Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 110 110

Public law 112-95 and the Special Rule for model aircraft does not have any altitude restriction, the AMA Safety code does not have an altitude restriction, AC91-57 does mention 400ft, but it is a guideline, not a must.

Ultimately the FAA does not have a law prohibiting model airplanes from anything. AC91-57 suggests some operating parameters that are good to follow, but this is far from anything enforceable. Stay within the AC's guidelines and they won't even look at you. Go outside of them and you have to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your operation. Glider guys do it all them. So do rocket guys. The AC is just advisory.

For now they are stuck to looking the other way, simply because they do not have the legal authority to prevent it given (among other things) the special rule for model aircraft. The most they can do is invoke air safety to prosecute an FPV flyer (and in that area they do have some authority) . Good luck with that in 99.99 % of cases where we are talking foamies, small drones, etc ... at low altitude and at AMA open fields.

As you probably know the only time ever when the FAA invoked its authority on model aircraft is in Huerta v. Pirker, with their only argument centered on safety. And in that case a federal judge sided with Pirker and against them. They then appealed to the NTSB, who sided with the FAA essentially stating that anything that flies, including say your 100g nano copter two feet off the ground in your backyard, is an aircraft in the national airspace and as such subject to FAA regulations. The case ended when the FAA and Pirker agreed to settle, with the FAA ok with Pirker recognizing no guilt whatsoever and a 90% fine reduction. In my opinion the FAA avoided some serious future embarrassment with that settlement, and Pirker showed the FAA had no case. But others have interpreted it as an FAA win.

The best victory would be for everyone to just use common sense. I for one would like to continue recreational flying.

Comment: Re: Hodor (Score 0) 127 127

why not just:

bool WillCharacterBeKilled(Character c) { return IsCharacterPopular(c); }

and if this were C++, I would do:

bool WillCharacterBeKilled(const Character &c) { return IsCharacterPopular(c); }

as passing by reference (using the ampersand) prevents having to create an unnecessary copy of the object.

Comment: Re:freemasons run the country (Score 2) 133 133

The formula is not too bad, although I would suggest a minor tweak, mainly that one should change it from:

(compression ratio)/log(time to compress)

to:

(compression ratio)/log(10+time to compress).

This will ensure that no divide by zero occurs, specifically if the time to compress is 1 second, then you would have been dividing by zero in the original formula.

Comment: Re:We are a colony organism (Score 1) 162 162

Not only that, but the statement that we are 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human given that there are 10 times as many microbial cells as there are human cells is mathematically incorrect:

x=10y
1.0=x+y
1.0 = (10y)+y
1.0 = 11y

Therefore it is more accurate to say that we are 90.909% microbial and 9.0909% human.

Comment: Re:30Km isn't space (Score 1) 104 104

It would be like paying $75,000 to sit 30% closer to the Lamborghini than everyone else.

Wrong.

At 30km altitude, you are much more than 30% closer to space than everyone else.

Even if everyone were at the summit of Mt. Everest, which is at 8.8km, you would still be 3.4 times (240%) higher up than they are.

Comment: Re:fuck electronic voting (Score 1) 398 398

Also, I would like to add that we are really talking about two separate issues here.

For me, I do not like that we lose voting accuracy. So there are simple ways to improve on it, like I stated earlier.
For you, you do not like that it has become a popularity contest, and that it comes down to uninformed masses making the decision. I won't argue with you there.

But for your issue, again that has nothing to do with voting accuracy. Instead, that has to do with educating the uninformed masses, which is indeed an entirely separate issue altogether, and the electoral college does not solve that problem.

Like they say in programming: garbage in, garbage out. Since the electoral votes themselves are based upon the votes of the uninformed masses, they too are going to be garbage. But at least we can have a more accurate outcome if we improve upon the current electoral scheme.

Comment: Re:fuck electronic voting (Score 1) 398 398

Yeah, that whole thing about each State selecting the president... All that means is that my vote doesn't matter because it is going to be nullified from winner-take-all.

Like I said before, if the US were just one big "State", then winner take all is fine. I get that. But when you have winner-take-all applied across multiple states, you lose voting accuracy.

Again consider my updated example:

State A: 500,001 votes for candidate 1; 499,999 votes for candidate 2
State B: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
State C: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2

Again, state A gives ten electoral votes to candidate 1, and states B and C each give one electoral vote to candidate 2.

In this example, candidate 2 gets a total of 699,999 votes, and candidate 1 gets a total of 500,001 votes. Yet due to the electoral votes, even though candidate 2 got 39% more votes, he/she would still lose.

I will not argue that indeed, today it may seem like a popularity contest is taking place, but in the end, to allow for the outcome of one state to nullify the outcome of the others (like in the above example), seems preposterous to me.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Working...