Sure you get the benefit of not having to pay for the installation (through taxes)...
Actually, that is rarely the case. While individuals may end up paying less in taxes, they're still paying. Most of such installations are subsidized by tax breaks or use portions of already existing public infrastructure.
Other than spinning off and closing all of the former Yahoo and keeping only Alibaba, there was no saving Yahoo at the point she took over. SImple fact is, she's doing what she was hired to do - save Yahoo.
You know how much damage my 2 lb "drone" will do if it hits your thousand pound helicopter?
Yes, I do. And, even in the 4,000 pound helicopter I fly, a drone strike will absolutely take it out of the sky. The rotor wash will not move the drone out of the way. This is the second time I've heard this...
On this point, with a small to medium sized heli, BostonPilot is likely right. I know this, because I'm a responsible and experienced UAS operator, and actually did my best to figure out worst case scenarios to see what I absolutely must try to prevent happening.
My Inspire 1 can hit 60mph. The rotor wash wind velocity (in mph) for the Hughes 500 can be up to 46mph. While a Phantom 2 may be pushed out of the way by a copter that size at full wash potential (with no momentum into that direction), that does not account for a myriad of other scenarios where the P2/P3 (or as noted above, the Inspire 1) can push right into the copter or be sucked in.
Even if the rule was "no aircraft under 300m over private property", the cost of cameras that can capture clear images...
People are primarily concerned about noise and physical risk. I have no problem with drones that are 1000 ft up. The thing people need to be concerned about is that Amazon puts a delivery route 100 ft above their patio, and that is a real concern: if the FAA rules that use of airspace valid, you have no recourse.
(Nevertheless, taking "clear images" from 300m away from a shaky drone is pretty tricky; image stabilization is not that good.)
And yet the FAA does. 400 feet or below is the requirement.
So if I'm flying a drone myself up to, say, 400 feet...
I always thought you owned up to the floor for airplanes - sounds like I'm wrong.
The CEILING that the FAA has established for UAS ("drones") is 400 feet, so, as they are now deemed "aircraft", I would suspect that the floor is actually a lot lower for their class of aircraft. It's "(ground) up to 400 feet."
There is no federal law, and only the SCOTUS "determination. There are various state laws, most of which allow overflights.
"...geofencing software that could prohibit a done from flying higher than 500 feet, and keep it two miles away from any airport or sensitive area."
...for those law-abiding drone operators who choose to use it.
Which would be many of us who do (or want to do) such things commercially, and like the idea of getting paid without risk of our assets being seized and without the potential for criminal charges.;-)
...agreed, which still brings us back to my question, which, in short version, is "what's so fucked up with some people that they think such reprehensible things are worthy of celebration?";-)
I don't want to stop them - I want them to label themselves by flying such symbols. But I also want to understand what demented rationale they use to sleep at night.
And had you lived at the time, assuming you are white, you would have been just as racist as everybody else was back then. You might have even been a slave owner. Makes you wonder what our great grandchildren will condemn us for.
Perhaps - but this is not that time. Nor is this issue about "that time" - it is about now. Here and now.
No, not necessarily. Rallying symbols are a central component to spreading any such message. They are the very symbols of such messages spreading and the mindsets behind it. As a matter of fact, without the revisionist history and without honoring symbols that stand for racism and slavery (as if they were good things), such attitudes would have died down a lot quicker. It's a vicious circle of racism propping up such sick symbols, and such symbols being used to prop up and spread racism.
So, no, those people may not be dead and the f...tard who shot them may not have grown up to be a f...tard.
And had you lived at the time, assuming you are white, you would have been just as racist as everybody else was back then. You might have even been a slave owner. Makes you wonder what our great grandchildren will condemn us for.
Quite likely. But it's NOT "at (that) time" - it's 2015. And that is my point. Should we celebrate one of the darkest parts of our history as if it was something good? This isn't the 1800's. Google isn't going back in time to not promote racist flags from 1787-1865. They are doing it now. Going forward.
In their own words... slavery... blame it on your schools, but you're still wrong. Look it up in your own state houses - these words are in those documents housed therein.
Really? Those are the states' own words - those words are even enshrined in each states' legislative houses document libraries. It's not Wikipedia or CivilWar.org - it's reality. Go check - you can read the stuff for yourself in the various state houses.
So, according to you, the declarations of secession of the southern states are false? I don't think so.
And yes, most southerners didn't own slaves. That's not relevant. Most southerners thought (1) black people were inferior and that was their natural state - so they supported slavery, and/or (2) aspired to be one of the rich land owning slave owning elite one day - so they supported slavery. Look up their own writings.
Not quite... give this some thought. The government forces them to open those gardens and (the government) becomes tyrannical, or they do not, and things remain as they are.
Interesting catch 22... I've got no solution either.
"Who fought to ***just leave***. What is the definition of oppression?"
WRONG - according to the states' own words - they weren't fighting to "just leave" - they were fighting to maintain slavery. Someone who outright lies about the situation (totally ignoring slavery as a component) and doesn't think that fighting to maintain slavery isn't oppression (as the states claimed they were doing) is racist or an idiot or uneducated. I gave them the benefit of doubt and SPECIFICALLY said "might" be a supporter of racism and slavery. Seriously, learn to read.
While you are learning to read (instead of your copy/paste game), read this:
Wrong - as many states, including South Carolina (the cause of this latest debate on the issue) clearly stated, it was ALSO about their rights for slaves IN THE NORTH.
As for the economies, as MANY of those states ALSO clearly said, it was ALSO because of the fear of the damage "the north" was doing to their economies - you got that right - but you failed to FINISH THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER!!! They were afraid of the damage it would cause because of their LOSS OF SLAVE LABOR. They CLEARLY stated that.
Lincoln tried the "long haul" tactic of keeping the union together and then pulling apart slavery from the inside - it didn't work and we had war.
Deciding to not assist in the sale of racist items is also free speech. Sadly, idiots (not you - you didn't make this argument) seem to think that Google, Amazon and others are bound by such requirements of the First Amendment.
No, history IS chiseled in stone. The STORY of history is not. Revisionism does not change the past, and the flag is one that symbolizes racism and slavery (as good things, no less).
In THIS day and age, there are STILL numerous people in those states who would love to see segregation re-instituted and/or interracial marriage banned again. The flag is a "celebration" of beliefs that never should have been, and (since sadly those beliefs happened) should have died ages ago.
Actually, Lincoln was a massive abolitionist, but knew he could not win the election, nor his moves against slavery by outright stating that. His own writings throughout show that. His ambiguous or contrary statements in the mid to late 1850's were because he was attacked earlier as an abolitionist. He knew what he was doing and saying - just like the deist separationist Jefferson who changed the demanded "endowed by the god of christianity" lines for the Declaration of Independence to the ambiguous "by *their* *creator* with certain unalienable rights".
"Enemy Oppressor" - enemy, heck yes, for fighting a war to not just retain slaves but to expand aspects of slavery back into the north. Oppressor - hell yes, as those who own slaves are definitely oppressors.
Slashdot Mirror
First, 30 is not MORE than double 15 it is exactly double than 15, no need for hyperbole.
While the radius may be "double", the area covered by the ban has increased tremendously.
Wanna know the best protection against breast cancer? Popping out a new kid every year.
Did that line work?
Sure you get the benefit of not having to pay for the installation (through taxes)...
Actually, that is rarely the case. While individuals may end up paying less in taxes, they're still paying. Most of such installations are subsidized by tax breaks or use portions of already existing public infrastructure.
Other than spinning off and closing all of the former Yahoo and keeping only Alibaba, there was no saving Yahoo at the point she took over. SImple fact is, she's doing what she was hired to do - save Yahoo.
You know how much damage my 2 lb "drone" will do if it hits your thousand pound helicopter?
Yes, I do. And, even in the 4,000 pound helicopter I fly, a drone strike will absolutely take it out of the sky. The rotor wash will not move the drone out of the way. This is the second time I've heard this...
On this point, with a small to medium sized heli, BostonPilot is likely right. I know this, because I'm a responsible and experienced UAS operator, and actually did my best to figure out worst case scenarios to see what I absolutely must try to prevent happening.
My Inspire 1 can hit 60mph. The rotor wash wind velocity (in mph) for the Hughes 500 can be up to 46mph. While a Phantom 2 may be pushed out of the way by a copter that size at full wash potential (with no momentum into that direction), that does not account for a myriad of other scenarios where the P2/P3 (or as noted above, the Inspire 1) can push right into the copter or be sucked in.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/what_the_experts_are_saying/rotorcraft_aerodynamics/Calculating-Rotor-Downwash-Velocity_75113.html
People are primarily concerned about noise and physical risk. I have no problem with drones that are 1000 ft up. The thing people need to be concerned about is that Amazon puts a delivery route 100 ft above their patio, and that is a real concern: if the FAA rules that use of airspace valid, you have no recourse.
(Nevertheless, taking "clear images" from 300m away from a shaky drone is pretty tricky; image stabilization is not that good.)
And yet the FAA does. 400 feet or below is the requirement.
So if I'm flying a drone myself up to, say, 400 feet...
I always thought you owned up to the floor for airplanes - sounds like I'm wrong.
The CEILING that the FAA has established for UAS ("drones") is 400 feet, so, as they are now deemed "aircraft", I would suspect that the floor is actually a lot lower for their class of aircraft. It's "(ground) up to 400 feet."
There is no federal law, and only the SCOTUS "determination. There are various state laws, most of which allow overflights.
"...geofencing software that could prohibit a done from flying higher than 500 feet, and keep it two miles away from any airport or sensitive area."
Which would be many of us who do (or want to do) such things commercially, and like the idea of getting paid without risk of our assets being seized and without the potential for criminal charges. ;-)
...agreed, which still brings us back to my question, which, in short version, is "what's so fucked up with some people that they think such reprehensible things are worthy of celebration?" ;-)
I don't want to stop them - I want them to label themselves by flying such symbols. But I also want to understand what demented rationale they use to sleep at night.
And had you lived at the time, assuming you are white, you would have been just as racist as everybody else was back then. You might have even been a slave owner. Makes you wonder what our great grandchildren will condemn us for.
Perhaps - but this is not that time. Nor is this issue about "that time" - it is about now. Here and now.
No, not necessarily. Rallying symbols are a central component to spreading any such message. They are the very symbols of such messages spreading and the mindsets behind it. As a matter of fact, without the revisionist history and without honoring symbols that stand for racism and slavery (as if they were good things), such attitudes would have died down a lot quicker. It's a vicious circle of racism propping up such sick symbols, and such symbols being used to prop up and spread racism.
So, no, those people may not be dead and the f...tard who shot them may not have grown up to be a f...tard.
And had you lived at the time, assuming you are white, you would have been just as racist as everybody else was back then. You might have even been a slave owner. Makes you wonder what our great grandchildren will condemn us for.
Quite likely. But it's NOT "at (that) time" - it's 2015. And that is my point. Should we celebrate one of the darkest parts of our history as if it was something good? This isn't the 1800's. Google isn't going back in time to not promote racist flags from 1787-1865. They are doing it now. Going forward.
In their own words... slavery... blame it on your schools, but you're still wrong. Look it up in your own state houses - these words are in those documents housed therein.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Really? Those are the states' own words - those words are even enshrined in each states' legislative houses document libraries. It's not Wikipedia or CivilWar.org - it's reality. Go check - you can read the stuff for yourself in the various state houses.
So, according to you, the declarations of secession of the southern states are false? I don't think so.
And yes, most southerners didn't own slaves. That's not relevant. Most southerners thought (1) black people were inferior and that was their natural state - so they supported slavery, and/or (2) aspired to be one of the rich land owning slave owning elite one day - so they supported slavery. Look up their own writings.
Not quite... give this some thought. The government forces them to open those gardens and (the government) becomes tyrannical, or they do not, and things remain as they are.
Interesting catch 22... I've got no solution either.
Really? Why does this say differently? http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Read this. Then say "gee, I was wrong! there it is in THEIR OWN words!!!"
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Then, down south, your own states say your history books are stinking piles of crap. Or you are misremembering what those books say:
Please read this: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Bingo!
LMAO idiot!!! And I quote...
"Who fought to ***just leave***. What is the definition of oppression?"
WRONG - according to the states' own words - they weren't fighting to "just leave" - they were fighting to maintain slavery. Someone who outright lies about the situation (totally ignoring slavery as a component) and doesn't think that fighting to maintain slavery isn't oppression (as the states claimed they were doing) is racist or an idiot or uneducated. I gave them the benefit of doubt and SPECIFICALLY said "might" be a supporter of racism and slavery. Seriously, learn to read.
While you are learning to read (instead of your copy/paste game), read this:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Wrong - as many states, including South Carolina (the cause of this latest debate on the issue) clearly stated, it was ALSO about their rights for slaves IN THE NORTH.
As for the economies, as MANY of those states ALSO clearly said, it was ALSO because of the fear of the damage "the north" was doing to their economies - you got that right - but you failed to FINISH THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER!!! They were afraid of the damage it would cause because of their LOSS OF SLAVE LABOR. They CLEARLY stated that.
Lincoln tried the "long haul" tactic of keeping the union together and then pulling apart slavery from the inside - it didn't work and we had war.
Here are the reasons, IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Deciding to not assist in the sale of racist items is also free speech. Sadly, idiots (not you - you didn't make this argument) seem to think that Google, Amazon and others are bound by such requirements of the First Amendment.
No, history IS chiseled in stone. The STORY of history is not. Revisionism does not change the past, and the flag is one that symbolizes racism and slavery (as good things, no less).
In THIS day and age, there are STILL numerous people in those states who would love to see segregation re-instituted and/or interracial marriage banned again. The flag is a "celebration" of beliefs that never should have been, and (since sadly those beliefs happened) should have died ages ago.
Actually, Lincoln was a massive abolitionist, but knew he could not win the election, nor his moves against slavery by outright stating that. His own writings throughout show that. His ambiguous or contrary statements in the mid to late 1850's were because he was attacked earlier as an abolitionist. He knew what he was doing and saying - just like the deist separationist Jefferson who changed the demanded "endowed by the god of christianity" lines for the Declaration of Independence to the ambiguous "by *their* *creator* with certain unalienable rights".
"Enemy Oppressor" - enemy, heck yes, for fighting a war to not just retain slaves but to expand aspects of slavery back into the north. Oppressor - hell yes, as those who own slaves are definitely oppressors.