Two easy points of dispute. A) They use guns made/modified specifically to shoot that target. A standard shotgun some guy has behind his door for protection is going to have a very different pattern.
I shoot trap with a Winchester 11/87 Police Model, 18" barrel, cylinder choke
16 times faster is too slow? Basic math, people. DDR-4000 (a.k.a. PC-32000) is 32 GBps. Today's SATA3 SSDs do 500 MBps. 500 MBps times 1000 is 500 GBps, or almost 16 times faster than DDR-4000. If the random hype claims of "1000 times faster" are true, then this kicks the shit out of current RAM.
They're talking about latency, not bandwidth.
How is that *worse* than having a lifetime of 1000x the number of write cycles of a NAND drive?
Because if the write amplification is, for instance, 1/10th that of flash. Then 1000x as many writes would mean 20,000 years.
At that point, the ability to use this to replace DRAM becomes much more reasonable. If it were really just 1000x the writes of NAND, it would be far too short-lived to act as normal RAM... but if it's *really* the typical lifetime, things could get very interesting indeed...
Nope, worse, not better--the math goes the other way. It's *LESS* than 1000x as many write cycles, but it's 1000x the life cycle in use as non-volatile memory because it can write smaller blocks, thus less write amplification.
Well, unless you buy into using this technology to fundamentally change how we view memory architecture. I have not done the sums, but I doubt that 1000x NAND's endurance is sufficient for also replacing DRAM.
Doesn't matter anyway. Faster than Flash, but still too slow to replace RAM...
Heat Pump? That sucks. It will be worthless to anyone in cold areas, then, as most heat pumps don't work in freezing temperatures.
Old, out-of-date info. Of course they get less efficient as temp drops, but... 40ish years ago they were essentially worthless at 20F, now there are some that work decently to -15F.
00 falling out of the sky not a hazard, but if he fired it at any sort of angle it likely was, if he fired it in a residential area (we know he did at least this) or a neighborhood the likelyhood of it being a risk goes up even higher
Agreed. There is a possibility that I'd consider it a hazard, depending on how it was done, and what was downrange. I'm only arguing against the knee-jerk reaction that automatically assumes it was totally reckless.
For instance, I live in a "neighborhood" of sorts. I can see my neighbors. But we're far enough apart, and in an unincorporated area, that it's perfectly legal for us to go shooting on our own property--within certain restrictions about distance from roads and direction of shot and backstop. I know that for many people, the idea that I can throw clays and shoot them perfectly legally in my back yard is absolutely mind-blowing, but yep, I can. (Also varmints...)
Newsflash, shotguns fire bullets, too, except they're called "slugs."
While that's true, I find it highly unlikely that a slug was used. These drones are mostly airspace with some skinny arms. It would be very hard to shoot one down with a slug.
Nonsense. I've been hit in the face by #8 birdshot used by a gunner over 200 yards away. If I didn't have field glasses on, I'd have lost an eye.
Well, first off, my post simply pointed out the difference between a bullet and shot, and claimed there was a huge difference. What exactly is nonsense about that? What do you suppose would have happened if you'd been hit by a rifle round from "over 200 yards away"? Your field glasses wouldn't have done a damn thing for you...
Second off, bird shot, 200 yards away, you're talking about a low-angle shot and residual horizontal velocity, *NOT* pellets falling. Of course we don't know angle and direction of this guy's shot, but the knee-jerk reaction that it was some kind of huge hazard is really uninformed.
We'd have to see a lot more detail about where the copter actually was, the angle at which Dad shot it, etc.
Exactly.
Separately from that: the FAA is quite clear that shooting at ANY aircraft is a crime. Big time.
OK. Let the schmuck who was flying the drone call in the FAA, and see who actually gets a fine. (Hint: also illegal to operate in close proximity to people, especially people who are on their own property, and don't want it there...)
Ah yes, just good ole
For a spherical pellet without spin, muzzle velocity is vastly higher than terminal velocity. So, no, 00 falling out of the sky is not much of a hazard at all. So, whether there was a real hazard, depends on angle and direction that he shot.
This man deserved his arrest, what he did was wholly irresponsible.
Shotgun, not rifle. No bullet, just pellets. Huge difference.
But I know it doesn't work that way. If you wuss out and pay the toll, there is no getting your money back from the troll.
The agreement will certainly have such a clause. But if you have enough money to spend on lawyers, you could certainly make the troll's life miserable for a few years, trying to have the agreement voided on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the validity and applicability of the patents
In this case, you need a permit to use the park. Their permit said that they would not have this wanted fugitive perform. They violated the terms of their permit, so were shut down. This is pretty straightforward and they had to know this would happen - they probably wanted the publicity.
The restrictions in the permit were blatantly unconstitutional, therefore impermissable and unenforceable under US law. The city just set themselves up to be on the losing end of a lawsuit, if the promoter so chooses. If you don't believe, try washingtonpost.com and read the article and analysis. This is not a theoretical violation; the case law is well-settled, with the courts consistently banning these kinds of content-based restrictions on use of public space.
Depends. They're describing how a lot of people react to missed calls and texts. Not me. I don't care enough. Seriously, I missed a text?BFD. I'll check it when I have a reasonable chance, and until then, I will not think about it at all.
(Under normal circumstances, obviously. Relative in hospital, then I would be distracted.)
And the most interesting part of that Wikipedia article is this bit about the lovely state of Nevada...
Ah yes, Nevada. Where the law states that a call can be recorded with consent of any party, and the state Supreme Court ruled that "any" means "all"
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
