Surely it's conceivable to manufacture something even lighter and smaller and less expensive when done on a large scale, if the certification requirements were set reasonably enough to make such a unit commercially viable for consumer level "drones."
The FAA has already telegraphed their intentions about being reasonable, by requiring a special airworthiness certificate for drones, and requiring a licensed pilot to fly them. Why would they be any more reasonable about transponders?
Just look at GG, a subset of your side. What happened?
We won.
All the major gaming sites almost immediately put rules in place to keep your kind of rhetoric out.
And so new gaming sites were created.
They've been banned from conventions
Oh, right, you bozos threw a bunch of women out of the Calgary Comic Expo for supporting GamerGate. Hooray for your side... wait, I thought it was GG who was supposed to hate women, not your diverse and inclusive selves? Guess that wasn't true. They're suing now; turns out if you pay money for something you do have some rights.
Of course that was a comic expo. At the E3 GAMING convention, no GGers were thrown out of anything. Gamergate-supported publications showed up. And Anita Sarkeesian made a fool of herself by tsk-tsking the new games, and worse, complaining about violence. You know the gaming industry has a very sensitive spot about that, thanks to Jack Thompson, right?
Even 4chan, the bottom of the internet, has booted them out.
Thus the rise of 8chan. Remember that thing about the Internet interpreting censorship as damage and routing around it? Worked this time.
Where once your ideas were the norm, now their despised.
Our ideas are still the norm. It is your ideas which are despised, your racism and your sexism. That's why you have to lie about what they are most of the time, and pretend you're actually for equality. We're the egalitarians; you're the bigots.
Tell me, does England have a Lord Protector or a Queen today?
Sure, though they have absolutely no power and authority.
For one who talks about history, you sure don't know much about it. England has no Lord Protector today; it does have a Queen. That's because while Charles I found himself on the wrong side of the executioner's axe, it turned out to be the Cromwells who were on the wrong side of history; the monarchy was restored and remains in place today. So much for the inevitable course of history.
Once you've lost the outrage, and no one can stay outraged forever, you'll find yourself hiding your socially unacceptable beliefs far more often from friends, family, work mates, etc. I would be surprised if you don't already closet some of your less-enlightened beliefs already.
No, I speak out against your nonsense. And I take a lot of shit for it from you oh-so-enlightened SJWs. Some of you sometimes try to have me silenced. But when you fail, it emboldens others to speak against you as well. And then the only thing you can do is retreat behind your blockbots.
Your movement is dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Your high water mark was the slandering of Tim Hunt, and that was a desperation move; you'd already lost momentum thanks to Gamergate. You keep banging on tech, but no matter how much banging on it you do, you can't win; at best you can only destroy. And what you destroy will be made anew.
All these so-called SJW people are trying to do is give a voice to people who don't have much of their own to stop them being so excluded.
No, what SJWs want is to kick out the people who are already IN whatever community they are attempting to take over, and replace them with themselves and their friends. Or at least render the existing memebrs subordinate to the SJWs and their friends.. They call it inclusiveness, but they don't mean it.
You know how much damage my 2 lb "drone" will do if it hits your thousand pound helicopter?
That's a trick question, the rotor wash will knock my "drone" out of the air before it even gets close.
As for ADS-B, it apparently costs several thousand for a system (including transponder), there's no battery-powered version (you really want it sucking power from the flight battery?), and it's going to weigh more than the drone.
isn't the FAA ruling on drones less than a year old? Wasn't before this, the drone space pretty much unregulated?
No, drones that didn't qualify as model aircraft (non line of sight or for commercial purposes) were completely forbidden. The current regulation sets up a system by which you can have commercial drones if they have a special experimental airworthiness certficate, transponder, flight plan, the special permission of the FAA, and they're flown by a licensed pilot.
Because General Aviation is a lot more than low-flying executives and it's been around and well regulated since the 1930s. Drones and GA can coexist. Why do you argue as if it's an either or situation?
Because GA pilots do. They don't want competition for the few paying jobs there are flying a small plane (including aerial photography), so they push for these crazy rules which mean you need a full airworthiness certificate, a pilot's license, a flight plan, and all those other bits of bureaucratic minutia that keep anyone with low tolerance for bureaucracy from flying a plane... just to fly a 2 pound quadcopter.
You said "In the 80s women made up nearly half [of employed computer systems analysts and computer scientists]". They did not. They made up about 1/3rd. The trend you show is quite weak. BTW, the numbers for 2014 are 511,000 computer systems analysts, 34.2% women, and 29,000 computer and information scientists (no gender data available). If all the computer scientists are men (and I can see three who aren't from where I'm sitting), that's 32.4% women. Right back in the same range as the 1980s.
I'm not sure why those two categories were chosen; I'd think Computer Programmer, Software Developer (Applications) and Software Developer (Systems) would be more relevant. Those categories are more like 20% women right now; I don't know about historically.
Oh? On issues of equality, history has always left us with hero's and villains, liberators and oppressors, the righteous and the unholy. During their time, each side thought they were fighting for what was right. On one side, a brighter future, the other, their current way of life. The victor has universally been those on the side of equality.
If that were true, SJWs would be in deep shit. Because SJWs don't support equality, they support inverting an arbitrary hierarchy of "privilege" they claim exists. Women over men, blacks over whites (and "brown" fits in there somewhere, but who is "brown" is again arbitrary), Muslims over Jews (like I said, arbitrary).
However, it has certainly not been true. We happen to be at a high point in terms of equality in the Western world, but there has certainly historically been movement in the other direction. It is impossible to demonstrate that we are not merely at a local maximum.
SJW is just the monster you've imagined. You're not fighting some small faction in the war of public opinion. SJW represents everyone, save the ever shrinking minority that still agree with your outdated ideas.
Nice try. But you don't have enough control of media to pull that one off. That's why your type is always trying to close down comment sections and open forums: because it drives you crazy that you really are a small faction, and you don't want members of your opposition to realize they're far from alone. But you've failed. The Internet is too big for you to control. We know you're a small but noisy faction with disproportionate representation in traditionally left-leaning media. And we will resist you until you have finished your self-destruction as you turn on yourselves.
You know who else was on the wrong side of history? The English monarchy in the reign of Charles I. Tell me, does England have a Lord Protector or a Queen today?
You can get the exact same airframe with a camera. You can get a camera to fit the Hubsan Q4 (less than 2" across) as well. They fall into the same category as the big quads, as far as the FAA is concerned (and the camera doesn't actually matter to the FAA)
Scroll down to the 2nd graph "Employed computer systems analysts, scientists by sex 1983 - 2001"
In the 80s women made up nearly half, and the gap has increased. So there were in fact more women computer scientists and systems analysts in the 80 than now. Not less. That pretty much trashes your entire thesis.
Perhaps, if it were true. It's not. The graphs aren't stacked. Click on the "text version" link and you get the actual data. In fact in 1983 there were 199,000 men employed as computer systems analysts, and 77,000 women.
Of course, this also fails to take into account other job categories such as "Computer Programmer" (which is now broken into three subcategories, as I recall)
That's because there isn't a 50/50 quota in HR. Just like there isn't a 50/50 quota anywhere else.
There's no 50/50 quota. But in these discussions that's typically the standard technical professions are held to; if they're not 50/50 we must be doing something wrong. HR, on the other hand, is over 70% female and no one bats an eye.
2) They are more newsworthy now. A pilot saying "I saw a model airplane when I was approaching the runway" wouldn't have made the news before drones were in fashion.
3) Quadcopters are under the same regulations as other model aircraft. Namely no commercial use, period. The FAA loves to fine or threaten aerial photographers for this.
Not the point. Most hobbiests would follow the rules, which require them to a) fly in Class G airspace below certain heights
Nonsense. There's so much class B and otherwise restricted airspace around all the way to ground level in most metropolitan areas that tons of hobbyists are flying in it. For instance, all of the District of Columbia and most of Northern Virginia. I fly in New Jersey 15 miles from Manhattan, and I'm just barely outside the class B limit.
That's not quite how it works: the company should have the option to go to court, just like you should have the option of contesting your traffic ticket in court.
They do. Once they've exhausted administrative remedies and posted a bond for the entire fine amount. I'm sure the courts will get around to the case before they go bankrupt for lack of liquidity.
The FAA has been "working" on such regulations for years. So far the only regulation it has come up with is "no". Well really "No, and we'd like to further restrict recreational model aircraft as well".
You're missing the point. The situation that exists now is that drones have been available for years, with clear opportunities for commercial and recreational use alike, but there still is no viable way for drone operators to fly in shared airspace, and there is no exclusive airspace for drones either.
Yeah, the FAA regulates drones the way the International Whaling Commission regulates whaling. But it's even sillier than that. Recreational use of remotely piloted model aircraft within line of sight is legal. But non-recreational use of the same aircraft is illegal. So if I fly a quadcopter all around Manhattan taking pictures, the FAA will have nothing to say about it (the city still makes it illegal, however). But if I then sell those pictures, BAM, the FAA can (and probably will) throw the book at me.
This in spades. And one of the barriers we need to remove is the one created by the minority of boorish, petulant, insulting participants who think they're cool and powerful when they act that way.
3 boors -- Linus Torvalds, Steve Jobs, and Richard M. Stallman -- created more in this field than any number of make-nice people ever has. So I doubt removing boors will be a net positive.
I will grant that just being a boor doesn't mean you'll make a great contribution; there's always Ballmer as a counterexample.
Brogramming was a hoax. Anyone still taking it seriously is either an idiot or has an agenda.
(which is not to say there aren't a few actual bros out there programming. And a few programmers doing the whole life-imitates-art thing, but they're in the idiot category)
The average person cannot be fat, stupid, oblivious, trusting of advertising (and paid studies and other obviously biased sources), saturated in meaningless tabloid bullshit, and view non-job-related thought as tedium to be avoided or offloaded... and then expect to have a truly representative government. It's never happened before and it's not happening today.
False. I present you with the State of New Jersey: Chris Christie, Governor.
Slashdot Mirror
The FAA has already telegraphed their intentions about being reasonable, by requiring a special airworthiness certificate for drones, and requiring a licensed pilot to fly them. Why would they be any more reasonable about transponders?
We won.
And so new gaming sites were created.
Oh, right, you bozos threw a bunch of women out of the Calgary Comic Expo for supporting GamerGate. Hooray for your side... wait, I thought it was GG who was supposed to hate women, not your diverse and inclusive selves? Guess that wasn't true. They're suing now; turns out if you pay money for something you do have some rights.
Of course that was a comic expo. At the E3 GAMING convention, no GGers were thrown out of anything. Gamergate-supported publications showed up. And Anita Sarkeesian made a fool of herself by tsk-tsking the new games, and worse, complaining about violence. You know the gaming industry has a very sensitive spot about that, thanks to Jack Thompson, right?
Thus the rise of 8chan. Remember that thing about the Internet interpreting censorship as damage and routing around it? Worked this time.
Our ideas are still the norm. It is your ideas which are despised, your racism and your sexism. That's why you have to lie about what they are most of the time, and pretend you're actually for equality. We're the egalitarians; you're the bigots.
For one who talks about history, you sure don't know much about it. England has no Lord Protector today; it does have a Queen. That's because while Charles I found himself on the wrong side of the executioner's axe, it turned out to be the Cromwells who were on the wrong side of history; the monarchy was restored and remains in place today. So much for the inevitable course of history.
No, I speak out against your nonsense. And I take a lot of shit for it from you oh-so-enlightened SJWs. Some of you sometimes try to have me silenced. But when you fail, it emboldens others to speak against you as well. And then the only thing you can do is retreat behind your blockbots.
Your movement is dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Your high water mark was the slandering of Tim Hunt, and that was a desperation move; you'd already lost momentum thanks to Gamergate. You keep banging on tech, but no matter how much banging on it you do, you can't win; at best you can only destroy. And what you destroy will be made anew.
No, what SJWs want is to kick out the people who are already IN whatever community they are attempting to take over, and replace them with themselves and their friends. Or at least render the existing memebrs subordinate to the SJWs and their friends.. They call it inclusiveness, but they don't mean it.
How do you know this?
You know how much damage my 2 lb "drone" will do if it hits your thousand pound helicopter?
That's a trick question, the rotor wash will knock my "drone" out of the air before it even gets close.
As for ADS-B, it apparently costs several thousand for a system (including transponder), there's no battery-powered version (you really want it sucking power from the flight battery?), and it's going to weigh more than the drone.
No, drones that didn't qualify as model aircraft (non line of sight or for commercial purposes) were completely forbidden. The current regulation sets up a system by which you can have commercial drones if they have a special experimental airworthiness certficate, transponder, flight plan, the special permission of the FAA, and they're flown by a licensed pilot.
Because GA pilots do. They don't want competition for the few paying jobs there are flying a small plane (including aerial photography), so they push for these crazy rules which mean you need a full airworthiness certificate, a pilot's license, a flight plan, and all those other bits of bureaucratic minutia that keep anyone with low tolerance for bureaucracy from flying a plane... just to fly a 2 pound quadcopter.
You said "In the 80s women made up nearly half [of employed computer systems analysts and computer scientists]". They did not. They made up about 1/3rd. The trend you show is quite weak. BTW, the numbers for 2014 are 511,000 computer systems analysts, 34.2% women, and 29,000 computer and information scientists (no gender data available). If all the computer scientists are men (and I can see three who aren't from where I'm sitting), that's 32.4% women. Right back in the same range as the 1980s.
I'm not sure why those two categories were chosen; I'd think Computer Programmer, Software Developer (Applications) and Software Developer (Systems) would be more relevant. Those categories are more like 20% women right now; I don't know about historically.
If that were true, SJWs would be in deep shit. Because SJWs don't support equality, they support inverting an arbitrary hierarchy of "privilege" they claim exists. Women over men, blacks over whites (and "brown" fits in there somewhere, but who is "brown" is again arbitrary), Muslims over Jews (like I said, arbitrary).
However, it has certainly not been true. We happen to be at a high point in terms of equality in the Western world, but there has certainly historically been movement in the other direction. It is impossible to demonstrate that we are not merely at a local maximum.
Nice try. But you don't have enough control of media to pull that one off. That's why your type is always trying to close down comment sections and open forums: because it drives you crazy that you really are a small faction, and you don't want members of your opposition to realize they're far from alone. But you've failed. The Internet is too big for you to control. We know you're a small but noisy faction with disproportionate representation in traditionally left-leaning media. And we will resist you until you have finished your self-destruction as you turn on yourselves.
You know who else was on the wrong side of history? The English monarchy in the reign of Charles I. Tell me, does England have a Lord Protector or a Queen today?
You can get the exact same airframe with a camera. You can get a camera to fit the Hubsan Q4 (less than 2" across) as well. They fall into the same category as the big quads, as far as the FAA is concerned (and the camera doesn't actually matter to the FAA)
Perhaps, if it were true. It's not. The graphs aren't stacked. Click on the "text version" link and you get the actual data. In fact in 1983 there were 199,000 men employed as computer systems analysts, and 77,000 women.
Year: Men Women (thousands)
1983: 199 77
1984: 217 93
1985: 258 101
1986: 253 133
1987: 303 144
1988: 338 141
1989: 383 184
Of course, this also fails to take into account other job categories such as "Computer Programmer" (which is now broken into three subcategories, as I recall)
There's no 50/50 quota. But in these discussions that's typically the standard technical professions are held to; if they're not 50/50 we must be doing something wrong. HR, on the other hand, is over 70% female and no one bats an eye.
Sorry, you're neither the Devil nor Keyser Soze; you cannot convince the world you do not exist.
Ha ha, history does not work that way.
1) There's a lot more of them now.
2) They are more newsworthy now. A pilot saying "I saw a model airplane when I was approaching the runway" wouldn't have made the news before drones were in fashion.
3) Quadcopters are under the same regulations as other model aircraft. Namely no commercial use, period. The FAA loves to fine or threaten aerial photographers for this.
Nonsense. There's so much class B and otherwise restricted airspace around all the way to ground level in most metropolitan areas that tons of hobbyists are flying in it. For instance, all of the District of Columbia and most of Northern Virginia. I fly in New Jersey 15 miles from Manhattan, and I'm just barely outside the class B limit.
They do. Once they've exhausted administrative remedies and posted a bond for the entire fine amount. I'm sure the courts will get around to the case before they go bankrupt for lack of liquidity.
The FAA has been "working" on such regulations for years. So far the only regulation it has come up with is "no". Well really "No, and we'd like to further restrict recreational model aircraft as well".
Yeah, the FAA regulates drones the way the International Whaling Commission regulates whaling. But it's even sillier than that. Recreational use of remotely piloted model aircraft within line of sight is legal. But non-recreational use of the same aircraft is illegal. So if I fly a quadcopter all around Manhattan taking pictures, the FAA will have nothing to say about it (the city still makes it illegal, however). But if I then sell those pictures, BAM, the FAA can (and probably will) throw the book at me.
3 boors -- Linus Torvalds, Steve Jobs, and Richard M. Stallman -- created more in this field than any number of make-nice people ever has. So I doubt removing boors will be a net positive.
I will grant that just being a boor doesn't mean you'll make a great contribution; there's always Ballmer as a counterexample.
Brogramming was a hoax. Anyone still taking it seriously is either an idiot or has an agenda.
(which is not to say there aren't a few actual bros out there programming. And a few programmers doing the whole life-imitates-art thing, but they're in the idiot category)
Think any of them have a 50/50 split in the HR department? I'm thinking not.
Because if we take you at your word and then ask for some of that respect ourselves, you say "fuck off, white man".
The most habitable worlds, of course, are class M.
False. I present you with the State of New Jersey: Chris Christie, Governor.
I believe the original boundary for space flight was "At least one mile higher than Chuck Yeager can fly an airplane".