Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Can someone explainn (Score 3, Informative) 165

What is the security risk posed by small drones? In your explanation please include "Drones are better than mortars at delivering explosives because..."

Because a drone can autonomously delivery a brick of C4 to within a meter of where you want it to go on your first try. And you can be miles away while it does that. "Miles away" is also handy if you're using it to deliver an aerosoled nerve agent or some bio-nasty substance over, say, a presidential press conference in the Rose Garden, or a speech on the steps of the Capital.

Comment Re:kinda illegal already, by a rule referring to a (Score 1) 165

Is it a law that they have to do it?

No, this is them annoying some of their customers (people who want to fly illegally in the DC no-fly zone) in an attempt to preempt knee-jerk over compensating by federal authorities. The feds would rather just ban the devices entirely, period.

Comment Re:Seems a bit unfair (Score 4, Insightful) 165

In the Washington DC area, flights of any kind are and have been for many years very severely controlled. The DC Flight Restriction Zone (the "DC FRZ") is a 30-mile-wide circle in side of which it is illegal to fly any sort of remote control device of any kind at any altitude. So, yes, it sucks to be in the suburbs, seemingly a long way away from the sensitive downtown areas that include the White House, the Capital, Reagan Airport, the CIA campus, and all of those other high-profile places and people ... but, too bad! Federal offense with stiff fines and possible jail time if you're caught. That includes kids with $20 bought-it-at-the-mall 6" pink plastic helicopters playing around in their back yard. Yes, it's ridiculous. On the other hand, it's a rare week when a trio of big helicopters doing runs like the one between the White House and Camp David don't go thundering over the tree tops of suburban Maryland. You can hear them coming quite a ways out, and if you were prepared, you could easily have a modest quadcopter or more substantial hexa up to over 1000' feet and be at the same altitiude as (or above) Marine One by the time it and its decoy siblings flew directly over your house on the way to a routine presidential golf outing. That's the sort of thing that has had the DoD, Secret Service, HSA, and FAA all uptight. Mind you, a person flying a more or less radar-invisible foam and plastic RC plane could have done that many years ago, too.

And so we have a 700 square mile area where flying a 3-pound DJI quadcopter is very, very illegal, and has been for years. That DJI is updating their GPS-aware flight control firmware to make it impossible to fly their devices in that area is a sign that they don't want their products to be simply banned outright. We are not at the sweet spot of rational rules and implementation on this one, not even close. And of course someone with true mal intent isn't going to be bothered by the rules or the firmware limitations anyway.

Comment Oi (Score 1) 228

I was saying that it makes a lot of sense for Facebook not to allow pictures of Mohammad in Turkey. Just like they don't allow boobies in the USA.

It doesn't "make sense", it simply retards social progress by keeping neurotics from considering the darker corners of their own thought processes. I mean, seriously. "Boobies bad"? That's just... pitiful. I am perfectly ready to describe anyone who isn't pleased by the sight of a nice pair of boobies in any neutral, humorous, peaceful, appreciative or loving context as a broken human being. One for whom I have sympathy and pity, but in no way does this engender any urge to force the world into a form that serves to insulate them from the toxic processes of their own twisted psyches.

As for drawing Mohammad, your assertion that there is no purpose but offense is wrong out of the gate. Art is one reason, political commentary is another, historical illustration is another, simple choice is another, and yes, offense is one but that doesn't make it an invalid use.

Comment Re:inflation embiggens numbers (Score 1) 534

That's hilarious. The "liberal media" in Texas is owned by oil companies. The stories about all the earthquakes around Dallas explain how it's not fracking, and if it were fracking, it's a good thing, as the more common smaller earthquakes release pressure, preventing a larger one later.

And I'm referring to Belo, whose owners have ties to the West Texas oil fields. No, Mobile doesn't own Belo, but the owners of Belo have ties to oil.

Comment Re:No Kidding (Score 1) 220

Indent isn't meaningless. But there's no reason to double-space an indent. It carries a reading meaning, related to nesting of code.

Code "feels" smaller when it's compact. Also, having a single spacing method uniform across everyone makes for easier cut-and paste sharing. Having one person space things differently than another will result in decreased readability.

Comment Who says it serves no purpose? (Score 3, Insightful) 228

What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa. What serves no purpose for you, may serve a purpose for me. Be it intended offense, or otherwise, or both at once.

No one in the USA has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a particular group; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (of any size) may not offend another, nor a person of another grouping; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another.

And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not -- any more than you can guess what is offensive to me, or not.

Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. It does not rely on the idea that we "must not cause offense."

Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

Comment Re:grandmother reference (Score 1) 468

35 official Ubisoft resellers sold keys. Rather then honoring keys sold through official channels, Ubisoft revoked them, and refunded them. That seems silly.

Also note, the total number of keys purchased fraudulently was not disclosed, nor was the number voided. Apparently, Ubisoft is banning and making people demand a refund to get a refund. Some people may think that they did something wrong, and won't ask for a refund. This will result in theft by Ubisoft. Because anyone who doesn't ask for a refund won't get it.

The "proper" way to handle this is to honor all the keys and try to recover money from the fraudulent distributor.

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Working...