Great, then just program all of those dangerous birds flying around to obey the same zone.
This whole fucking discussion is predicated on the "fact" that these drones pose a danger. Yet, while we have drones enjoying unprecedented popularity, we do not have any incidences of an aircraft being in any real danger. Even if we did, how many more bird strikes are there each year?
This is yet another example of failure to do a cost-benefit analysis and simply accepting the government's default position of safety over freedom on something. Let's not allow the crippling CYA culture that dominates the public sector to invade our lives. Please?
A supermarket drone is less than a pound (half a kilo) and has a ceiling far below cruise for an aircraft. An aircraft on takeoff or approach will be flying pretty slowly. A Canada goose is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 lbs. and will stop a jet-engine, but still won't destroy a jumbo jet.
You might as well worry about flocks of songbirds, which as you may know far outnumber and predate drones.
Birds are not a microscopic minority, though, and civil aviation has managed to live with bird strikes for decades.
I fear people like you accepting the government's word as they slowly pick away at freedoms more than I fear a half-pound drone hitting my plane on approach.
You can disappear with some effort. I know someone who has been quite successful hiding in plain site from child support payments. Not something to brag about (not a friend). He gets found eventually - everyone makes mistakes, but he owns several properties, cars, boats, etc. You can hide things in land/property trusts and behind other entities. For instance, it is totally legal - in fact the practice predates "law" - to deed your house (or other property) in the name of a trust. This trust can have any name you wish, and the trust documents with the beneficiary on them are held by you, so they are not searchable.
If I'd bothered to proofread, I probably would have. Reading back, I think the context still makes it obvious. But hey, we're all clear now, right? No harm, no foul.
CDs killed vinyl just as surely as digital has killed CDs. That a few holdouts still use them does not make them any less dead as a mainstream medium. You can still ride a horse if you like, and once a year a significant number of people even watch a horse race. That does not mean that the automobile did not kill the horse.
I agree with everything you said, except the final 80 million number. The first stage costs about $16 million, and around $200,000 of that is fuel. So this may cut the $16 million in half, not the $80 million . Still, $72 million per launch is pretty darned good.
You are right that the return of a Falcon first stage is a lot more impressive than what Bezos managed. But the part of Falcon that returned is not the part that attained orbit. I believe it did not even reach 5000 m/s, which would not be enough to reach orbit.
It's a big development, but the space shuttle did re-use everything except the fuel tank. The solid rocket boosters were recovered and reused, and the expensive bits (the main engines and support equipment) were mounted on the orbiter itself.
I think that the main promise of the SpaceX recovery is that the simpler, more reliable, and cheaper traditional rocket stack can now be used in a way that is much more reusable - making it even cheaper than it already was.
Yes. His initial proposed amendment left unions alone - but his latest draft recognizes this shortcoming and is something I could definitely get behind.
Florida is far better prepared for, and much more frequently hit by, hurricanes. New York has "elevation", as you say (though not in the parts that flooded). It also has a lot of underground infrastructure, unlike Florida. A place that gets hit by a hurricane every 50 years is going to suffer a lot more damage than one that gets hit every few years - if only for the Darwinian-like reason that 50 years worth of crappy infrastructure can build up.
The plant in question took two direct hits from hurricanes about 1 month apart back in the early 2000s. It's out on a barrier island and pretty much extends from the beach to the river side of the island. You can find the plant easily on Google Maps - St. Lucie Nuke Plant.
You have a couple of ways to handle the decommissioning of a power plant. The fastest and most complete choice is called DECON, which basically returns the land to whatever other use. This does not take as long as you indicate. For instance, the (admittedly small) Humbolt Bay reactor stopped running in 1976 and they are currently wrapping up the DECON process. Zion, a large (2GW) plant near Chicago, stopped operating in 1998 and is scheduled to be cleaned up by 2020. I'm the first to admit that the schedule will likely slip, but we're talking about 22 years for a huge plant - and this is when they are in no particular hurry.
Calling attention to a problem that is likely to occur after the plants in question are all shut down is, in fact, alarmist. The only possible impact is on cleanup, and that's not something to prepare for right now. Keeping water out for a while is a straightforward engineering problem that has been more or less mastered for over a century.
The one one Hutchinson Island? I used to stay there every summer. This article is (surprise!) alarmist. Read carefully, it claims nothing prior to 2032 - and makes references only to things that could happen in the fairly distant future. Compared to the cleanup costs, shoring up a road or building a berm along the Indian River would be pretty cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, then just program all of those dangerous birds flying around to obey the same zone.
This whole fucking discussion is predicated on the "fact" that these drones pose a danger. Yet, while we have drones enjoying unprecedented popularity, we do not have any incidences of an aircraft being in any real danger. Even if we did, how many more bird strikes are there each year?
This is yet another example of failure to do a cost-benefit analysis and simply accepting the government's default position of safety over freedom on something. Let's not allow the crippling CYA culture that dominates the public sector to invade our lives. Please?
A supermarket drone is less than a pound (half a kilo) and has a ceiling far below cruise for an aircraft. An aircraft on takeoff or approach will be flying pretty slowly. A Canada goose is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 lbs. and will stop a jet-engine, but still won't destroy a jumbo jet.
You might as well worry about flocks of songbirds, which as you may know far outnumber and predate drones.
Birds are not a microscopic minority, though, and civil aviation has managed to live with bird strikes for decades.
I fear people like you accepting the government's word as they slowly pick away at freedoms more than I fear a half-pound drone hitting my plane on approach.
Naw, they were looking. Found him when he got married to someone not as careful as he.
He's been found - but he had a good run.
You can disappear with some effort. I know someone who has been quite successful hiding in plain site from child support payments. Not something to brag about (not a friend). He gets found eventually - everyone makes mistakes, but he owns several properties, cars, boats, etc. You can hide things in land/property trusts and behind other entities. For instance, it is totally legal - in fact the practice predates "law" - to deed your house (or other property) in the name of a trust. This trust can have any name you wish, and the trust documents with the beneficiary on them are held by you, so they are not searchable.
If I'd bothered to proofread, I probably would have. Reading back, I think the context still makes it obvious. But hey, we're all clear now, right? No harm, no foul.
It was a slip-up on my part. While I think the context makes it very clear, I didn't mind clarifying.
Downloads/streaming as opposed to physical media.
CDs killed vinyl just as surely as digital has killed CDs. That a few holdouts still use them does not make them any less dead as a mainstream medium. You can still ride a horse if you like, and once a year a significant number of people even watch a horse race. That does not mean that the automobile did not kill the horse.
It was re-activated in order to defend Earth's oxygen against the Martian moons.
Fortunately, zfs also supports snapshots, and those can be sent/received as well.
Renames and changes to large files (VM images were the author's example).
Oy, not $16 million - $60 million. Just forget I was here. :)
I agree with everything you said, except the final 80 million number. The first stage costs about $16 million, and around $200,000 of that is fuel. So this may cut the $16 million in half, not the $80 million . Still, $72 million per launch is pretty darned good.
You are right that the return of a Falcon first stage is a lot more impressive than what Bezos managed. But the part of Falcon that returned is not the part that attained orbit. I believe it did not even reach 5000 m/s, which would not be enough to reach orbit.
It's a big development, but the space shuttle did re-use everything except the fuel tank. The solid rocket boosters were recovered and reused, and the expensive bits (the main engines and support equipment) were mounted on the orbiter itself.
I think that the main promise of the SpaceX recovery is that the simpler, more reliable, and cheaper traditional rocket stack can now be used in a way that is much more reusable - making it even cheaper than it already was.
Yes. His initial proposed amendment left unions alone - but his latest draft recognizes this shortcoming and is something I could definitely get behind.
It's also within our right to change the rules so that they don't have the right to lobby the government anymore.
That'll get the creative juices flowing!
Florida is far better prepared for, and much more frequently hit by, hurricanes. New York has "elevation", as you say (though not in the parts that flooded). It also has a lot of underground infrastructure, unlike Florida. A place that gets hit by a hurricane every 50 years is going to suffer a lot more damage than one that gets hit every few years - if only for the Darwinian-like reason that 50 years worth of crappy infrastructure can build up.
The plant in question took two direct hits from hurricanes about 1 month apart back in the early 2000s. It's out on a barrier island and pretty much extends from the beach to the river side of the island. You can find the plant easily on Google Maps - St. Lucie Nuke Plant.
You have a couple of ways to handle the decommissioning of a power plant. The fastest and most complete choice is called DECON, which basically returns the land to whatever other use. This does not take as long as you indicate. For instance, the (admittedly small) Humbolt Bay reactor stopped running in 1976 and they are currently wrapping up the DECON process. Zion, a large (2GW) plant near Chicago, stopped operating in 1998 and is scheduled to be cleaned up by 2020. I'm the first to admit that the schedule will likely slip, but we're talking about 22 years for a huge plant - and this is when they are in no particular hurry.
Calling attention to a problem that is likely to occur after the plants in question are all shut down is, in fact, alarmist. The only possible impact is on cleanup, and that's not something to prepare for right now. Keeping water out for a while is a straightforward engineering problem that has been more or less mastered for over a century.
The one one Hutchinson Island? I used to stay there every summer. This article is (surprise!) alarmist. Read carefully, it claims nothing prior to 2032 - and makes references only to things that could happen in the fairly distant future. Compared to the cleanup costs, shoring up a road or building a berm along the Indian River would be pretty cheap.