The drones that Amazon is talking about will be big enough and heavy enough to bring down some helicopters.
Unlikely. I'd expect that 99.9% of helicopters "brought down" by a drone will be from boom strike (or other "pilot error") from the pilot's reaction to seeing one, not the impact itself. How would a dron differ significantly from a bird strike? A larger bird would be similar in weight to a drone, and with similar speeds. Does every hawk strike kill the helicopter?
I would mostly agree with parent. Soylent is fine execpt the community isnt big enough so the comments are barely there or worth reading, the name is kind of bad and the stories are routinely just old enough to be yesterdays news on Slashdot or Hacker news.
Their Twitter feed, which is where I get my news feeds, also puts these really annoying lame "from the deptâ attempts at humor in the tweets instead of just the title of the story and the link:
Razer Acquires Ouya Software Assets, Ditches Hardware from the kicked-down dept
They will even thorten the title to make room for the utterly stupid âoefrom theâ.
The best solution to replace Slashdot would probably be if Hacker news grafted the classic Slashdot look, commenting and moderation system on to their generally good stories and great community.
There is a high probably no Sunday talk show would have let him speak once they found out what he was going to say. They are all owned by giant media conglomerates you know. They wouldnt risk the wrath of the Federal government. Pretty sure Snowden went to Greenwald because he was one of the few journalists with the balls to do the story. The Guardian was hammered by the UK government for running it.
Remember when the CEO of Qwest defied the NSA plan to tap all data and phones lines after 9/11. The Federal government pulled all their contracts from Qwest, hammered their stock and then put him in prison for a phony securities rap. Qwest was a rare corporate hero among telecoms, long since swallowed up by CenturyLink who are just as bad as all the rest.
...ought not to be defined by the government against which it is wielded.
Except solar panels lose power over time.
Not nearly as much as the haters assert.
Plus if you're moving away from the very star powering your craft, well then "forever" is not as long as you'd like.
If you are moving directly away, a solar sail would be more efficient.
Ah, ok, i think i got it (as best i can while brushing my teeth.
If i use this in the near future, i ought to let you know (and thank you again.)
Nice.
I'm a quickie editor when something annoys me enough, so, i don't feel like learning it extensively, though admittedly, it'd be nice.
I ought to come back to this post before writing a new script though. Maybe some more interest will help me appreciate this information a lot more.
Thank you!
If you don't have a reasonably fixed address, then no - you can't vote.
That only applies to the poor. Trump has (or used to have, no idea what he uses now) a hotel room as his "permanent" address. Many other politicians have had the same. And they were allowed to vote for themselves. It's only the poor and minorities that the system targets.
Voter IDs are supposed to be free unless you mean the state's that require a state ID to vote? Those are usually just a few dollars and required for many other tasks which minimizes the expense. I agree with you in theory but in practicality?
Many also require a home address and additional government paperwork. For someone who doesn't have a birth certificate on them, the cost for a "free" ID can be quite expensive. For someone who doesn't have a home address, you have to commit perjury and find a co-conspirator to your crime (now a felony) to be able to get the ID. So a homeless person must commit a felony to get an ID. Plus the cost.
Plus, it doesn't solve any known problem. Fraud didn't go down in the places that required IDs. There were just fewer Blacks voting.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach