Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Many worlds (Score 1) 175

by istartedi (#47446703) Attached to: How Deep Does the Multiverse Go?

You've still missed the point.

No I haven't. If we were discussing the set of prime numbers and I said "how about six" you could say, "No, because it's divisible by 2 and 3". The set of prime numbers is an infinite set with well known restrictions.

We're discussing alternative universes. If I say, "How about the one where I'm GWB?" You have nothing to say because this discussion started with the premise, and ONLY the premise that alternative universes are an infinite set. There were no other criteria specified. I submit that in the absence of such criteria not only may we speculate on all possibilities, we must.

Comment: Re:Many worlds (Score 1) 175

by istartedi (#47446497) Attached to: How Deep Does the Multiverse Go?

OK, you've done a good job now of explaining what you mean; but my possibility is just as valid as yours. Maybe the multiverse has to include numbers beyond 1.0, and maybe it doesn't.

Maybe it's an infinite set full of bizarre possibilities, and maybe it's an infinite set full of subtle variations on our known theme. We just. Don't. Know.

Comment: Re:Many worlds (Score 1) 175

by istartedi (#47444091) Attached to: How Deep Does the Multiverse Go?

Except in the one where you posted saying it wasn't, but were mistaken because it actually was. That might not be too far from the one where I'm GWB, a frequent Slashdot poster. It's interesting to ponder the concept of what "infinity" really means when you consider all the possibilities on some mundane thing like that.

Comment: That's Fine (Score 5, Insightful) 104

If they want to go after a SEO company for not optimizing their search results, I don't see anything wrong with that. But has Seattle City Light considered just NOT SUCKING as a strategy to improve their reputation? Seems to me that analyzing the root cause of the problem ("Man, we REALLY suck!") and fixing it ("Hey, has anyone thought about maybe trying NOT sucking?") would be a good bit less expensive. Seems like only an idiot would say "Hey here's an idea! Let's pay 20 grand to some company and then we can keep sucking!" Of course, as a power company you kind of have a captive audience, so it seems like you could really suck all you want to as long as you don't capture the attention of various regulatory bodies in the process.

*shrug* I don't live in Seattle, so I don't know anything about it, but the internets say they suck pretty hard. I'm guessing their SEO company kind of sucks, too. Birds of a feather, eh?

Comment: Re: Not France vs US (Score 2) 274

If you don't want French money you're not obliged to take it.

If you do want French money then you obey French law.

If you think that Amazon are stupid enough to ignore the 9th largest economy in the world just because of some idiotic pseudo-religous worry about "free markets" I've got a bookshop to sell you.

Comment: Re:Not a rule (Score 1) 191

by Above (#47439233) Attached to: FAA Pressures Coldwell, Other Realtors To Stop Using Drone Footage

Another reply has already pointed out the "navigable airspace" limitation. The specific FAA rule is FAR Part 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes. Basically 500 feet everywhere, and 1,000 feet over "populated areas".

Back in 1981 the FAA addressed RC operators with Advisory Circular 91-57. It requires RC operators stay under 400', remain in line of sight, and coordinate with an airport if they are within 3 miles of the airport (which is where planes may be under those minimums due to take offs and landings.

This set of rules basically insures vertical separation of RC operators and "real" planes. It's worked for over 30 years, quite nicely. In fact the FAA is quite happy with this for "drone" (really RC quadcopter) operators. Buy one, fly it over your house within the rules, take a video and post it on YouTube for your "hobby" and the FAA is perfectly ok with it, and won't give you a hard time.

Rather, the FAA is drawing a different line here. They have a long history of distinguishing between commercial and private operations, and have different regulations for both. They have generally held in the past that "all commercial operators must be licensed", which in the context of real planes makes perfect sense. But with these new quadcopters this rule has gone screwy. If you take the same video from the last paragraph and provide it to your realtor to help sell your house, suddenly you are a "commercial" operator and can't operate without an FAA License, and oh by the way they have no procedure to license RC operators right now so you can't get one, but you can ask for a one off waver, it may be approved in a few months.

And that's what is stupid here. If it's a RC device, operated by a human, under 400' and in line of site, they should stay out of it. Commercial or hobby shouldn't matter.

I like work; it fascinates me; I can sit and look at it for hours.