It's just a coincidence that every law is anti-big business. Imagine all the business opportunities, if big business could just hire some gun men and force people out of their houses! Those pesky property laws are so totally anti-big business. It's so anti free market that the people with more and better guns shouldn't be able to expand their market share.

On which ones? (If you say "all", I'm going to hit my head on this desk, these things should all come up on the first hits on Google, as none of them are esoteric; I assume you know how to type words into a search bar?)

The reason Apple stuck with the Power architecture for so long, was because IBM promised them quad and greater core chips running at 8 Ghz, air cooled, by 2005. Needless to say, they didn't even come close to delivering. It was that failure that led Apple to switch to x86.

I would be curious to know more about the architecture and all around chip specs they are using in their prototype: clock speed, memory interface, etc. The article states they are developing a version of Linux to test it on, so it's safe to say it's an established architecture. Anyway, I am excited to see the results once they have tested it on Linux. While this does not help with the density per core problem, perhaps it will help extend Moore's Law from the perspective of speed increase in respect to micro circuitry.

What I find most notable about SpaceX delays is how short they are. They have an incredible turnaround time on scrubbed launches and fixes.

Now that would be an awesome idea for an egotistical billionaire - hire a choir to follow you around and literally sing your praises.

that cares about only one rape case

Oh, please, get over yourself. I was writing about rape's prevalence here on Slashdot earlier this week, in a thread on women in computing. Is that not often enough for you? Because I can write more about it if you'd like.

lies and debunked talking points

By all means, name a couple of things you think are "lies and debunked talking points"! I'm all ears!

Hope the paychecks are of a decent size.

But of course! You should see the porche I just bought with my dirty, dirty money. It's covered in solid gold! I mean, of course a person couldn't actually give a rat's arse about a famous person getting cheered on for running away from trial for rape and stirring up millions of agitators against the victims. No, you're too clever for me, nobody could give a rat's arse about that! It's all about the benjamins, baby!

The claims won't be processed at all. Artificial islands don't contribute to coastal waters / EEZ claims. Seriously, look it up.

From the sound of it, China is building new islands to place military outposts on in order to not violate a previous agreement that neither side would inhabit presently uninhabited islands.

I'm confused. Are you contesting any of what I wrote? Try out Google, it's your friend. If you still need help, just ask and I'll get you links.

Wikileaks' antics have gotten really ridiculous years. A particular lowpoint, I thought, was when they made a fake news website to post a fake column from a Wikileaks critic, ostensibly supporting Wikileaks, and promoted it with a link from a fake twitter account in the critic's name.

It wouldn't be such a big issue that Wikileaks is run by an overgrown child if they didn't wield such power. Just look to the Belarus situation as to how devastating misuse of their power can get.

It really bothers me because of the potential Wikileaks had, versus what has become of it.

Really? It's the realm of "fat internet neckbeard conspiracy theorists" that the successor to a massively deregulating treaty would be a massively deregulating treaty?

So you think that it's difficult to take crap seriously from an organization that talks about promoting transparency, but is itself highly secretive? Like, oh, let's just say, Wikileaks itself? You know, that famously litigous organization that makes all of its employees sign $20,000,000 NDAs, and which has repeatedly used blackmail, aka threats of information release unless entities pay them protection money (such as blackmailing aid agencies with threats of unredacted information that could get their members killed unless they pay up, even trying to extort $700k from Amnesty International) or give into political demands (usually of the form of get-out-of-jail-free cards, e.g., Assange's "insurance files")?

Come on, stop acting like Assange isn't the awesomeest awesome that ever awesomed; you know it's true.

Assange for Senate in 2016! This time, without allying with the neo-Nazis!

That's what I'm wondering. Who thought people working on the followup to the massively-deregulating GATS treaty were working to *increase* regulation on financial services?

Next up: a breaking, top secret release about how people in secret meetings at the NRA are discussing strategy about how to keep the US from passing stricter gun laws!

I'd say that the latter deserves the term "drone" more, and the former deserves the term "remote controlled airplane". Drone, to me, invokes "flying craft that does some mindless task repetitively, largely on its own, typically involving both free flight between locations and hover or slow movements at the destination.". "Remote controlled airplane" invokes... well, first, *airplane* (which a quadcopter is not), and beyond that, "with continual operation by an operator, with continuous motion (no hovering)"

Exactly - drone regulations should be for what's the worst case realistic crash scenario. You don't want it breaking a windshield or sending a kid to the hospital, so you can come up with some reasonable impact force / deceleration regulations. And it doesn't even mean that a safety chute is fundamentally required; most people mistakenly believe that helicopters that lose power plummet to the ground, but actually, the rotors autorotate (they're rotary wings, after all), and can (depending on the hardware) even potentially have a safe controlled landing on autorotation. You could also require minimum noise and lighting, at least while the craft is below a certain altitude, and require that they be either passive or on an independent power system.

There's one safety problem, though, that you have to be sure to address... free spinning rotors can be a serious safety hazard. Just from randomly ending up on RC forums I've ran into a number of posts of people who've injured themselves, sometimes rather seriously, on their RC craft's blades. Cowlings could help somewhat, but I don't know if that'd be enough (they're also extra weight and rob some energy). Still, I think it should be totally possible to engineer passively safe, yet still useful, drones.