Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Tiny black holes (Score 2, Insightful) 19 19

I'm pretty sure that's not what he's trying to say. But if that's your take on it, why are putting words in the mouth of a god that also sees to it that small, innocent children die in agony of cancer? Are you a paid representative working on a spin campaign, or just a fantasist?

On the other hand, maybe you're a satirist, making fun of the GP, who has put forth a commonly proposed explanation for the non-apocalyptic nature of putative mini-black-holes. His embrace of that explanation isn't the least bit like assigning a personality to a fabricated, omniscient, all-powerful (and therefore unspeakably cruel) imaginary friend/god and then making up reports of what that imaginary being thinks and wants. So regardless of how serious or satirical you're being, bad show.

Comment Re:shooter should have talked to owner first (Score 1) 422 422

Apart from manners you mean?

Exactly. Apart from manners. If one of your neighbors turns out to not rise to the same level of manners that you do, are feeling the right, then, to take out a shotgun and destroy some of their property? No? Because that's what this is about.

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 220 220

Yup, that's it. You say that it happens "countless" times and on a "regular basis." You manage to cite three examples, some of which are decades old. Someone points out that you're blowing smoke on the subject, and now - in order to avoid having to admit that you're just ranting nonsense - off you run pretending you're offended. What are you, a twelve year old girl? That's the only demographic in which such shallow theatrics pass as a way to avoid telling the truth. Enjoy your next attempt to spout BS in hopes you'll get an uninformed, witless audience. That doesn't exist here.

Comment Re:Nope... (Score 2) 422 422

I have read that link, and hundreds of pages of legal opinions, regulations, and related material. Unless, in this case, local municipal, county, or Kentucky state laws explicitly provides for trespass prosecution in the case of using air space that the federal agency with statutory authority in matter doesn't think is the least bit in control of the guy 200' below in his back yard... then there's no there, there. Again: what's the next crime you had in mind? The police on the spot didn't think there was anything approaching trespass involved.

Comment Re: Sure you can. (Score 1) 442 442

Exactly. This is why personally-owned automobiles never really took off. It was just too confusing for people to have to choose between at least a dozen different manufacturers, with each of those having a dozen different models, so everyone just stuck to horses.

Comment Re:Nope... (Score 1) 422 422

How come nobody sues these drone-holes?

Um, that's pretty simple.

You see a drone flying in your back yard, spying at you through your open windows. You call the police, or get your shotgun, either way when you get out there to deal with the problem, it's flown away.

Who do you sue?

I don't know about you, but I do not have god-like abilities to magically know who owns any particular drone that I happen to see flying.

Courts don't allow you to sue people if you can't identify them. You can sue a "John Doe" initially, but you have to have some realistic way of figuring out the identity of that person, usually by issuing a subpoena to someone who does know that person's identity (like the ISP of someone accused of copyright infringement; they can look it up with their logs). "The person who flew a drone in my back yard on Saturday night" is not sufficient to carry a lawsuit forward.

Comment Re:Nope... (Score 1) 422 422

The neighborly thing to do would have been to tell the neighbor not to fly over his property before shooting it out of the sky or anything like that.

Exactly how would he have done that? It's not like he knew the drone owners and recognized their drone. Also, according to the shooter, he did wave it off initially, but they came back a little while later. That seems perfectly "neighborly" to me.

Finally, according to the initial report, when the shooter shot down the drone, four men drove up in a vehicle and jumped out, looking for a fight (with a man with a shotgun--smart move). How exactly are these people "neighbors" if they have to drive to his residence? It wasn't the guy's next-door neighbors who owned the drone.

Comment Re:Bridge to Nowhere! (Score 3, Interesting) 343 343

No, she mentioned it to point out that she was governor of a state that's a lot closer to a semi-hostile foreign power, and more thoughtful about the implications of that than would be the community organizer from Chicago (who had never been in charge of state police, let alone armed national guard installations). She wasn't presidential material, but nor did she claim that the right-next-doorness of Russia was an example of foreign policy experience. Her point was that when you govern a state with a huge energy and fishing and mining economy that's a stone's throw from a looming competitor in those same areas, it becomes part of your daily thought process. She's a clumsy speaker and has some wacky ideological quirks (mostly from having been raised in a religious family culture), but she wasn't wrong to point out, simply in passing, that having Russia and Canada as your next door neighbors while you're governor is different than having Indiana and Missouri as neighbors when you're a community organizer, whatever that actually is.

Comment Re: Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 220 220

Wrong, in a fire-fight civilians don't have to stick around - they have a chance to get away without getting killed. Not so with drones.

So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you're just continuing to make shit up. Well, at least you're consistent.

But it would be good for you to look some people in the eye and tell them that the thousands of their innocent, non-combatant fellow villagers and countrymen who've died during ground fights between various parties are only dead because they never heard your wise words about they should have just left. I'm sure now they're thinking, "Doh! We had no idea that we could have just left, and instead we were killed in the thousands by ISIS, by the Syrian government, by Iranian special forces, by sectarian IEDs, by Taliban fighters who don't care who's in the crossfire ... man, if only we'd asked MrL0G1C, we would have realized that we could just leave!"

Instead they're thinking things like, "Well, it's nice that fight is over, because that caravan of Taliban killers just got hit in an airstrike before they even made it into our town, and none of us had to die."

Yeah, I can see how you'd prefer the fake scenario you're preaching instead of reality. People who live around fighting insurgents ... they should just leave! Great plan. Millions of people who would love to get out from under the thumbs of such insurgents and the people they're fighting with are just too dumb to take your advice, right?

Drones are the weapon of cowards without morals.

Just like rifles, right? You much prefer hand-to-hand combat with clubs and knives? Then it's brave and moral? Or is it possible that the tool has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings of why it's a good idea to stop a row of ISIS or Taliban trucks from rolling into the next village they're going to decapitate?

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 220 220

It's pretty meaningless has nothing much to do with the original post.

Sure it does. The original post spouts a bunch of BS about cops shooting people on "regular basis" and "countless times," and I'm pointing out that your vague, hand-wavy, no-context, no-citations, no-hard-numbers BS is, in fact, BS. You don't like being asked to be specific, so you're trying to pretend that being called out on it is meaningless. But it's not. You said something, and it's wrong, and you're being told it's wrong. Sorry you don't like that, so much that you're willing to try to continually change the subject, but it's what YOU BS'ed about that's being responded to. And of course you haven't offered a single scrap of more salient detail to counter that (which you can't, of course), and THAT IS THE POINT. You're just making stuff up for rhetorical reasons, and got caught. Now you can continue to try to blame the person who called you on it, or you can actually say something that's based in reality.

Comment Re:Might want to reconsider paying the fine... (Score 1) 422 422

You're confusing commercial use with recreational use. The pending rules apply only to commercial use. The guy whose quad was shot down was not flying commercially. But that doesn't change the law with respect to one's right to shoot it down.

And FWIW, just because the FAA's pending rules are treating even cheap little quads as you-gotta-be-licensed aircraft for commercial use does NOT mean that quad operators are liking the idea. Most will say quite the opposite. At least at that scale, where it's ridiculous.

Disobedience: The silver lining to the cloud of servitude. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...