That is just it - they are UFOs until you identify them. I see UFOs all the time, daily. I do not even live in an area that is a major flightpath or anything. I still see them ALL THE TIME. I have yet to identify a single one of them either. The difference is that I do not think they are alien pilots. Maybe, just maybe, they are alien drones though - that is *far* more likely.
Anyhow, I advocated calling them a different name. I suggest 'RC aircraft' in the last thread about this. It is not because I think that it will change anything other than perception but because I think that changing that perception is important enough to consider the idea. Right now the word 'drone' has bad connotations for a variety of reasons - some good, some bad. If it were my hobby I would be working to avoid being associated with those connotations. I would want to avoid regulations as much as possible. This type of stunt, in this article, and the association are enough to pretty much ensure that bad, knee-jerk, regulatory actions will be taken. These people, the hobbyists, will be shocked - stunned - to be persecuted like this. They will claim they have done nothing wrong, and they haven't likely done a damned thing wrong, and will engage in Internet Outrage!® They will be ignored and will claim they are being silenced and engage in Internet Outrage - Now With More Vulgarities!® Nothing will happen.
Surely this person is known amongst the community. In the Marines we called them 'blanket parties.' I am not suggesting a blanket party. I am suggesting a closed door, no cameras, and someone sitting down with the people who do these sorts of things and having a nice, polite, conversation with them about how they are going to result in liberty restricting regulations that harm all of them instead of just the guilty parties. That is what is going to happen - they are going to end up regulated with fines, property seizures, and jail times being the result as well as the decreased liberties. That may not be how it should be but that is how it is and how it is going to end up. Disassociate yourselves and have a "nice calm, polite, productive conversation" with the idiots who are giving your otherwise fine hobby a bad name.
How about if you opt to live in the city and you are impacted by crime. Can you call the police to get your stolen car back or do you have to do it action-movie style and go hunt down the thieves yourself with nothing but a gun, your gymnastic skills, and wire-harness stunts? Don't go living in dangerous areas and expect the government to bail you out.
And at least you have the courage to stand by your words and to own them - to be accountable for them. There is that and that is, I feel, a respectable trait and one of the reasons that I, personally, only post as an AC when I clearly identify myself and only due to there being a limitation to the number of times I can post even though I have a karma rating of 'excellent.' So, while I disagree with your points and think you are stretching a bit too thin on the idea of what the government should do - it is kind of there to protect stupid people, those who can not protect themselves and such, I do respect your right to say them and do have a bit more respect that you have the courage to stand by your beliefs rather than attempt petty arguments or name calling.
They are pooling their money, it is called taxes. It is also interesting that you managed to invent a whole bunch of information about these people in your first post. You are starting to sound like one of the nut-job Republicans who was so ashamed of their party that they decided to co-opt the name Libertarian without doing more homework than reading the various Ayn Rand Cliff Notes or watching half of a YouTube video.
Firebreaks are a little bit more complicated than that. If they are not already in place you generally start with digging all the vegetation out of the way and then start the break. You carry picks and shovels for this task. A small, mostly controlled, fire is then set while people watch it to put out (using heavy Indian pumps) any cinders that float across or things of that nature. You then extend the break out from there. You do try to use natural terrain features where you can but, still, you have to have people right there immediately for this to be effective usually.
These people are not going to want to be there when a rapidly moving plane, following terrain, being buffeted by updrafts, and dealing with limited visibility is firing lasers that are powerful enough to light fires in their immediate vicinity. This is not a good idea when there is a good chance that someone brought matches or a lighter with them.
I am not attempting to call you dumb or stupid. You likely did not know and likely did not know the reasons why such would not be considered good practice. It certainly sounds like fun, do not get me wrong, but I do not think it will have the effect you are expecting.
I am no expert but... Source: Me. When I was young, fit, and stupid I volunteered and trained as a "smokejumper." I did not see a lot of "action" but got to help with a dozen or so decent sized fires and some smaller ones. The name jumper is a bit of a misnomer, at least in my experience, because we were either dropped off by helicopter or rappelled/fast-roped from a helicopter more often than not. Other than in training and in practice I only jumped into three sites. While we were volunteers we still got insurance while volunteering and a stipend of $12/hr which was reasonable back then. This would have been in the early 1980s. I suspect that the stipend is larger now or completely gone now. I do not know anyone who was in it for the money. I think we were all closet potential arsonists who just really liked fire.
The dissemination is done by smoke signal. Where there is a big fire do not fly you toy. This is dangerous even *IF* there were almost no chance of harm. Additional risks are bad. This is not a complicated subject nor does it need any special dissemination. The person knew there was a fire there. That is why they flew there. They are giving the hobby a bad name and are going to be the cause of additional regulation. People will then whine about the "persecution." Those people will have a huge overlap of those who failed to see why things like this are bad. Those people are not bright and you can join them or educate them. If this is your hobby you should either educate them or punch them in the nuts.
We could have individual nuke powered homes if we wanted. We just have to use the right sign.
I used to live in a city. I bought a new fridge. I put the, still working, fridge on the edge of my lawn and a sign on it that said, "Free." It sat for a week. My then-wife suggested I change the sign. I put a $50 sign on it. It was gone three days later. So, if you want to put the nukes into homes safely then store them on the edge of the driveway with a sign that says, "Free for the taking." They will remain there until they rot.
Bird shot and a choke. Beanbags. Wooden blocks. No people will be near enough to the fire to worry about any of those. Those near it will be wearing PPE so a small wooden block, even at terminal velocity, will not harm them one bit. Not that I recommend shooting a drone out of the sky. I am in favor of arresting the idiot operator of said drone. However, we could shoot it with a reasonable level of safety.
I am working on it, alone - thank you, but it is going to take some time. Also, I am not quite sure that I can get things back to the way they were so we may have to settle for some reconfiguration. However, you needn't worry. I will get it done for you. Unfortunately, America is heavy.
You do not know what more could be done? Surely you jest, of course you know what could be done. They could not build the telescope there. You probably do not like that solution. However, that could be done and you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is... disturbing.
Now, for me? I am really at a bit of a loss as I see both sides of the argument. In this case it seems that there are already telescopes all over the place. One more does seem to matter to them. Perhaps, as they are going to be removing some anyhow, they could put this one where there was an older one? I'd hate to see them select the second-best site. I really think this needs to move forward. However, there is more that can be done - as I mentioned.
Around here, it is actually mostly people who have moved here "from away" such as myself but I am not a part of this, they do not use religious claims. Instead they argue about the view being destroyed and the subject is windmills. They do not seem to mind cell phone towers unless they are really close. Then they have "concerns" because they "feel" that the radiation from the towers might make them sick. That tower is fine when it is five miles away on somebody else's property and they have no complaints about using a cell phone.
Fortunately they are still in the minority here. Sadly they are almost always people who moved here who seem inclined to try to change things to their liking. I moved here because I felt that I would fit in well and I spent time living here before making that choice. I am not sure why other folks attempt to do the opposite. It is not like they came here for the bustling job market, this is Maine.
Anyhow, I do feel for the people who lose their property due to eminent domain. It is even worse when the government forces the people to sell, not for a government project but for a private corporation. That kind of crap really needs to stop. I could almost justify violent protests over that seeing as the land is being taken by force. But, as always, we are wandering off-topic. If you, or anyone else, is unaware of this then searching for "eminent domain private corporations" should give you some more information.
Strange assumptions. One you are assuming that nobody cared or were somehow obligated to go to your homeland and get your land back for you. Even stranger is that you assume that your opinion matters because you think that you had something happen that was similar but was in no way related. Even more odd is that you assume that something that happens inside of the US is going to help you regain property lost to the USSR. You could potentially get your land back but it would likely mean you would have to purchase it. It may not be for sale. The land in this situation neither belongs to you nor does it belong to the scientists.
However, having thought about this, there are already telescopes there. I am not entirely sure what difference an additional telescope is going to make at this point. This does not, of course, get you "your" land back. You will have to seek assistance in another country, a country that is not the United States - the country that took the land is the one you want to approach, for remediation. This may be a difficult situation for you to understand but the US is not responsible, it is not in the US, and the US is not obligated to assist you in getting your land back. Perhaps your relatives should have fought or purchased land in Siberia? Then you would not have to worry about it or you would, at least, be closer to the source of your ire.
We already decided that and have treaties for it. Now if you will uphold the treaties we will be all set. Thanks. (Otherwise we will be forced to take your money via Bingo and building casinos. We have the technology.)
Our atoms will return and be re-used so, in some respect, it could be considered reincarnated. I do not think those atoms will have any memory of their history, of course, but they will return and be in another life at some point. I am reincarnating as a star.
What you say is pertinent. Very much so. However, just because it is the best site in the entire hemisphere does not mean that the second best place will not have to do. I am torn. I am very pro-science and astronomy is a bit of a minor passion of mine. (I attended a preparatory school that had its own observatory, I learned to truly appreciate the effort and the findings then.) At the same time, I advocate for natives to have the chance to maintain their culture and have some sovereignty. There needs to be some sort of real compromise and that should have been done long before the site was shovel ready. Compromise does not mean that the government simply says that they should screw off and build the telescope as is. Compromise does not mean that the natives should absolutely not allow scientists access without any consideration. Perhaps they can make some sort of pledge to minimize impact to the land, to keep the land open for the native people, and to ensure that the land stays undeveloped, and other changes that can make things more appealing? Maybe they can offer educational resources there as well? I am unsure of which would be most effective and I am not at liberty to speak for the Hawaiians or the scientists.
Are you sure they are not sovereign? I know I have land where it, and I, are sovereign in two countries (Micmac tribe as I mentioned earlier and have mentioned earlier when the subject arose). I am, of course, subject to various laws but have a bit more leeway when I am on the reserve - more so in Canada. I had thought that Hawaiian natives had the same thing, complete with reserves which were set aside as sovereign lands? If not they should look into it. I say that the US government should uphold the many treaties they signed over the years. I do not know specifics about Hawaii but I suspect that, if history is any indication, they _may_ have some legal precedence there.
We have already given it back to the gigantic sloths. I know. I have been to a trailer park. I have even parked my RV in a Wal*Mart parking lot in Georgia - and I have gone in to use the restrooms and buy some beer. The gargantuan sloths live on a reservation in the south. They are slightly faster in the north - it is colder up here.
I am part Micmac, enough to be a First Nations person and have Canadian citizenship as well as my US citizenship. Who did I, or my people, commit genocide against? No, we did not (regardless of the rumors) kill the dinosaurs. In fact, by most (I have not read all so I will not say all) accounts we were a peaceful people with no record of major conflicts in our oral history. We maybe did some raping and murdering (who has not, I ask you that) and stealing babies but, in our defense, we were simply ensuring the survival of the species by spreading our genes around and did not actually commit acts of genocide or anything close to it.
Umm... We do have working jetpacks already. I am not sure that you can buy one (I suspect you can) but you could easily build one. Some dude was flying around in one back in the 50s or 60s for the US military.
Slashdot Mirror
That is just it - they are UFOs until you identify them. I see UFOs all the time, daily. I do not even live in an area that is a major flightpath or anything. I still see them ALL THE TIME. I have yet to identify a single one of them either. The difference is that I do not think they are alien pilots. Maybe, just maybe, they are alien drones though - that is *far* more likely.
Anyhow, I advocated calling them a different name. I suggest 'RC aircraft' in the last thread about this. It is not because I think that it will change anything other than perception but because I think that changing that perception is important enough to consider the idea. Right now the word 'drone' has bad connotations for a variety of reasons - some good, some bad. If it were my hobby I would be working to avoid being associated with those connotations. I would want to avoid regulations as much as possible. This type of stunt, in this article, and the association are enough to pretty much ensure that bad, knee-jerk, regulatory actions will be taken. These people, the hobbyists, will be shocked - stunned - to be persecuted like this. They will claim they have done nothing wrong, and they haven't likely done a damned thing wrong, and will engage in Internet Outrage!® They will be ignored and will claim they are being silenced and engage in Internet Outrage - Now With More Vulgarities!® Nothing will happen.
Surely this person is known amongst the community. In the Marines we called them 'blanket parties.' I am not suggesting a blanket party. I am suggesting a closed door, no cameras, and someone sitting down with the people who do these sorts of things and having a nice, polite, conversation with them about how they are going to result in liberty restricting regulations that harm all of them instead of just the guilty parties. That is what is going to happen - they are going to end up regulated with fines, property seizures, and jail times being the result as well as the decreased liberties. That may not be how it should be but that is how it is and how it is going to end up. Disassociate yourselves and have a "nice calm, polite, productive conversation" with the idiots who are giving your otherwise fine hobby a bad name.
How about if you opt to live in the city and you are impacted by crime. Can you call the police to get your stolen car back or do you have to do it action-movie style and go hunt down the thieves yourself with nothing but a gun, your gymnastic skills, and wire-harness stunts? Don't go living in dangerous areas and expect the government to bail you out.
And at least you have the courage to stand by your words and to own them - to be accountable for them. There is that and that is, I feel, a respectable trait and one of the reasons that I, personally, only post as an AC when I clearly identify myself and only due to there being a limitation to the number of times I can post even though I have a karma rating of 'excellent.' So, while I disagree with your points and think you are stretching a bit too thin on the idea of what the government should do - it is kind of there to protect stupid people, those who can not protect themselves and such, I do respect your right to say them and do have a bit more respect that you have the courage to stand by your beliefs rather than attempt petty arguments or name calling.
They are pooling their money, it is called taxes. It is also interesting that you managed to invent a whole bunch of information about these people in your first post. You are starting to sound like one of the nut-job Republicans who was so ashamed of their party that they decided to co-opt the name Libertarian without doing more homework than reading the various Ayn Rand Cliff Notes or watching half of a YouTube video.
Firebreaks are a little bit more complicated than that. If they are not already in place you generally start with digging all the vegetation out of the way and then start the break. You carry picks and shovels for this task. A small, mostly controlled, fire is then set while people watch it to put out (using heavy Indian pumps) any cinders that float across or things of that nature. You then extend the break out from there. You do try to use natural terrain features where you can but, still, you have to have people right there immediately for this to be effective usually.
These people are not going to want to be there when a rapidly moving plane, following terrain, being buffeted by updrafts, and dealing with limited visibility is firing lasers that are powerful enough to light fires in their immediate vicinity. This is not a good idea when there is a good chance that someone brought matches or a lighter with them.
I am not attempting to call you dumb or stupid. You likely did not know and likely did not know the reasons why such would not be considered good practice. It certainly sounds like fun, do not get me wrong, but I do not think it will have the effect you are expecting.
I am no expert but... Source: Me. When I was young, fit, and stupid I volunteered and trained as a "smokejumper." I did not see a lot of "action" but got to help with a dozen or so decent sized fires and some smaller ones. The name jumper is a bit of a misnomer, at least in my experience, because we were either dropped off by helicopter or rappelled/fast-roped from a helicopter more often than not. Other than in training and in practice I only jumped into three sites. While we were volunteers we still got insurance while volunteering and a stipend of $12/hr which was reasonable back then. This would have been in the early 1980s. I suspect that the stipend is larger now or completely gone now. I do not know anyone who was in it for the money. I think we were all closet potential arsonists who just really liked fire.
The dissemination is done by smoke signal. Where there is a big fire do not fly you toy. This is dangerous even *IF* there were almost no chance of harm. Additional risks are bad. This is not a complicated subject nor does it need any special dissemination. The person knew there was a fire there. That is why they flew there. They are giving the hobby a bad name and are going to be the cause of additional regulation. People will then whine about the "persecution." Those people will have a huge overlap of those who failed to see why things like this are bad. Those people are not bright and you can join them or educate them. If this is your hobby you should either educate them or punch them in the nuts.
We could have individual nuke powered homes if we wanted. We just have to use the right sign.
I used to live in a city. I bought a new fridge. I put the, still working, fridge on the edge of my lawn and a sign on it that said, "Free." It sat for a week. My then-wife suggested I change the sign. I put a $50 sign on it. It was gone three days later. So, if you want to put the nukes into homes safely then store them on the edge of the driveway with a sign that says, "Free for the taking." They will remain there until they rot.
Also, can we scale LSTRs down?
Bird shot and a choke. Beanbags. Wooden blocks. No people will be near enough to the fire to worry about any of those. Those near it will be wearing PPE so a small wooden block, even at terminal velocity, will not harm them one bit. Not that I recommend shooting a drone out of the sky. I am in favor of arresting the idiot operator of said drone. However, we could shoot it with a reasonable level of safety.
Definition #5 is pretty open. That is ironic, don't you think?
I would not even agree to a single year contract with my ISP. Still 5 years seems a strange complaint over 3 years. It just seems odd.
I am working on it, alone - thank you, but it is going to take some time. Also, I am not quite sure that I can get things back to the way they were so we may have to settle for some reconfiguration. However, you needn't worry. I will get it done for you. Unfortunately, America is heavy.
You do not know what more could be done? Surely you jest, of course you know what could be done. They could not build the telescope there. You probably do not like that solution. However, that could be done and you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is... disturbing.
Now, for me? I am really at a bit of a loss as I see both sides of the argument. In this case it seems that there are already telescopes all over the place. One more does seem to matter to them. Perhaps, as they are going to be removing some anyhow, they could put this one where there was an older one? I'd hate to see them select the second-best site. I really think this needs to move forward. However, there is more that can be done - as I mentioned.
Around here, it is actually mostly people who have moved here "from away" such as myself but I am not a part of this, they do not use religious claims. Instead they argue about the view being destroyed and the subject is windmills. They do not seem to mind cell phone towers unless they are really close. Then they have "concerns" because they "feel" that the radiation from the towers might make them sick. That tower is fine when it is five miles away on somebody else's property and they have no complaints about using a cell phone.
Fortunately they are still in the minority here. Sadly they are almost always people who moved here who seem inclined to try to change things to their liking. I moved here because I felt that I would fit in well and I spent time living here before making that choice. I am not sure why other folks attempt to do the opposite. It is not like they came here for the bustling job market, this is Maine.
Anyhow, I do feel for the people who lose their property due to eminent domain. It is even worse when the government forces the people to sell, not for a government project but for a private corporation. That kind of crap really needs to stop. I could almost justify violent protests over that seeing as the land is being taken by force. But, as always, we are wandering off-topic. If you, or anyone else, is unaware of this then searching for "eminent domain private corporations" should give you some more information.
Strange assumptions. One you are assuming that nobody cared or were somehow obligated to go to your homeland and get your land back for you. Even stranger is that you assume that your opinion matters because you think that you had something happen that was similar but was in no way related. Even more odd is that you assume that something that happens inside of the US is going to help you regain property lost to the USSR. You could potentially get your land back but it would likely mean you would have to purchase it. It may not be for sale. The land in this situation neither belongs to you nor does it belong to the scientists.
However, having thought about this, there are already telescopes there. I am not entirely sure what difference an additional telescope is going to make at this point. This does not, of course, get you "your" land back. You will have to seek assistance in another country, a country that is not the United States - the country that took the land is the one you want to approach, for remediation. This may be a difficult situation for you to understand but the US is not responsible, it is not in the US, and the US is not obligated to assist you in getting your land back. Perhaps your relatives should have fought or purchased land in Siberia? Then you would not have to worry about it or you would, at least, be closer to the source of your ire.
We already decided that and have treaties for it. Now if you will uphold the treaties we will be all set. Thanks. (Otherwise we will be forced to take your money via Bingo and building casinos. We have the technology.)
This is new to me. What extinctions did the arrival of the first Hawaiians cause?
Our atoms will return and be re-used so, in some respect, it could be considered reincarnated. I do not think those atoms will have any memory of their history, of course, but they will return and be in another life at some point. I am reincarnating as a star.
What you say is pertinent. Very much so. However, just because it is the best site in the entire hemisphere does not mean that the second best place will not have to do. I am torn. I am very pro-science and astronomy is a bit of a minor passion of mine. (I attended a preparatory school that had its own observatory, I learned to truly appreciate the effort and the findings then.) At the same time, I advocate for natives to have the chance to maintain their culture and have some sovereignty. There needs to be some sort of real compromise and that should have been done long before the site was shovel ready. Compromise does not mean that the government simply says that they should screw off and build the telescope as is. Compromise does not mean that the natives should absolutely not allow scientists access without any consideration. Perhaps they can make some sort of pledge to minimize impact to the land, to keep the land open for the native people, and to ensure that the land stays undeveloped, and other changes that can make things more appealing? Maybe they can offer educational resources there as well? I am unsure of which would be most effective and I am not at liberty to speak for the Hawaiians or the scientists.
It is not that hard, especially today. Now? It just works.
Are you sure they are not sovereign? I know I have land where it, and I, are sovereign in two countries (Micmac tribe as I mentioned earlier and have mentioned earlier when the subject arose). I am, of course, subject to various laws but have a bit more leeway when I am on the reserve - more so in Canada. I had thought that Hawaiian natives had the same thing, complete with reserves which were set aside as sovereign lands? If not they should look into it. I say that the US government should uphold the many treaties they signed over the years. I do not know specifics about Hawaii but I suspect that, if history is any indication, they _may_ have some legal precedence there.
We have already given it back to the gigantic sloths. I know. I have been to a trailer park. I have even parked my RV in a Wal*Mart parking lot in Georgia - and I have gone in to use the restrooms and buy some beer. The gargantuan sloths live on a reservation in the south. They are slightly faster in the north - it is colder up here.
I am part Micmac, enough to be a First Nations person and have Canadian citizenship as well as my US citizenship. Who did I, or my people, commit genocide against? No, we did not (regardless of the rumors) kill the dinosaurs. In fact, by most (I have not read all so I will not say all) accounts we were a peaceful people with no record of major conflicts in our oral history. We maybe did some raping and murdering (who has not, I ask you that) and stealing babies but, in our defense, we were simply ensuring the survival of the species by spreading our genes around and did not actually commit acts of genocide or anything close to it.
Why five? That is just another arbitrary number pulled from nowhere.
I am learning all sorts of stuff. Thanks. I should have guessed that the Coptics have a pope of their own.
Umm... We do have working jetpacks already. I am not sure that you can buy one (I suspect you can) but you could easily build one. Some dude was flying around in one back in the 50s or 60s for the US military.