10yrs ago, R/C was a hobby restricted to AMA fields.
Maybe 20.
The only thing the FAA/DOT is be reasonable on the microdrones (500g) but we'll see on Monday.
My TREX 450 has an AUW over 800g.
The less we work with the FAA/Gov't the more restrictions, taxes, regulations, etc.. they will put upon us, drone are afterall the marijuana of technology.
The AMA has been "working with" the FAA to the extent that they got themselves certified as the only regulator of the R/C hobby and therefore anyone flying R/C without FAA permission is required to do it under AMA auspices. If this happens as reported, it'll turn out the FAA betrayed them as well. That's what "working with" the regulators gets you; every inch you give them they take, then they go ahead and take some more.
Special classes, schools, etc, for women. Lots of interest for a year or two, then it just peters out and is cancelled for lack of interest. Don't see this being any different.
I figure that the real problem here is idiots who breed. How are you going to solve that problem really?
Give their kids guns, apparently.
Seriously, some dumb-ass gun control propaganda? Off topic even by typical slashdot standards. Now if the toddlers were flying Predator drones, that would be a story.
Have you been on Playboy.com lately? These days, you won't find even a bare female nipple. Allegedly, the move has picked up traffic and skewed younger than they have in a long while.
If they bring the nipples back they can get even younger traffic.
As the BBC article mentions, one of the problems women face is that when they do make it people start muttering about how they probably only got there to fill a quota or improve the company's image.
Then you should certainly be strongly against any such quotas or image-based hiring. Because while such mutterings can be dismissed as the babble of the ignorant and subject the mutterer to rebuke when it _isn't_ true, it would be churlish to rebuke the mutterer when it is true.
The place to fight for your rights is not at the scene of the arrest. Comply with police, fight in the courts.
Then you get to the courts and find your word is worth nothing and the cops word worth everything (and any exculpatory evidence has vanished). You may as well fight for your rights at the scene of the arrest; you'll still lose, but it's the last chance you'll get to do it where anyone will notice.
John Nash - courting a student is not the same thing as inappropriate contact.
You think there wasn't any "inappropriate" contact? Might want to double-check with an anthropologist, but I'm pretty sure courting behavior among humans generally involves such contact. Nash was a professor, Alicia was his student. Couldn't get any more clear-cut than that. Backpedal away, but like it or not, with your standards, we lose the Nash Equilibrium.
Niels Bohr - his wife was not his typist. It was the sister of his colleague.
Who he hired to type for him. So a little nepotism along with sleeping with someone he had power over. You're setting physics back quite a few years.
Boltzmann - Henriette was a student, but not his student,
A student at the institution he was a professor at.
and by all accounts the relationship was mutual agreed as they married and were together for the rest of their lives.
That's the way a lot of student-professor relationships go. You're the one insisting they're always wrong.
Glad to hear you're OK with incest though; wouldn't want to lose Einstein and Von Braun.
And here's the thing, everyone gets to choose their boundaries with everyone else. Complaining someone's boundaries are wrong or unfair is you saying you do not respect their boundaries. And that's when behaviour starts getting into the creepy zone.
Well, no, not everyone sets boundaries which are reasonable to respect. Some people set boundaries which make simple things like saying "hello" or simply being looked as one passes in the hallway "creepy". These are not respectable boundaries.
If you are merely ignorant and want to find out more about such things, then you may find this an enlightening read:
Looks like a reject from Penthouse Letters. I believe this video, while perhaps exaggerating slightly for comic effect, gives a truer picture of the situation.
Academia should follow the same rules as everyone else. If allegations are found to be with merit, then the professor should lose his job. Period. I don't care if the guy is the next Albert Einstein, no one person is so important to the advancement of science that we should be willing to sacrifice our ethics.
OK, so you lose John Nash right off the bat (courted a student). Presumably you lose Feynman. How about Einstein himself? Well, he cheated on his first wife with his second, who was also his first cousin on one side and second cousin on the other (her maiden name? Einstein). Niels Bohr married a woman he had hired as a typist, so sorry, gone. Werner von Braun married his first cousin also. Boltzmann married a student. Hmm... science is getting kind of thin.
What difference does it make? If every major bill involves horse trading, arm twisting, and backroom dealing, the fact that a particularly pernicious Constitutional provision also did is unremarkable.
If you're an American (or frankly, any innocent person) anywhere in the world who isn't an active member of a foreign terrorist organization or an agent of a foreign power, the Intelligence Community DOES NOT CARE ABOUT and actually DOES NOT WANT your data.
This may have been true at one time. Since the USA PATRIOT Act, with its relaxation on sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it is no longer true if it ever was. We have intelligence information used for drug busts, and then that fact covered up through "parallel construction". That pretty much blows your claim out of the water. This is not individual abuse; this is official practice.
Now any time I hear about a criminal caught due to an "anonymous tip" or through some supposed routine process, I have to wonder -- is that really a story invented to cover up the use of intelligence data for law enforcement purposes? And some of the time, it will be.
The three-fifths compromise is hardly the only provision involving arm-twisting, horse-trading, and backroom dealing. Pretty much ANY major bill will involve that (and minor bills will be used as tokens in this dealing).
You need a refresher course on how an idea become a law. It's called democracy.
When you're done with the Schoolhouse Rock, you can watch a few episodes of "House of Cards" to get a better perspective. For some reason, "Schoolhouse Rock" left out the arm-twisting, horse-trading, and other backroom dealing necessary to get a bill passed.
Perhaps Hizzoner should make sure students are learning reading, writing, and arithmetic (and maybe some history and science too) in the Chicgao Public Schools before becoming concerned with national requirements for computer coding?
You can imagine what's inside this FreeFlight ADS-B: a small microprocessor and a transmitter. If the Futaba type companies can't produce that for under $100 they aren't even trying...
Of course they could. But getting it through the FAA certification would cost a fortune and throw us right back into the thousands of dollars range. It's like hearing aids; they cost a fortune, despite the fact that you can buy the same thing in a package which carefully avoids making medical claims for an order of magnitude less money. And to be legal, a drone operator would have to use an FAA-certified one. If you really could get a lightweight and reasonably-priced transponder, I'd agree it would make sense for autonomous drones... but like I said, the FAA has operated completely in bad faith with respect to drones, and I do not believe they will be reasonable in the future.
Yeah, probably a nomenclature issue there. When I say "drone" I mean an autonomous vehicle, thus my comment about the GPS. I recognize there are human directed RC vehicles as well. I don't see them as nearly the problem that the autonomous vehicles are, but they still should have access to the NAS. One question for you is what kind of distances people reasonably want to operate in LoS.
You're missing a category, which I think most using drones for aerial photography fall into -- First Person View flight, where the drone is human directed but flown not by watching it from the ground (where the view may be obstructed or the drone too far away) but from the real-time camera view from the drone.
I also think that featherweight drones (the weight of a small bird like a sparrow) should probably be able to be operated without any required gear below some altitude like 500 feet with some common sense limitations like not right at an airport (but probably even 1/4 mile away from the airport should be okay).
A sparrow weighs about as much as a Hubsan X4, a 4" toy. You're not really offering much here.
So, yeah, in their mind the way to proceed is to not allow the proposed action until it can be researched, tested, run up and down the flagpole several times, and finally promulgated as law.
I'm not going to live that long. Or at least not long enough for a set of regulations that would allow me to fly, assuming they actually ever come about. "Let them eat cake" style regulations that require a team of lawyers, thousands of dollars, and some sort of official notification for every flight do not help me at all. If you start with complete prohibition and then slowly relax things until powerful people stop screaming, you're going to remain pretty darn close to prohibition.
The good part for drone operators is that I actually see that the subject is now being talked about in FAA circles - it's actually being thought about.
it's been talked about because they've already missed congressional deadlines to actually do something. And because they've been coming up with ways to stop people from flying (like threatening those who buy images made with drones). They have shown no interest in allowing a practical way for people to fly drones.
I assume you've already read this FAA web page
Yeah, that's the page that says my non-commercial operations are illegal (thanks partially to the AMA). I fly within 5 miles of an airport (a rule which covers a surprisingly large area, considering all the small airports around) without notifying anyone, and I do not fly "in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" (because I don't belong to the AMA nor fly on an AMA field.)
In practice the only plausible (and unlikely) danger is to helicopter operators like yourself, because I fly between two ridgelines and not much a
It's actually not true that modelers understand and respect the regulations. The AMA has long contended that the 400' ceiling only applies within 3 miles of an airport, and that notification of the airport operator is only necessary if exceeding that ceiling within 3 miles of an airport. The FAAs advisory guidelines (which are not regulations -- AC 91-57 is the document) said the 400' ceiling applies everywhere, and you always have to notify an airport operator if operating within 3 miles of an airport. In practice, there haven't been many (if any) problems from modelers flying over 400' or near an airport
The new rule (Section 335 of PL 112-95) has no ceiling. However, to avoid FAA regulation, you have to give notice to an airport operator within 5 miles, not 3. Also, you're subject to _AMA_ regulation, because one of the rules is 'the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization' -- the only such organization is the AMA.
As it happens, the FAA has issued no regulations on model aircraft yet. But they could, and the only way to not be subject to them would be to be the AMAs bitch (the AMA is run by a bunch of old retired dudes who think if you didn't start with a control line plane in 1930, you probably don't deserve to fly. And they mostly hate helis and especially multirotors). You also have to not be within 5 miles of an airport, which is surprisingly difficult. The place I fly is within 5 miles of the county airport. I'm not going to call them up every time I fly.
Remember, there is NO EVIDENCE to cover-up. No attempt has been made to remove any damning information about the subject because none exists.
"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."
I have to question why the only example of cronyism in the industry that sparked this outrage was a tryst between an obscure indie developer and an even more obscure freelance journalist.
If a girl announces in school that she wants to be a hairdresser when she grows up, no real problem. If a boy does, there is going to be a big problem with his peers. That's social inhibition.
Yes. But note in this case it's not coming from the hairdressers; it's not the female and gay male hairdressers who dominate the profession who are driving heterosexual men out, it's the male peers of the boy who presumably have no interest in hairdressing at all.
Same goes for the tech professions at the primary and secondary educational level. Whether or not Linus is an ass (or whether or not I am, for that matter), has absolutely no effect on girls in school who may have an interest in tech. Whether their female peers disapprove has a huge effect.
Yes, I do. And, even in the 4,000 pound helicopter I fly, a drone strike will absolutely take it out of the sky.
Did a little looking around and found one case of a 2.4 pound bird taking a helicopter out of the sky. The windshield had been intentionally replaced with a weaker one, and even then the helicopter only crashed because the bird hit the fire extinguisher, which then hit the engine controls. So don't swap out your windshield.
This is just totally made up and wrong. First of all there are battery powered ADS-B-IN systems (I use a Stratus 2 with about 8 hours of battery life while doing ADS-B plus AHRS plus providing a WiFi hotspot plus built in GPS) - an ADS-B system running for the length of a typical drone flight would use very little power.
The Stratus 2S, according to the web page, requires an iPad to work, is 10 oz, costs $900 on its own, and isn't a transponder anyway, so it's completely irrelevant. Their transponder with GPS is $3500, not battery powered, and looks like your average drone won't carry it.
The only reason there aren't battery powered ADS-B-OUT systems is the FAA won't currently allow it
Exactly. And there's no reason to expect the FAA to be any sort of reasonable concerning drones, since they haven't, instead first banning them entirely and now banning them unless you meet a rather ridiculously onerous set of requirements -- including being a certified pilot.
In my opinion, and given that the drone already has a functioning GPS system
Wait, what? Who said it does? A fully-autonomous drone which follows waypoints has to, but a simple camera drone operated FPV or LoS quite likely does not.
And... are you willing to limit drones to a maximum weight of 2.5 pounds or would you like to be able to fly larger ones in the airspace?
I'd certainly like to fly larger ones, but I don't think the same requirements need to apply. If someone builds a drone as big as a Bell 206, certainly regulations similar to those of the helicopter (except those related only to crew and passenger safety) should apply. The kinds of regulations pilots would like to impose on all drones would eliminate small, inexpensive drones entirely, which is likely the point. You want a transponder which is a significant percentage of the weight of the drone, and you want the thing to automatically land when a piloted aircraft is around -- which not only rules out small drones, but means the drones have to be disposable, because much of the time it automatically "lands" it won't be recoverable.
I really disagree with this. We were doing a lot of construction and real estate photography work which went 100% away to drones and no pilot I know ever complained or tried to stop it.
Well, a lot of them DID, and succeeded in getting the FAA to send out a bunch of threatening letters and to stop some real estate sites from accepting pictures taken by drones (I imagine this isn't effective as real estate agents will just omit that fact or lie outright, but it happened anyway).
The pilots I know just want to share the airspace without getting killed by someone with a drone who doesn't know what they're doing. It'll take some time to figure out a good way to coexist, and all pilots want is to avoid loss of life while we're figuring it out.
Right. So initially ban drones, then drag this "figuring it out" process until the heat death of the universe. The FAA appears interested only in setting the barriers for using drones so high that only a multinational could afford to jump through their hoops. And that's probably a compromise; they'd rather just ban them entirely as they did before some recent laws were passed.
If you'd like access to the airspace, I suggest you tone down your attitu
Slashdot Mirror
...but then a taxi lobbyist dropped a big bag of Benjamins on my desk, and what's a blogger to do?
Maybe 20.
My TREX 450 has an AUW over 800g.
The AMA has been "working with" the FAA to the extent that they got themselves certified as the only regulator of the R/C hobby and therefore anyone flying R/C without FAA permission is required to do it under AMA auspices. If this happens as reported, it'll turn out the FAA betrayed them as well. That's what "working with" the regulators gets you; every inch you give them they take, then they go ahead and take some more.
Special classes, schools, etc, for women. Lots of interest for a year or two, then it just peters out and is cancelled for lack of interest. Don't see this being any different.
Give their kids guns, apparently.
Seriously, some dumb-ass gun control propaganda? Off topic even by typical slashdot standards. Now if the toddlers were flying Predator drones, that would be a story.
If they bring the nipples back they can get even younger traffic.
Then you should certainly be strongly against any such quotas or image-based hiring. Because while such mutterings can be dismissed as the babble of the ignorant and subject the mutterer to rebuke when it _isn't_ true, it would be churlish to rebuke the mutterer when it is true.
Then you get to the courts and find your word is worth nothing and the cops word worth everything (and any exculpatory evidence has vanished). You may as well fight for your rights at the scene of the arrest; you'll still lose, but it's the last chance you'll get to do it where anyone will notice.
Sorry, .BO is reserved for rms.
You think there wasn't any "inappropriate" contact? Might want to double-check with an anthropologist, but I'm pretty sure courting behavior among humans generally involves such contact. Nash was a professor, Alicia was his student. Couldn't get any more clear-cut than that. Backpedal away, but like it or not, with your standards, we lose the Nash Equilibrium.
Who he hired to type for him. So a little nepotism along with sleeping with someone he had power over. You're setting physics back quite a few years.
A student at the institution he was a professor at.
That's the way a lot of student-professor relationships go. You're the one insisting they're always wrong.
Glad to hear you're OK with incest though; wouldn't want to lose Einstein and Von Braun.
Well, no, not everyone sets boundaries which are reasonable to respect. Some people set boundaries which make simple things like saying "hello" or simply being looked as one passes in the hallway "creepy". These are not respectable boundaries.
Looks like a reject from Penthouse Letters. I believe this video, while perhaps exaggerating slightly for comic effect, gives a truer picture of the situation.
"Creepy" just means "Unattractive and perceived as making a move".
OK, so you lose John Nash right off the bat (courted a student). Presumably you lose Feynman. How about Einstein himself? Well, he cheated on his first wife with his second, who was also his first cousin on one side and second cousin on the other (her maiden name? Einstein). Niels Bohr married a woman he had hired as a typist, so sorry, gone. Werner von Braun married his first cousin also. Boltzmann married a student. Hmm... science is getting kind of thin.
A Brianna Wu video? Obvious troll is obvious.
What difference does it make? If every major bill involves horse trading, arm twisting, and backroom dealing, the fact that a particularly pernicious Constitutional provision also did is unremarkable.
This may have been true at one time. Since the USA PATRIOT Act, with its relaxation on sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it is no longer true if it ever was. We have intelligence information used for drug busts, and then that fact covered up through "parallel construction". That pretty much blows your claim out of the water. This is not individual abuse; this is official practice.
Now any time I hear about a criminal caught due to an "anonymous tip" or through some supposed routine process, I have to wonder -- is that really a story invented to cover up the use of intelligence data for law enforcement purposes? And some of the time, it will be.
The three-fifths compromise is hardly the only provision involving arm-twisting, horse-trading, and backroom dealing. Pretty much ANY major bill will involve that (and minor bills will be used as tokens in this dealing).
When you're done with the Schoolhouse Rock, you can watch a few episodes of "House of Cards" to get a better perspective. For some reason, "Schoolhouse Rock" left out the arm-twisting, horse-trading, and other backroom dealing necessary to get a bill passed.
Perhaps Hizzoner should make sure students are learning reading, writing, and arithmetic (and maybe some history and science too) in the Chicgao Public Schools before becoming concerned with national requirements for computer coding?
Of course they could. But getting it through the FAA certification would cost a fortune and throw us right back into the thousands of dollars range. It's like hearing aids; they cost a fortune, despite the fact that you can buy the same thing in a package which carefully avoids making medical claims for an order of magnitude less money. And to be legal, a drone operator would have to use an FAA-certified one. If you really could get a lightweight and reasonably-priced transponder, I'd agree it would make sense for autonomous drones... but like I said, the FAA has operated completely in bad faith with respect to drones, and I do not believe they will be reasonable in the future.
You're missing a category, which I think most using drones for aerial photography fall into -- First Person View flight, where the drone is human directed but flown not by watching it from the ground (where the view may be obstructed or the drone too far away) but from the real-time camera view from the drone.
A sparrow weighs about as much as a Hubsan X4, a 4" toy. You're not really offering much here.
I'm not going to live that long. Or at least not long enough for a set of regulations that would allow me to fly, assuming they actually ever come about. "Let them eat cake" style regulations that require a team of lawyers, thousands of dollars, and some sort of official notification for every flight do not help me at all. If you start with complete prohibition and then slowly relax things until powerful people stop screaming, you're going to remain pretty darn close to prohibition.
it's been talked about because they've already missed congressional deadlines to actually do something. And because they've been coming up with ways to stop people from flying (like threatening those who buy images made with drones). They have shown no interest in allowing a practical way for people to fly drones.
Yeah, that's the page that says my non-commercial operations are illegal (thanks partially to the AMA). I fly within 5 miles of an airport (a rule which covers a surprisingly large area, considering all the small airports around) without notifying anyone, and I do not fly "in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" (because I don't belong to the AMA nor fly on an AMA field.)
In practice the only plausible (and unlikely) danger is to helicopter operators like yourself, because I fly between two ridgelines and not much a
It's actually not true that modelers understand and respect the regulations. The AMA has long contended that the 400' ceiling only applies within 3 miles of an airport, and that notification of the airport operator is only necessary if exceeding that ceiling within 3 miles of an airport. The FAAs advisory guidelines (which are not regulations -- AC 91-57 is the document) said the 400' ceiling applies everywhere, and you always have to notify an airport operator if operating within 3 miles of an airport. In practice, there haven't been many (if any) problems from modelers flying over 400' or near an airport
The new rule (Section 335 of PL 112-95) has no ceiling. However, to avoid FAA regulation, you have to give notice to an airport operator within 5 miles, not 3. Also, you're subject to _AMA_ regulation, because one of the rules is 'the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization' -- the only such organization is the AMA.
As it happens, the FAA has issued no regulations on model aircraft yet. But they could, and the only way to not be subject to them would be to be the AMAs bitch (the AMA is run by a bunch of old retired dudes who think if you didn't start with a control line plane in 1930, you probably don't deserve to fly. And they mostly hate helis and especially multirotors). You also have to not be within 5 miles of an airport, which is surprisingly difficult. The place I fly is within 5 miles of the county airport. I'm not going to call them up every time I fly.
"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."
Bingo.
No one was trying to cover-up? Really? What is it you said earlier?
Ah. Right.
Ask Barbra Streisand.
Yes. But note in this case it's not coming from the hairdressers; it's not the female and gay male hairdressers who dominate the profession who are driving heterosexual men out, it's the male peers of the boy who presumably have no interest in hairdressing at all.
Same goes for the tech professions at the primary and secondary educational level. Whether or not Linus is an ass (or whether or not I am, for that matter), has absolutely no effect on girls in school who may have an interest in tech. Whether their female peers disapprove has a huge effect.
Did a little looking around and found one case of a 2.4 pound bird taking a helicopter out of the sky. The windshield had been intentionally replaced with a weaker one, and even then the helicopter only crashed because the bird hit the fire extinguisher, which then hit the engine controls. So don't swap out your windshield.
The Stratus 2S, according to the web page, requires an iPad to work, is 10 oz, costs $900 on its own, and isn't a transponder anyway, so it's completely irrelevant. Their transponder with GPS is $3500, not battery powered, and looks like your average drone won't carry it.
Exactly. And there's no reason to expect the FAA to be any sort of reasonable concerning drones, since they haven't, instead first banning them entirely and now banning them unless you meet a rather ridiculously onerous set of requirements -- including being a certified pilot.
Wait, what? Who said it does? A fully-autonomous drone which follows waypoints has to, but a simple camera drone operated FPV or LoS quite likely does not.
I'd certainly like to fly larger ones, but I don't think the same requirements need to apply. If someone builds a drone as big as a Bell 206, certainly regulations similar to those of the helicopter (except those related only to crew and passenger safety) should apply. The kinds of regulations pilots would like to impose on all drones would eliminate small, inexpensive drones entirely, which is likely the point. You want a transponder which is a significant percentage of the weight of the drone, and you want the thing to automatically land when a piloted aircraft is around -- which not only rules out small drones, but means the drones have to be disposable, because much of the time it automatically "lands" it won't be recoverable.
Well, a lot of them DID, and succeeded in getting the FAA to send out a bunch of threatening letters and to stop some real estate sites from accepting pictures taken by drones (I imagine this isn't effective as real estate agents will just omit that fact or lie outright, but it happened anyway).
Right. So initially ban drones, then drag this "figuring it out" process until the heat death of the universe. The FAA appears interested only in setting the barriers for using drones so high that only a multinational could afford to jump through their hoops. And that's probably a compromise; they'd rather just ban them entirely as they did before some recent laws were passed.