No, it's not really autistic people who are pushing this crap. It's people who think they can use engineer's own perceptions of their social skills (whether due to "autism" or not) against them. They come in saying "you're all a bunch of assholes, here's the code the Good People follow". And some number of engineers, knowing their own social skills are not the best, actually believe them. At it's heart, it's basically just a new form of nerd-bashing (even when done by other nerds).
The language's inability to check for overflow is a problem. Putting that sort of obtuse and unreadable compiler-specific code everywhere you want to do arithmetic is a a cure worse than the disease.
Elsevier does not pay editors, they are expected to do the work for free. (Or rather that the institution that employs them pays it.) Refusal to do free work for somebody else is perfectly reasonable thing.
Right. The authors pay, the subscribers pay, the peer reviewers don't get paid, the editors don't get paid. The papers are typically expected to be submitted "camera ready". One might be excused if one wonders exactly what Elsevier is doing that's worth paying them.
What happens if the FAA fines you $500 per day until you comply with their orders?
I continue to not comply, and the fines rack up. What else can I do? It's either not fly (in which case the case ends and I have no further ability to challenge) or continue to disobey.
Yes, the FAA can fine you, and when you refuse to pay it, you end up in administrative court where you aren't innocent until proven guilty, and your refusal ultimately ends up with the sheriff showing up.
Fortunately, I could be dead of old age by the time "ultimately" happens.
I'm aware of the Pirker case. It never made it out of administrative courts. This is going to be decided in a judicial court ultimately; there already are pending challenges in the DC circuit. But if I obey the FCC's arbitrary rule until those challenges go through, it's me who is on the wrong side of time; I could be dead of old age before those cases are resolved, even if they're resolved in my favor.
:) You keep thinking that... not having a pilot certificate (it isn't a license, it is a certificate, it never expires) does not exempt you from the FAA's area of enforcement.
It means that the FAA can't pull my "certificate" first and ask questions later while I go broke.
Sure, and plenty of people use drugs, and drive over the speed limit, and a thousand other things... and get away with it much of the time... but don't kid yourself, enforcement always comes down to "naked force" as you put it.
Flying a model without registering it is like "speeding" through a town which has posted a speed limit not in accordance with an overriding state law. It's not illegal.
As I said, flying a small $50 RC quad copter in your back yard is not going to be an issue. Flying a $1,500 remote drone 2,000ft in the air 2 miles from your home, will be. There will end up being a line somewhere in-between the two that gets drawn, enforcement will depend largely on where you live of course. I doubt the government cares much if you live in Montana, more so in NYC.
My current machines cost between $100 and about $1000 all-up. The larger machines are 425mm blade model helicopters, they weigh over 2 pounds, though they're still small as helis go. And I live near NYC; within 30 miles of EWR, as it happens. Despite all that, once the FAA passes its new rules, it'll still be legal for me to fly my unregistered helis, still legal for me to buy or build new models without registering them, and still legal for me to fly them.
I've worked with the FAA, there is what the book says, then there is what they do. You're welcome to fight them, but I'd rather not.
You presumably have a pilot's license, so they've got you by the short-and-curlies. You buck them, they pull your license while you fight, you go broke. I have no such restriction.
My primary point however is that in some years time (might be 5, might be more or less), there will be new rules and restrictions on where you can fly an RC anything.
To paraphrase Andrew Jackson: "Mr. Huerta has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." The FAA is specifically denied the authority to regulate RC model aircraft. I'll ignore any rules they make contrary to that. If they are not operating according to the law, they have no authority aside from naked force, and they don't have an enforcement arm large enough to control people flying model aircraft.
Oh yeah, what happened to the company that made that nanoparticle-based iron phosphate cathode battery? Right, they went belly-up, probably because while their chemistry is safer, standard lithium cobalt cells still win for energy density.
AirMap will be there. I'm our representative on the Task Force and co-founder of our company. We are committed to an open system in which innovation can thrive and we're definitely not a huge company or a monopoly.
The FAA appears to lack your commitment. They forbid all operation beyond the visual line of site in their proposed sUAS rules, which would seem to make your products unnecessary. The only thing this task force appears to be charged with is figuring out a way to make it harder to buy a UAS, and to somehow make it illegal to fly a UAS without registration (even if the UAS is a model aircraft under section 336 of the NPRM)... even though all commercial UAS already require registration under current rules. I'm not sure what good anyone can do on this task force; it is charged only with doing wrong.
Why? Because it is clear that the government has the right to regulate the national airspace system. Both Congress and the FAA have the right to control access to the NAS.
They do, however, have to pass laws and regulatons to do so. Not just do it by fiat in an arbitrary and capricious manner contrary to the laws which have actually been passed.
They may come up with a specific rule in the regs that says "you may fly line-of-sight RC aircraft up to 200ft AGL in congested areas and up to 400ft AGL in uncongested areas without prior ATC approval, or something like that.
They _already have_. The law says the FAA may not make rules or regulations related to model aircraft under 55 pounds flown for noncommercial purposes, line-of-sight, at a distance of more than 5 miles from an airport, or less than 5 miles of an airport with tower _notification_ (not approval). Now the FAA wants to ignore all that and set up a point of sale registration system for all model aircraft, without even going through the normal rulemaking process, let along getting the statutory authorization to make such rules.
We're talking about the Mode C veil, here, not class A,B, or C airspace. No engine-driven electrical system, no transponder requirement for the Mode C veil, from 91.215.
As for the rest, that depends on if "model aircraft" are intended to observe all the restrictions on "aircraft". This hasn't been the case for over 50 years, and Section 336 of FMRA 2012 was certainly intended to preserve that. The FAA and NTSB insist that all these restrictions do apply, which would make all model aircraft operation for the past 50 years illegal. This is going to end up in court, almost certainly.
The current N-number registration system is not cast in stone, and it is trivial to create an extended version with registrations that start with N and have 10 digits. Or 15.
It's not trivial; it would literally take an act of Congress.
You're not exempt from that rule just because you're not physically in the aircraft.
No, I'm exempt from that rule because I'm flying a model aircraft. Actually the regs say if you don't have an engine-driven electrical system you're exempt (the engine is electric; it doesn't drive the electrical system)
Guess what, want to fly more than a bit above the tree line? Want to go a few hundred feet up? Want to do it in a congested area? You'll need a transponder.
Not according to current rules. And the FAA can't add new rules to my models legally, because of section 336.
Incorrect. AOPA wants UAS to follow all the same rules if they want to integrate into the National Airspace System. So if your drone is big enough to fly with regular aircraft, then it should follow the same rules as regular aircraft. Which means if has all the same equipment (radios/transponders/etc) necessary to communicate with ATC and everything.
So a several thousand dollar (and > 1 pound) ATS-B transponder, registration, a pilot's license to fly them, a certificate of airworthiness, etc. Get real; you and AOPA know that's impractical, it's just proposed so you don't sound obviously unreasonable.
Your typical DJI like drone will probably not even have to deal with this unless you fly it close to an airport where you have planes at low altitudes.
I fly within the NYC area mode C veil (and not far from class C airspace, which extends 5 nautical miles from almost every dinky airport in the country). Putting an FCC-approved transponder on my models would bankrupt me and they'd not be able to fly due to the weight and power requirements anyway. Also I have no pilot's license and am unlikely to get one. And I can't imagine how I'd get a certificate of airworthiness for these things.
The AMA only cares that old retired guys can fly fixed-wing aircraft in a circle at AMA club fields. Those of us who fly rotary-wing aircraft on our own don't matter.
The AOPA wants all UAS out of the sky because they compete with General Aviation.
McNeal cares only about commercial use and would be fine with a licensing and registration system that would keep casual users out.
The FAA has been told by Congress not to promulgate any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft (Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). They think they've found a loophole (they claim model aircraft are already required to register, they just haven't been enforcing that requirement. For over 50 years), so they're completely ignoring this restriction. And ignoring it some more by proposing point-of-sale registration, which even that loophole wouldn't get them. The only thing that will stop the FAA is a judge slapping them down, and you've got to exhaust all administrative remedies before getting to that point, which takes many years and serious money, so it's probably not going to happen.
Yeah, we'll just stuff the tobacco, alcohol and MJ taxes too, right?
If these taxes have the purpose of discouraging use of the product rather than collecting revenue, sure.
It isn't a ban, it's an economic incentive to make a healthy choice
The government isn't my mother, and I don't need it to be. Nor do I want the government to be anyone else's mother.
- one that will save the tax base when it comes time to bury your skinny butt - fat butts are a lot more expensive in the years before they die, and they also tend to die during their "productive" years a lot more than skinny ones.
Sure, severe calorie restriction has been shown to extend life. Just what I want, to live to 100 eating like a concentration camp inmate. I'd rather live to 80 and not be hungry all the time.
If New York City can ban large soda cups, we can pass any kind of tax we want.
They couldn't, that was overturned. So take your behavior modification taxes and go home. Fat kids shouldn't eat so much sugar, the rest of us are just fine.
Everyone knows PE doesn't work. It's only there so the government can claim they haven't removed all the useful OTC decongestants from the market. Yes, technically you can still buy pseudoephedrine in most states, but doing so puts you on a list which gives them probable cause to bust down your door on suspicion of meth manufacture.
The problem is before there was Teach The Test, there was Teach Nothing At All. It's not that schools which were succeeding before are now just teaching to the test; it's that schools which were failing before are now teaching just enough not to be counted as failing (but really still are).
And while you whine about a 35 miles project, the Chinese are looking at building a similar one to connect Chine with the North American mainland. This project will have almost 9,000 miles of high speed track of which more than 100 miles would be a tunnel under the Bering Straights.
No environmental impact statements, no lawsuits from every NIMBY group along the way, no union problems, no Federal Railroad Administration applying 100-year-old rules, and no worry about worker safety. Relaxing the constraints make things much easier.
Of course this tunnel will never be built because the US isn't about to allow it (and it's a dumb idea anyway)
Right, and how does it compare to souls of Satya Nadella, Tim Cook, Obama or Bush jr?
Blacker than those, but not as black as the souls of Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney. Perhaps the same color as Donald Trump's soul, but that's hard to tell because for some reason he's had his covered with gold sequins.
It's 2015. Many women already ARE endeared to geek culture.
Impossible. University of Washington Assistant Professor of Social Justice Sapna Cheryan has made her career demonstrating that first of all, women don't like geek culture, and second, that's why there aren't so many women in tech, and third, if we just stomped on the geeks, made them dress like normal people and put away their toys, we'd have parity between men and women in tech.
Hobbyists do not have police powers over other hobbyists; we could not legally punch anyone else in the nuts even if we knew what they were up to. Anyway, I'm not sure who to punch in the nuts over that report near Andrews Air Force about a drone which looked like a "large vulture". Do I punch the pilot? Probably has a sidearm, wouldn't be wise. Or do I punch the vulture? Which one? I can't really tell them apart and anyway they don't stick around to be punched.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not really autistic people who are pushing this crap. It's people who think they can use engineer's own perceptions of their social skills (whether due to "autism" or not) against them. They come in saying "you're all a bunch of assholes, here's the code the Good People follow". And some number of engineers, knowing their own social skills are not the best, actually believe them. At it's heart, it's basically just a new form of nerd-bashing (even when done by other nerds).
The language's inability to check for overflow is a problem. Putting that sort of obtuse and unreadable compiler-specific code everywhere you want to do arithmetic is a a cure worse than the disease.
Right. The authors pay, the subscribers pay, the peer reviewers don't get paid, the editors don't get paid. The papers are typically expected to be submitted "camera ready". One might be excused if one wonders exactly what Elsevier is doing that's worth paying them.
I continue to not comply, and the fines rack up. What else can I do? It's either not fly (in which case the case ends and I have no further ability to challenge) or continue to disobey.
Fortunately, I could be dead of old age by the time "ultimately" happens.
I'm aware of the Pirker case. It never made it out of administrative courts. This is going to be decided in a judicial court ultimately; there already are pending challenges in the DC circuit. But if I obey the FCC's arbitrary rule until those challenges go through, it's me who is on the wrong side of time; I could be dead of old age before those cases are resolved, even if they're resolved in my favor.
It means that the FAA can't pull my "certificate" first and ask questions later while I go broke.
Flying a model without registering it is like "speeding" through a town which has posted a speed limit not in accordance with an overriding state law. It's not illegal.
My current machines cost between $100 and about $1000 all-up. The larger machines are 425mm blade model helicopters, they weigh over 2 pounds, though they're still small as helis go. And I live near NYC; within 30 miles of EWR, as it happens. Despite all that, once the FAA passes its new rules, it'll still be legal for me to fly my unregistered helis, still legal for me to buy or build new models without registering them, and still legal for me to fly them.
You presumably have a pilot's license, so they've got you by the short-and-curlies. You buck them, they pull your license while you fight, you go broke. I have no such restriction.
To paraphrase Andrew Jackson: "Mr. Huerta has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." The FAA is specifically denied the authority to regulate RC model aircraft. I'll ignore any rules they make contrary to that. If they are not operating according to the law, they have no authority aside from naked force, and they don't have an enforcement arm large enough to control people flying model aircraft.
Oh yeah, what happened to the company that made that nanoparticle-based iron phosphate cathode battery? Right, they went belly-up, probably because while their chemistry is safer, standard lithium cobalt cells still win for energy density.
The FAA appears to lack your commitment. They forbid all operation beyond the visual line of site in their proposed sUAS rules, which would seem to make your products unnecessary. The only thing this task force appears to be charged with is figuring out a way to make it harder to buy a UAS, and to somehow make it illegal to fly a UAS without registration (even if the UAS is a model aircraft under section 336 of the NPRM)... even though all commercial UAS already require registration under current rules. I'm not sure what good anyone can do on this task force; it is charged only with doing wrong.
They do, however, have to pass laws and regulatons to do so. Not just do it by fiat in an arbitrary and capricious manner contrary to the laws which have actually been passed.
They _already have_. The law says the FAA may not make rules or regulations related to model aircraft under 55 pounds flown for noncommercial purposes, line-of-sight, at a distance of more than 5 miles from an airport, or less than 5 miles of an airport with tower _notification_ (not approval). Now the FAA wants to ignore all that and set up a point of sale registration system for all model aircraft, without even going through the normal rulemaking process, let along getting the statutory authorization to make such rules.
We're talking about the Mode C veil, here, not class A,B, or C airspace. No engine-driven electrical system, no transponder requirement for the Mode C veil, from 91.215.
As for the rest, that depends on if "model aircraft" are intended to observe all the restrictions on "aircraft". This hasn't been the case for over 50 years, and Section 336 of FMRA 2012 was certainly intended to preserve that. The FAA and NTSB insist that all these restrictions do apply, which would make all model aircraft operation for the past 50 years illegal. This is going to end up in court, almost certainly.
It's not trivial; it would literally take an act of Congress.
No, I'm exempt from that rule because I'm flying a model aircraft. Actually the regs say if you don't have an engine-driven electrical system you're exempt (the engine is electric; it doesn't drive the electrical system)
Not according to current rules. And the FAA can't add new rules to my models legally, because of section 336.
So a several thousand dollar (and > 1 pound) ATS-B transponder, registration, a pilot's license to fly them, a certificate of airworthiness, etc. Get real; you and AOPA know that's impractical, it's just proposed so you don't sound obviously unreasonable.
I fly within the NYC area mode C veil (and not far from class C airspace, which extends 5 nautical miles from almost every dinky airport in the country). Putting an FCC-approved transponder on my models would bankrupt me and they'd not be able to fly due to the weight and power requirements anyway. Also I have no pilot's license and am unlikely to get one. And I can't imagine how I'd get a certificate of airworthiness for these things.
The AMA only cares that old retired guys can fly fixed-wing aircraft in a circle at AMA club fields. Those of us who fly rotary-wing aircraft on our own don't matter.
The AOPA wants all UAS out of the sky because they compete with General Aviation.
McNeal cares only about commercial use and would be fine with a licensing and registration system that would keep casual users out.
The FAA has been told by Congress not to promulgate any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft (Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). They think they've found a loophole (they claim model aircraft are already required to register, they just haven't been enforcing that requirement. For over 50 years), so they're completely ignoring this restriction. And ignoring it some more by proposing point-of-sale registration, which even that loophole wouldn't get them. The only thing that will stop the FAA is a judge slapping them down, and you've got to exhaust all administrative remedies before getting to that point, which takes many years and serious money, so it's probably not going to happen.
I asked two. Running Deer disagreed and Mr. Patel agreed.
If these taxes have the purpose of discouraging use of the product rather than collecting revenue, sure.
The government isn't my mother, and I don't need it to be. Nor do I want the government to be anyone else's mother.
Sure, severe calorie restriction has been shown to extend life. Just what I want, to live to 100 eating like a concentration camp inmate. I'd rather live to 80 and not be hungry all the time.
They couldn't, that was overturned. So take your behavior modification taxes and go home. Fat kids shouldn't eat so much sugar, the rest of us are just fine.
You can't. There's no conversation possible. Disagreeing with the whiners is "harassment", trying to explain anything to them is mansplaining.
Actually, the last few bomb threats have been called in AGAINST the "sick of the PC narrative" groups.
Everyone knows PE doesn't work. It's only there so the government can claim they haven't removed all the useful OTC decongestants from the market. Yes, technically you can still buy pseudoephedrine in most states, but doing so puts you on a list which gives them probable cause to bust down your door on suspicion of meth manufacture.
The problem is before there was Teach The Test, there was Teach Nothing At All. It's not that schools which were succeeding before are now just teaching to the test; it's that schools which were failing before are now teaching just enough not to be counted as failing (but really still are).
I live in NJ, that ship has sailed so I might as well get the benefits. (same goes for Silicon Valley BTW)
No environmental impact statements, no lawsuits from every NIMBY group along the way, no union problems, no Federal Railroad Administration applying 100-year-old rules, and no worry about worker safety. Relaxing the constraints make things much easier.
Of course this tunnel will never be built because the US isn't about to allow it (and it's a dumb idea anyway)
Blacker than those, but not as black as the souls of Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney. Perhaps the same color as Donald Trump's soul, but that's hard to tell because for some reason he's had his covered with gold sequins.
Impossible. University of Washington Assistant Professor of Social Justice Sapna Cheryan has made her career demonstrating that first of all, women don't like geek culture, and second, that's why there aren't so many women in tech, and third, if we just stomped on the geeks, made them dress like normal people and put away their toys, we'd have parity between men and women in tech.
Hobbyists do not have police powers over other hobbyists; we could not legally punch anyone else in the nuts even if we knew what they were up to. Anyway, I'm not sure who to punch in the nuts over that report near Andrews Air Force about a drone which looked like a "large vulture". Do I punch the pilot? Probably has a sidearm, wouldn't be wise. Or do I punch the vulture? Which one? I can't really tell them apart and anyway they don't stick around to be punched.