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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 69

So, I'm right, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Resorting to ad hominem, just like so many people who are confronting internal hypocrisy do in order to avoid reconciling their contradictory premises.

So, you're calling me all sorts of things for pointing out that the FAA is outside of its legal bounds on this, that the entire effort is pointless, etc. So, you are implying that you feel differently about that, in some way. Which way? Be specific. And reconcile your preference for some situation in keeping with what the FAA has done (which, since you're complaining about my opposition to it, must be the case), with your assertion that what the administration has done is "impossible" to actually enforce. If you think it's impossible to enforce but still think federally registering 9-ounce toy operators is a good idea, reconcile that, in detail. If you think it shouldn't have been put into place, then explain why you're bitching at me for saying the same thing. Try to avoid the lazy ad hominem, though, since it just makes you look juvenile.

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 69

There are all sorts of small foam park fliers and silly little quad toys that weigh far too little to be any security threat whatsoever, but which have owners who have now been swept up into this new public-facing database scheme. People flying inconsequential balsa-wood RC models they built 30 years ago will be breaking the law a week from now. The FAA's Huerta says that enforcement will include visits to flying clubs and encouragement for neighbors to contact law enforcement (they've provided local LEOs with cheat sheets explaining how to report unregistered hobbyists and how to get that info to the DoT for enforcement). Huerta said, in one of the related press conferences that they intend to go after "anything that flies."

If you are presuming that - despite what they are coming right out and saying repeatedly - they don't intend to enforce the 250g end of the spectrum of toys, why do you suppose they sat around for weeks in meetings with regulators, manufacturers, pilots associations, etc., and issued a rule that includes those toys, along with language saying how they did so because of the critical, life-threatening safety issues that they represent? If you think that's all nonsense that shouldn't be enforced, then why are you defending the administration for putting a kid with a 9-ounce RC toy in federal legal jeopardy?

100% of homicides SHOULD be dealt with. 100% of kids flying 9-ounce toys should NOT be dealt with. You understand this isn't about a rules governing what happens when someone causes an injury or property damage ... this is about making the act of using that 9-ounce toy illegal (subject to both civil and federal criminal penalities) the moment you hover the toy one inch off of your back yard grass. You think the FAA won't bother themselves with grandpa's unregistered use of a 1-pound model he's been flying in circles at an AMA field for years ... so why aren't you calling for the new executive order that criminalizes his hobby to be undone? Are you really a fan of wasting millions of dollars to set up an entire new registration and enforcement regime to address things that you think don't need to be enforced? Why?

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 69

Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy.

No, my argument is that telling a 13 year old girl that she has to have her name in a public-facing federal database in order to fly a 9-ounce pink plastic RC copter from a mall kiosk, or face a $20,000 fine will do exactly NOTHING to prevent a bad guy from doing all of the horrible murderous things that we're seeing done with RC toys. Oh, right - there are literally millions of them in the hands of people, with untold millions of flight hours on them, and we're not actually seeing any of that. But you're pretty sure that someone looking to do harm will step up and register their name with the feds, and then write their identifying information on the RC airplane they're going to use to deliberately hurt people? Are you really thinking this through?

Comment Re: Are there that many drone in the air in the US (Score 2) 69

The FAA is banned from regulating model aircraft if I recall.

Which is why the Obama administration just instituted their new RC aircraft owner registration system (you have to sign up by the 19th of this month, or face up to $20,000 in fines ... and that includes operating any toy RC machine as small as just under 9 ounces/250g) through the Department Of Transportation instead of through the FAA. It's a sleazy maneuver that directly goes against the spirit of the law congress passed to prevent exactly such things from happening.

Hopefully you're not surprised that an administration that has been found repeatedly by federal courts to have overstepped separation of powers by issuing unconstitutional executive orders would be trying to once again work around the law?

Doesn't matter. Most people who fly RC planes for fun can't afford to fight the administration in court or risk that $20,000 fine. There are a couple of groups trying to take the matter to court, but that will drag out years. In the meantime, we have to play along with the illegal action by the administration.

Comment Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US? (Score 2) 69

Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?

The rule (and its change) wasn't about "drones" - it was about any and all RC-controlled flying things. Balsa-wood models that grandpa has been flying around in circles in his back field for 40 years, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people have been flying RC aircraft for many decades. And no, it's never been an issue and still isn't. The FAA's random rule-generating system has nothing to do with reality.

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 2) 69

Other than that, they have no reason to exist and should be shot down, no mater where they are.

So you're thinking that these machines, which people have been flying for decades - an activity enjoyed by millions of people over multiple generations, should all be shot down? Really?

If I find your car annoying or your mobile phone to be an intrusive image-capturing device, can I shoot at them? No? Why not?

Comment Re:Gridlock (Score 1) 185

"Only democrats spend tons of money" says area man with no grip on reality.

No, his point was that on things like this, Democrats only spend money (as opposed to actually getting things done right). The money gets spent, but the supposed purpose for which money is being taxed or borrowed and then spread around on the chartering and running of panels, focus groups, advisory boards, and programs as being mentioned in the OP ... that amounts to nothing constructive. But it does add new bureaucrats and unfireable new federal employees to the picture, and grows the size and pointless intrusiveness of the government, so it's definitely just what Democrats seek to do.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 0, Flamebait) 662

How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?

Because YOU are the one choosing to go consume the content that someone else risks time and money to create. Nobody is forcing you to go to Wired for your amusement. But you're looking to use a technical method to separate the content you want to see from the content that the person who's creating and hosting that content wants to include in what you're not paying them for in order to do pesky things like not go bankrupt as they meet payroll and keep producing the thing to which you feel entitled at no cost.

What are you, 12? Yeah, I thought so.

Comment Re:Going to become more common. (Score 1) 130

Just because they're prey to our special operators doesn't make them any less predators from the point of view of the thousands and thousands of people they are slaughtering in the name of rewinding to the dark ages. They're definitely predators, as their world view requires that sort of predation in order to exist.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.

Working...