It's not hard to explain simply. The space-shuttle equivalent would be if the big orange liquid fuel tank and if the white segmented solid rocket boosters successfully soft-landed on land after a launch, instead of falling into the sea and being recovered as no more than scrap.
Comparing the shuttle itself to the Falcon 9 first stage, the Shuttle needed extensive refurbishment work after every single flight, much more than the initial project concepts called for. Until SpaceX does more testing or test flights we won't know how much refurb work this will need, but given the lack of re-entry forces, hopefully quite a bit less.
Wouldn't that depend on if the guidance system is programmed to allow it to land other than specifically on its intended target pad? If it's allowed to be off a certain amount then the rocket might not have had to come in sideways/angled to try to meet that landing target while having a valve issue in the process of maneuvering...
Knowing structural issues is handy since reuse might be achievable more than once, and knowing when a given rocket should be retired so that it doesn't result in a launch failure on its upteenth use.
It would not be unreasonable to destructively test this unit, or now that the rocket is essentially paid for, to launch it again with a dummy payload, and even to possibly keep refurbishing and launching to see how long it is good for, depending on the cost, and to prove that they can continue to reliably set-down on the landing pad.
I'm thinking of the following business plan... new rockets are used for manned launches. first-generation-used rockets are used for space station restocking and other very critical non-crewed launches, and depending on how the reliability proves, possibly a couple more reuses. After that it's less critical launches that are the lowest cost, and as stated, might not be insured or would have a higher premium.
Now that they've proven they can do it with LEO, I want them to continue to go bigger. Could you imagine the cost to launch something to the Moon or beyond coming down because they don't destroy the first stage to launch it?
Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all.
This is it in a nutshell.
Quadcopters are a disruptive technology in the sense that the old paradigm, of expensive, difficult-to-fly, easy-to-destroy RC aircraft has shifted to cheap, somewhat-easy-to-fly "drone" RC aircraft. Additionally, the scale-model-of-real mentality has been replaced with a whatever-works mentality. This shift is helped by the reduction in weight of batteries and the reduction in size of high quality video camera and storage technology.
When one couldn't take high quality video for extended periods of time, when one had a lot of money tied up in an RC aircraft, and when that aircraft was difficult to fly, people who engaged in the hobby generally had a bit of etiquette, even if pragmatically due to flying over someone else's property was a good way to lose the expensive toy. It appears that quadcopter enthusiasts are less inhibited by this.
As to the language of the law as described in the article summary, the word "model" was used. The implication in the past has meant "scale model", ie, a reduced-size version approximating a real machine. Since quadcopters don't have full-scale human-pilotable equivalents, these are not "model aircraft" by the strictest definition of the terminology. They are a new thing, and even if the new laws do not apply to scale-model fixed-wing or scale-model helicopters, the argument can be made they apply perfectly well to quadcopters and other small RC aircraft.
"If you want to use a public resource, whether airwaves or airspace, you need to be traceable."
I must point out that the DMV license plate database should be publicly searchable by your same argument. Traceable to the Law when you fuck up and traceable to the public when someone is feeling nosy are different things.
The motor vehicle registration license plate database might not be entirely publicly searchable, but a noted license plate, with cause, can be looked-up. The State has also sized license plates such that they're relatively easily read even at a bit of a distance. It's not perfect, but it's possible.
RC aircraft are usually not large enough to allow for a registration number to be read unless one is holding the device in one's hand. If the intent of the registration rule is to compel RC aircraft users to self-moderate their behavior then simply applying an automobile-style registration system.
Now, I'm a little surprised that they didn't take the amateur radio approach, and instead of registering the device, register the operator, or give the option to register the operator instead of the device. Granted, this might mean that the operator would be limited in the number of RC aircraft that they could be considered responsible-for at any given time (ie, a parent couldn't use one registration to let six children operate, or would have to be present and all would have to operate within his reach. Operator registration with some aircraft rules (ie, operator's licensing information painted on the device) with different time duration might have been easier and less costly for those with multiple devices.
Opening a phone book and picking a random name and number is entirely different than going somewhere that proves you have disposable income (large drone costs money). It would be entirely likely you have other nice things that could fetch a nice amount at the pawn shop or back alley rummage sale or whatever.
Knowing your name and number alone is not as valuable as knowing you have nice toys too.
I'm a licensed amateur radio operator. Cry me a river.
As a multirotor pilot I have have really had no qualms about this, right up until now. Now there is no way in hell I am going to sign up for this. I'll instead toss another 50 dollars to the AMA and hopefully THEY can inject some sanity into this mess.
It can be a fairly expensive hobby, I'm not surprised if doctors are lobbying...
Do you have confirmation that your scale-fixed-wing plane needs registration? I've heard conflicting reports.
I'm sorry that a combination of technological advances, low prices, and bozos have ruined your hobby, but this isn't the first hobby to be ruined by inconsiderate jerks that didn't engage with the existing hobbyists, nor will it be the last.
They had made plans for the storage of nuclear waste, and spent billions of dollars preparing the facility. They were then told that they couldn't do that and had to stop.
Note, I am not discussing the technical merits of the facility in question, I am merely pointing out that there was a plan.
Just to clarify, that' the court's legal fees, not the plaintiff's legal fees? So, their subdivided slice of the cost of operating the court, including the judge's hours and any support persons (ie, stenographer, law clerk, secretary) hours?
More backstory or links to backstory would have been helpful too.
If it's any consolation, most people forget that their audience doesn't already know everything they knew on the matter, so they forget to summarize enough to keep everyone in the loop, and often when people do actually remember this they don't do a very good job of presenting the correct amount of backstory such that the audience isn't bored to the point of ignoring the presenter.
Regardless of agreeing with copyright or not, as cases like when SCO sued everyone and claimed that their contract stated that they'd been transferred copyrights, when it was counter-argued that the contract merely stated that the copyright would be transferred, but had not actually been transferred, dealing with intellectual property law is hard for trained, experienced lawyers. A person doesn't have a lot of chance unless they themselves are the creator of a work, and even then, only if they've done a good job of establishing their rights and having a lawyer ready to defend those rights (ie, the current debacle of unlicensed reproduction of artwork by Taylor Swift for the promotion of her albums, and of the blatant ripoff of artists' designs by t-shirt companies for printed shirts without attribution or compensation).
I would not feel confident that I could purchase intellectual property without the assistance of a lawyer and not end up with a fat lot of nothing in return. That means that the very business in the trade of IP is essentially relegated to lawyers. That's not a game worth playing.
Grandpa was fairly smart despite not having all that extensive of a formal education. He knew that subdividing would make it not viable and once the concepts of trusts came to exist it wasn't that difficult a decision.
Firmware exists because people want to spend a lot less energy producing light, and using equipment that doesn't use its energy to produce 80% heat, 20% light is a good way to go about that.
The real solution is to devise a DC house-distribution system for lighting so that very cheap LEDs can be used, but manufacturers right now think it's more cost-effective to go proprietary.
I'm glad I sent that caustic, hateful tweet about it. It surely played a role in this decision.
I wouldn't underestimate the effect of directed complaints when those complaints become widely known. The bigger challenge is seeing that they don't re-reverse when the heat is off and think they can now get away with it once fewer people are paying attention.
I had to sit through a mandatory training the other day, and one study claimed that for every complaint vocalized by a person, there are twenty-six people that feel the same way but haven't expressed it back to the company. If even half that number is true then that's an awful lot of people that are unsatisfied. If this Philips product is fairly new and its development costs not yet recuperated then they can't afford for people to see bad-press and choose to remove it from consideration.
"Family farm" applies for two conditions, either it's worked by the family principally without a lot of outside hired help, or it's passed down through inheritance or trust.
Eventually I'll inherit shares of the family farm; my grandfather created a trust when he retired that he made his numerous children stakeholders in; one line of descendants lives on the farm and works the farm and makes wages on their work in addition to holding their percentage of the farm as a business entity, and the remaining profits are then split among the stakeholders, depending on if there are any profits left and what money is needed for the next year's operations.
Only thing that I could see being negative about solar farms is if they displace either too much natural wilderness, or they displace too much area used for recreation or other personal use. Obviously there would be strong objections, for example, if someone wanted to ring Walden with solar. If someone's personal Walden is in the area where the solar farm is being installed, or if there are real ecological issues with the density then I could see reasons for objecting.
On the other hand, given the environmental issues caused through the burning of Carbon to make power, I have my doubts as to the potential for real ecological damage compared to the status-quo.
I don't think that they do anymore- they don't dump the black water tanks at altitude anymore, so no more Joe-Dirt-esque frozen excrement balls bombing the planet anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not hard to explain simply. The space-shuttle equivalent would be if the big orange liquid fuel tank and if the white segmented solid rocket boosters successfully soft-landed on land after a launch, instead of falling into the sea and being recovered as no more than scrap.
Comparing the shuttle itself to the Falcon 9 first stage, the Shuttle needed extensive refurbishment work after every single flight, much more than the initial project concepts called for. Until SpaceX does more testing or test flights we won't know how much refurb work this will need, but given the lack of re-entry forces, hopefully quite a bit less.
Wouldn't that depend on if the guidance system is programmed to allow it to land other than specifically on its intended target pad? If it's allowed to be off a certain amount then the rocket might not have had to come in sideways/angled to try to meet that landing target while having a valve issue in the process of maneuvering...
I think Elon Musk was hiding its real purpose, to serve as his offshore secret lair with his mistress, a genetic clone of Jill St. John...
Knowing structural issues is handy since reuse might be achievable more than once, and knowing when a given rocket should be retired so that it doesn't result in a launch failure on its upteenth use.
It would not be unreasonable to destructively test this unit, or now that the rocket is essentially paid for, to launch it again with a dummy payload, and even to possibly keep refurbishing and launching to see how long it is good for, depending on the cost, and to prove that they can continue to reliably set-down on the landing pad.
I'm thinking of the following business plan... new rockets are used for manned launches. first-generation-used rockets are used for space station restocking and other very critical non-crewed launches, and depending on how the reliability proves, possibly a couple more reuses. After that it's less critical launches that are the lowest cost, and as stated, might not be insured or would have a higher premium.
Now that they've proven they can do it with LEO, I want them to continue to go bigger. Could you imagine the cost to launch something to the Moon or beyond coming down because they don't destroy the first stage to launch it?
Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all.
This is it in a nutshell.
Quadcopters are a disruptive technology in the sense that the old paradigm, of expensive, difficult-to-fly, easy-to-destroy RC aircraft has shifted to cheap, somewhat-easy-to-fly "drone" RC aircraft. Additionally, the scale-model-of-real mentality has been replaced with a whatever-works mentality. This shift is helped by the reduction in weight of batteries and the reduction in size of high quality video camera and storage technology.
When one couldn't take high quality video for extended periods of time, when one had a lot of money tied up in an RC aircraft, and when that aircraft was difficult to fly, people who engaged in the hobby generally had a bit of etiquette, even if pragmatically due to flying over someone else's property was a good way to lose the expensive toy. It appears that quadcopter enthusiasts are less inhibited by this.
As to the language of the law as described in the article summary, the word "model" was used. The implication in the past has meant "scale model", ie, a reduced-size version approximating a real machine. Since quadcopters don't have full-scale human-pilotable equivalents, these are not "model aircraft" by the strictest definition of the terminology. They are a new thing, and even if the new laws do not apply to scale-model fixed-wing or scale-model helicopters, the argument can be made they apply perfectly well to quadcopters and other small RC aircraft.
"If you want to use a public resource, whether airwaves or airspace, you need to be traceable." I must point out that the DMV license plate database should be publicly searchable by your same argument. Traceable to the Law when you fuck up and traceable to the public when someone is feeling nosy are different things.
The motor vehicle registration license plate database might not be entirely publicly searchable, but a noted license plate, with cause, can be looked-up. The State has also sized license plates such that they're relatively easily read even at a bit of a distance. It's not perfect, but it's possible.
RC aircraft are usually not large enough to allow for a registration number to be read unless one is holding the device in one's hand. If the intent of the registration rule is to compel RC aircraft users to self-moderate their behavior then simply applying an automobile-style registration system.
Now, I'm a little surprised that they didn't take the amateur radio approach, and instead of registering the device, register the operator, or give the option to register the operator instead of the device. Granted, this might mean that the operator would be limited in the number of RC aircraft that they could be considered responsible-for at any given time (ie, a parent couldn't use one registration to let six children operate, or would have to be present and all would have to operate within his reach. Operator registration with some aircraft rules (ie, operator's licensing information painted on the device) with different time duration might have been easier and less costly for those with multiple devices.
Opening a phone book and picking a random name and number is entirely different than going somewhere that proves you have disposable income (large drone costs money). It would be entirely likely you have other nice things that could fetch a nice amount at the pawn shop or back alley rummage sale or whatever.
Knowing your name and number alone is not as valuable as knowing you have nice toys too.
I'm a licensed amateur radio operator. Cry me a river.
As a multirotor pilot I have have really had no qualms about this, right up until now. Now there is no way in hell I am going to sign up for this. I'll instead toss another 50 dollars to the AMA and hopefully THEY can inject some sanity into this mess.
It can be a fairly expensive hobby, I'm not surprised if doctors are lobbying...
Do you have confirmation that your scale-fixed-wing plane needs registration? I've heard conflicting reports.
I'm sorry that a combination of technological advances, low prices, and bozos have ruined your hobby, but this isn't the first hobby to be ruined by inconsiderate jerks that didn't engage with the existing hobbyists, nor will it be the last.
What website is there with security that can't be penetrated?
I pen-tested a website for a celibacy group and didn't find any holes.
Funny that, I penetration-tested a celibacy group and ultimately the group lost all of its membership...
...shame on you.
This is directed at Abrams, not at any Star Wars movie he's involved with.
Just remember, the best pickup line for that fangirl is, "do you want to see my hairy wookiee?"
Probably won't work, but it's still the best of a slew of really terrible options.
They had made plans for the storage of nuclear waste, and spent billions of dollars preparing the facility. They were then told that they couldn't do that and had to stop.
Note, I am not discussing the technical merits of the facility in question, I am merely pointing out that there was a plan.
Just to clarify, that' the court's legal fees, not the plaintiff's legal fees? So, their subdivided slice of the cost of operating the court, including the judge's hours and any support persons (ie, stenographer, law clerk, secretary) hours?
More backstory or links to backstory would have been helpful too.
If it's any consolation, most people forget that their audience doesn't already know everything they knew on the matter, so they forget to summarize enough to keep everyone in the loop, and often when people do actually remember this they don't do a very good job of presenting the correct amount of backstory such that the audience isn't bored to the point of ignoring the presenter.
Regardless of agreeing with copyright or not, as cases like when SCO sued everyone and claimed that their contract stated that they'd been transferred copyrights, when it was counter-argued that the contract merely stated that the copyright would be transferred, but had not actually been transferred, dealing with intellectual property law is hard for trained, experienced lawyers. A person doesn't have a lot of chance unless they themselves are the creator of a work, and even then, only if they've done a good job of establishing their rights and having a lawyer ready to defend those rights (ie, the current debacle of unlicensed reproduction of artwork by Taylor Swift for the promotion of her albums, and of the blatant ripoff of artists' designs by t-shirt companies for printed shirts without attribution or compensation).
I would not feel confident that I could purchase intellectual property without the assistance of a lawyer and not end up with a fat lot of nothing in return. That means that the very business in the trade of IP is essentially relegated to lawyers. That's not a game worth playing.
Grandpa was fairly smart despite not having all that extensive of a formal education. He knew that subdividing would make it not viable and once the concepts of trusts came to exist it wasn't that difficult a decision.
Firmware exists because people want to spend a lot less energy producing light, and using equipment that doesn't use its energy to produce 80% heat, 20% light is a good way to go about that.
The real solution is to devise a DC house-distribution system for lighting so that very cheap LEDs can be used, but manufacturers right now think it's more cost-effective to go proprietary.
I'm glad I sent that caustic, hateful tweet about it. It surely played a role in this decision.
I wouldn't underestimate the effect of directed complaints when those complaints become widely known. The bigger challenge is seeing that they don't re-reverse when the heat is off and think they can now get away with it once fewer people are paying attention.
I had to sit through a mandatory training the other day, and one study claimed that for every complaint vocalized by a person, there are twenty-six people that feel the same way but haven't expressed it back to the company. If even half that number is true then that's an awful lot of people that are unsatisfied. If this Philips product is fairly new and its development costs not yet recuperated then they can't afford for people to see bad-press and choose to remove it from consideration.
"Family farm" applies for two conditions, either it's worked by the family principally without a lot of outside hired help, or it's passed down through inheritance or trust.
Eventually I'll inherit shares of the family farm; my grandfather created a trust when he retired that he made his numerous children stakeholders in; one line of descendants lives on the farm and works the farm and makes wages on their work in addition to holding their percentage of the farm as a business entity, and the remaining profits are then split among the stakeholders, depending on if there are any profits left and what money is needed for the next year's operations.
So for a change, family farms are actually more economically viable than large new upstart businesses operating as factory farms?
Only thing that I could see being negative about solar farms is if they displace either too much natural wilderness, or they displace too much area used for recreation or other personal use. Obviously there would be strong objections, for example, if someone wanted to ring Walden with solar. If someone's personal Walden is in the area where the solar farm is being installed, or if there are real ecological issues with the density then I could see reasons for objecting.
On the other hand, given the environmental issues caused through the burning of Carbon to make power, I have my doubts as to the potential for real ecological damage compared to the status-quo.
Is there some condition of the Moon that would be different than Earth? After all, it doesn't work here yet...
No, their concerns are strictly crust-up.
I don't think that they do anymore- they don't dump the black water tanks at altitude anymore, so no more Joe-Dirt-esque frozen excrement balls bombing the planet anymore.