Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The FAA Tried to Study This (Score 1) 36

by Chibi Merrow (#49582689) Attached to: World-First Remote Air Traffic Control System Lands In Sweden

I don't know why the controllers union would be against it.

Because they're dumb and shortsighted. It was obvious to us that it would mean more controllers being hired (and, even better, controllers that could live where it was cheap and the weather was nice, due to remote capabilities). However, the study included a concept for a fully automated control system for airports that don't see enough traffic to even warrant remote tower control, which would interact with aircraft over the radio (kind of like how unattended runway lights are triggered by keying your mic on the right frequency). In addition, only the big airports are staffed by FAA controllers. The small towers are run by (non-unionized) contractors.

As soon as any discussion of some sort of control system that didn't involve warm bodies, or possibly increasing the number of non-union controllers came up, they torpedoed it.

Comment: Re:Technology allows (Score 4, Insightful) 631

by Chibi Merrow (#49582651) Attached to: Disney Replaces Longtime IT Staff With H-1B Workers

Actually you seem to be missing the obvious: Improving the standard of living of everyone will solve the population growth problem for us. The only countries where the population is still growing like crazy are where the vast majority of citizens are poor and uneducated. Once people get a little bit of education and the ability to enjoy leisure time, they funnily enough stop having kids.

Comment: Re:Translation ... (Score 2) 392

It's suprisingly more common than you would think. Really depends on the state. They'd be strung up in the northeast for sure, but 'Castle Doctrine' states are usually a little bit more reasonable about giving leeway to people in their home when armed men kick in the doors.

Comment: Re: 5th Edition kind of sucks (Score 1) 59

by Chibi Merrow (#48702949) Attached to: The Making of a 1980s Dungeons & Dragons Module

Crafting has always been unimportant to the games of most people, who would rather splatter some goblin brains than make some arrowheads or trade in exotic spices.

Considering the intricately detailed magic item creation rules in the 3rd edition derived games, I have to disagree with you. There's obviously a market for it, as Pathfinder spent a lot of effort on refining the existing mechanics.

And I said metallic dragons. Chromatic dragons were in the 4e Monster Manual. And that was exactly the problem: The book only had things for you to fight, and only the details you needed to fight them.

Comment: Re:5th Edition kind of sucks (Score 3) 59

by Chibi Merrow (#48695969) Attached to: The Making of a 1980s Dungeons & Dragons Module

I'm pretty sure there's precedent for staggered releases of the core rulebooks. 3.5 and 3rd edition were like that, from what I remember, which actually allowed some third-party publishers to swoop in and fill the gap a bit for a few months.

Also I find it amusing that the things you list as "positive" changes to 4th edition are the exact things people like myself didn't like about it. Considering Pathfinder is far and away the best selling tabletop RPG today, it seems people who liked the 4e "improvements" are in the minority.

I'd also add that when I bought the 4th edition books, I was shocked to see they lacked rules for crafting (or anything not related to combat, really), stats for metallic dragons, or really any information about monsters other than their most basic combat statistics. So, again, precedent.

After seeing 5th edition played, and talking to the designers, I'm much more hopeful for it. At the very least, my group is going to try the starter once we're done our current Pathfinder campaign.

Comment: Re:What does Net Neutrality even mean??? (Score 2) 127

by Chibi Merrow (#48557159) Attached to: Civil Rights Groups Divided On Net Neutrality

The real aim is to move the internet under Title II so that it can be heavily regulated. It would also be subjected to the 16.1% universal service fund tax (as spelled out in the telecom act of 1996).

Neither of those assertions are remotely true. There were already periods where Internet access was subject to Common Carrier regulations, and parts of Verizon's FiOS network are still under it to this day because it gave a tax and subsidy benefit to Verizon. If anything, internet access is already HEAVILY regulated, and Title II would simplify things immensely.

The bit about the USF tax is just propaganda from the NCTA.

System restarting, wait...