Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Another browser (Score 2) 183 183

It's great when you can get away with that, but all too many companies (like where I work) have to deal with our customers as they are, not how we would wish them to be.

It's all the people like you who are the problem. If "use something standards-compliant or have a bad experience" were the universal norm, we wouldn't have these problems.

You say that like you think it's my decision to do this. I assure you, it is not.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1017 1017

I missed the part where he was shooting straight up.

If it's high enough that no one is going to run into it, he should have left it alone. It's not presenting any threat to him.

Self-defense is a right. Shooting at things that merely upset you is not.

Provide the angle of the gun to the ground is sufficient that nothing will be in the path of shot until it reaches its maximum height, than nothing can possible be struck at greater than terminal velocity.

Not strictly true. Two exceptions.

A shot fired parallel to the ground will have maximum velocity at its maximum height, and a shot fired at very slight elevation can have its vertical velocity cancelled while still remaining above terminal velocity. Granted, it would continue to slow while falling until it reached terminal velocity.

But for a guy shooting almost straight up---yeah.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1017 1017

I missed the part in the article where he was shooting directly overhead. That is less stupid, but still pretty stupid.

If it's overhead and out of arms' reach, it's probably not posing a threat of personal harm or property damage---so why is he shooting in the first place?

Maybe if it's at/near ground level, the drone could conceivably strike and hurt someone. Higher than that, not so likely.

Firing at it is an overreaction at best. Plus, if it's illegal to fire a gun in residential areas then he should know it if he's a gun owner. He very obviously isn't going to get the self-defense exemption since there was no threat of harm.

Comment Re:Information wants to be free (Re:Embarrassment) (Score 1) 270 270

And that makes it OK?

I see nothing wrong with it, actually. People want — and have a perfect right — to know, who they are about to trust with powers over them and/or their businesses. And the higher the position, the greater the powers and, consequently, the greater the extent people might go in their investigations.

The "opposition research" is just another facet of this. If it is legitimate for all of us to study, how Donald Trump parted with his ex-wide 30 years ago before we hire him, it is certainly legitimate for a would-be employer to check criminal history of a candidate, or inquire, whether he has done something, which may betray certain things about his character or judgement. Did he torture animals? Is he prone to binge-drinking? Has he burned the national flag? Is he a racist, sexist, or communist?

So long as private employers' hiring decisions remain their own, they ought to remain free to base them on whatever considerations they please — with the specific (if regrettable) restrictions imposed by the law, of course.

Well clearly I'm not going to have such studies to hand, not sure how you would study such a thing

Well, you made a wide-reaching statement about a certain fact. If you can not cite anything to confirm the fact, your statement remains unsubstantiated and the "fact" — highly suspect.

there is inbuilt racism / nationalism in CV selection

I can believe that — and in my not-so-humble opinion, those concerns ought to remain up to the employer as well. Both from the principled standpoint — being free must imply freedom to be wrong, as well as practical — the war on thought-crimes, waged in this country since the 1960-ies, is even less winnable than the coterminous war on drugs.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1017 1017

The FAA said not to fly drones above buildings at all, so even above 500 feet their behavior was probably not legal.

The legality of their behavior, however, isn't the only factor in determining whether discharging a gun is appropriate or legal.

There are lots of laws that can be broken without authorizing the use of a weapon in response.

Comment Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score 1) 1017 1017

There already is a rule. It's 500 feet.

Above 500 feet, it's treated like a public highway. Basically, you're allowed to be there as long as you're following the applicable regulations. There are a lot of rules, including extensive training requirements for pilots, but anyone can fly there as long as they follow the rules.

Below 500 feet, the air is yours. The Causby ruling stated there is both a public and a private airspace, and the FAA decides what happens above the boundary. The government can take easements like they can on the ground, and they have to pay for it when they do.

Obviously, FAA regulations require aircraft to give a certain amount of clearance to obstacles---this is why, for instance, a plane could never fly into your 501-foot building and claim it had the right of way. If the FAA decides to treat drones like all other aircraft, they wouldn't be allowed below 500 feet and would have to fly at least 500 feet above any obstacles.

So there have already been laws and court rulings on the matter. It's a question of the FAA stepping up and doing something with the power that has been delegated to the agency.

Comment Re:If I could abort child, I can do ANYTHING (Score 1) 270 270

I don't agree with the murder of unborn children either.

Well, you may not, but the country's laws see nothing wrong with it — and it certainly is not considered "murder". And yet, what you do with that same child only a few years after he is born, is suddenly a matter of police concern. That's the inconsistency — in the general thinking, not yours — of which I'm trying to raise awareness here.

I am not trying to claim [...] I think

Wouldn't it be nice, if people applied their opinions on rearing children to their own children only?

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1, Troll) 1017 1017

You're only right if hail and buckshot have the same density. And similar shapes. Different density, different shape = different terminal velocity. Their densities are different, therefore you are wrong.

Plus, it is possible for people or property to be struck before it slows to terminal velocity.

The combination of a fence line and ~5 neighbors seeing the drone mean he's in a developed residential area so he shouldn't be shooting unless there is a clear, urgent threat to his health and safety. A drone might be creepy and worrisome, but the correct response is not to start shooting.

Call the police or the FAA, and let them explain to the owner that drones are not supposed to be flown over buildings.

From TFA, the FAA says that drones cannot fly over buildings and that it's dangerous to shoot at them. So both parties are in the wrong---but only one guy acted dangerously, and that's the guy shooting things out of the sky in a residential area.

Comment Information wants to be free (Re:Embarrassment) (Score 1) 270 270

And this is why we have privacy. That people have disconnected lives where they are one person at work and another with their friends

If, for whatever reasons, an employer wants to know, what sort of a person you are with your friends — and they all will, once the positions they are considering you for reach a certain height, they'll find out. With private investigators, if need be.

What you present to the employer being separate from your personal life is actually a really important part of how we function as a society.

Is it? How so? Can you cite any studies showing usefulness of such separation? Or how this separation changed over the years — for the betterment of society, or otherwise?

Comment Re:Embarrassment (Score 1) 270 270

The problem isn't embarrassment, it's judgemental people with the power to affect your live.

Oh, thank you for identifying "the problem". For a while here, I thought it was the irresponsible statements and other behaviour of certain people. Turns out, it is the other people's opinion of same...

Comment If I could abort child, I can do ANYTHING (Score 1) 270 270

there may be some issues there for good reason

If we, as a society, trust parents with the decision to abort their children before birth, what possible "good reason" can there be for us to intervene in the decision to let them wonder in the park until dinner after the umbilical cord is cut?

Submission + - Genetically modified rice makes more food, less greenhouse gas->

Applehu Akbar writes: A team of researchers at the Swedish University of AgriculturalSciences has engineered a barley gene into rice, producing a variety that yields 50% more grain while producing 90% less of the powerful greenhouse gas methane. The new rice pulls off this trick by putting more of its energy into top growth. In countries which depend on rice as a staple, this would add up to a really large amount of increased rice and foregone methane.
Link to Original Source

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen