] MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS"
Note "DC FRZ". The DC FRZ (Flight Restricted Zone) is a 15-mile radius area centered on Reagan National. The SFRA is a 30-mile radius area centered on the same point. So where's the restriction for the whole SFRA? Well, they've published it on their website, and also in something called AC 91-57A. Thing is, "AC" stands for "Advisory Circular". By definition, it doesn't set any rules; it's advisory.
So it's really tough to challenge the regulation, because _no such regulation exists_. The FAA has told the police to shut down fields, and told the (private) Academy for Model Aeronautics to shut down fields, or else. But they haven't bothered to make an actual regulation to back up their orders.
"Central to this struggle is the inability of our lawmakers to quickly and effectively regulate new technologies."
That inability is what keeps new technology useful, cheap, and powerful. As soon as the lawmakers catch up, they manage to screw it up.
Aren't we already there? We've got birth certificates and the NSA.
We evil drone operators have known about Section 336 for a long time. It's not actually the only thing wrong with the current rules, but its a major one. The FAA asserts that "model aircraft" are included in the category of "aircraft" covered by pre-2012 regulations, and therefore they can regulate according to them and 336 doesn't apply. This is dubious already. But it's even more dubious when you find that
1) All "aircraft" must be registered, by statute and by regulation, already.
2) All "aircraft" require a airman's certificate to operate or to repair, again by statute and regulation.
3) All "aircraft" except helicopters, by regulation, are required to stay above 500 feet except on takeoff and landing.
Which means that model aircraft have been flown completely illegally for the entire time the FAA has been in existence. This interpretation seems absurd, hence the FAAs claim about "model aircraft" being covered under "aircraft" must be wrong. Either that or it's time to paint a little Jolly Roger on all the models.
You're driving in the left lane, passing a slower car in the right lane. With his bumper aligned with your trunk, the driver in the right lane decides it's a good idea to move into your lane without warning. Had it happen to me exactly once. I can't promise that anyone would have died had I taken some other option, but it was the only option that wouldn't have resulted in a collision. Maintain speed: certain collision (probably followed by a spin and secondary collisions), slowing down: certain collision, moving left: collision with median barrier (very narrow shoulder there), moving right: really dumb.
I don't know if they do, but they sure should. If you've been maintaining your situational awareness you know, when something comes up in your lane, whether the other lane is clear enough to use for that.
If the rule exists that you may not enter the intersection until you have an opening on the other side, this is literally true. But you can certainly get results where some can make no forward progress. For example, consider two intersections in a row. You're sitting at the first one, with a green light but no room. The second one turns green, but before you get an opening, the first one turns red. By the time the first light turns green again, there is again no opening due to cars coming from the other directions.
The battery alone for my largest heli (and it isn't big as helis go) weights 350g. I will not register it. I might possibly attack a sticker with a picture of Snoopy in aviation gear on his doghouse, shot up and streaming smoke... would that be an acceptable substitute?
Daguerrotype is even more retro, but trying to get the chemicals gets you on the ATF and DEA watchlists and the EPA shitlist. (Bromine, iodine crystals, nitric acid, chlorine, mercury, and sodium hyposulfite)