Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Obligated... (Score 1) 363

I think I'm kinda obligated to pick Star Trek over Star Wars (my sig explains why, since I am the producer for that online web series).

...nah, in all seriousness, I like them both, for both different and overlapping reasons. I never understood the "one or the other" rationale of some fans.

Comment Re: Apparently truly no limit (Score 1) 204

No, they do NOT, and never have, included upstream in your "quota". EVER. We have been with them and their predecessor for over a decade. Only two years of that have been on their unlimited plan.

And, there's no quota on their unlimited plan. But, as I clearly said, tethering (which includes tethering another phone via "hotspot") is NEVER unlimited, regardless of the phone's data plan.

Submission + - Google demands Symantec grovel over certificate fiasco or risk the consequences (

Mark Wilson writes: Google has fired warning shots at Symantec, threatening that Chrome would start to flag the company's security certificates as unsafe. The threat comes in a blog post penned by Google software engineer Ryan Sleevi who is still seething after Symantec employees issued a number of unauthorized security certificates.

Some of the certificates were owned by Google — including — and a Symantec-led audit suggested that the problem affected just 23 test certificates. But further probes revealed that there were in fact more than 2,500 certificates involved. Google is understandably fuming and is now holding Symantec to ransom.

Comment Apparently truly no limit (Score 4, Interesting) 204

T-Mobile, unlimited plan, and never been capped. The only things I don't like about their unlimited plan is that roaming data has a lower cap and tethering has a lower cap, but direct data on the phone has no cap and no slowdowns.

The thing I like about T-Mobile specifically, is that I've had them change my plan for the period of a few days (when in the boonies roaming on AT&T) to increase my roaming allotment (while decreasing the on network unlimited data to 5GB) and they set the system to automatically switch me back on the requested date. No hassles, no surcharges, no loss of contract standing.

Comment Re:Yeah, that's sound about right (Score 1) 228

You know how much damage my 2 lb "drone" will do if it hits your thousand pound helicopter?

Yes, I do. And, even in the 4,000 pound helicopter I fly, a drone strike will absolutely take it out of the sky. The rotor wash will not move the drone out of the way. This is the second time I've heard this...

On this point, with a small to medium sized heli, BostonPilot is likely right. I know this, because I'm a responsible and experienced UAS operator, and actually did my best to figure out worst case scenarios to see what I absolutely must try to prevent happening.

My Inspire 1 can hit 60mph. The rotor wash wind velocity (in mph) for the Hughes 500 can be up to 46mph. While a Phantom 2 may be pushed out of the way by a copter that size at full wash potential (with no momentum into that direction), that does not account for a myriad of other scenarios where the P2/P3 (or as noted above, the Inspire 1) can push right into the copter or be sucked in.

Comment Re:That's not the answer! (Score 1) 228

Even if the rule was "no aircraft under 300m over private property", the cost of cameras that can capture clear images ...

People are primarily concerned about noise and physical risk. I have no problem with drones that are 1000 ft up. The thing people need to be concerned about is that Amazon puts a delivery route 100 ft above their patio, and that is a real concern: if the FAA rules that use of airspace valid, you have no recourse.

(Nevertheless, taking "clear images" from 300m away from a shaky drone is pretty tricky; image stabilization is not that good.)

And yet the FAA does. 400 feet or below is the requirement.

Comment Re:That's not the answer! (Score 1) 228

So if I'm flying a drone myself up to, say, 400 feet...

I always thought you owned up to the floor for airplanes - sounds like I'm wrong.

The CEILING that the FAA has established for UAS ("drones") is 400 feet, so, as they are now deemed "aircraft", I would suspect that the floor is actually a lot lower for their class of aircraft. It's "(ground) up to 400 feet."

There is no federal law, and only the SCOTUS "determination. There are various state laws, most of which allow overflights.

Comment Re:When guns are outlawed... (Score 1) 62

"...geofencing software that could prohibit a done from flying higher than 500 feet, and keep it two miles away from any airport or sensitive area."

...for those law-abiding drone operators who choose to use it.

Which would be many of us who do (or want to do) such things commercially, and like the idea of getting paid without risk of our assets being seized and without the potential for criminal charges. ;-)

Comment Re:Boo hoo... (Score 1) 818

...agreed, which still brings us back to my question, which, in short version, is "what's so fucked up with some people that they think such reprehensible things are worthy of celebration?" ;-)

I don't want to stop them - I want them to label themselves by flying such symbols. But I also want to understand what demented rationale they use to sleep at night.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818

And had you lived at the time, assuming you are white, you would have been just as racist as everybody else was back then. You might have even been a slave owner. Makes you wonder what our great grandchildren will condemn us for.

Perhaps - but this is not that time. Nor is this issue about "that time" - it is about now. Here and now.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818

No, not necessarily. Rallying symbols are a central component to spreading any such message. They are the very symbols of such messages spreading and the mindsets behind it. As a matter of fact, without the revisionist history and without honoring symbols that stand for racism and slavery (as if they were good things), such attitudes would have died down a lot quicker. It's a vicious circle of racism propping up such sick symbols, and such symbols being used to prop up and spread racism.

So, no, those people may not be dead and the f...tard who shot them may not have grown up to be a f...tard.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818

And had you lived at the time, assuming you are white, you would have been just as racist as everybody else was back then. You might have even been a slave owner. Makes you wonder what our great grandchildren will condemn us for.

Quite likely. But it's NOT "at (that) time" - it's 2015. And that is my point. Should we celebrate one of the darkest parts of our history as if it was something good? This isn't the 1800's. Google isn't going back in time to not promote racist flags from 1787-1865. They are doing it now. Going forward.

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.