Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:BBC / other state broadcasters? (Score 1) 132 132

Let me guess, that's a vague, hand-waving reference to the states that are disinclined to take on the new medicare mandates? Yeah, maybe they weren't charmed by the bald-faced lies that Obama told about that piece of legislation and his counter-constitutional, politically-driven, capricious execution of it? I know, how could anyone not like it, right? After all, if we want to keep our doctors and our previous insurance, we can, period. And our rates are going to go down an average of $2500 per family, right? Yeah. Lies. Exactly the sort of state-in-the-camera-and-lie stuff that DOES make people blame the government for mishandling their trust, their money, and their well being.

Comment Re: BBC / other state broadcasters? (Score 1) 132 132

Because when you buy a television and are forced to pay a tax that finances, under penalty of winding up in court, someone else's programming choices ... that's different than buying a television and NOT being subject to that tax. How is this not clear?

Comment Re: BBC / other state broadcasters? (Score 1) 132 132

It's freer from government influence than other funding mechanisms

What? It can't even work without the direct involvement in the government running the courts that are necessary for the BBC to collect their unavoidable TV tax.

Here's a way that the government could be even less involved: don't DO that. Let people who want to show programs to a large audience find their own way to fund the production and dissemination of that material. Say, by selling ads or attracting sponsors, etc. Remove the court system and penalties under law for not wanting to fund everything that's broadcast from the equation entirely. Why should someone who doesn't want to fund a given program be forced to, under penalty of being dragged through court? I have zero interest in watching our many all-sports programming options (ESPN, etc). You think the "best system we have" is for the government to be the enforcer in an arrangement where I'm forced to give them money anyway?

Comment Re: BBC / other state broadcasters? (Score 1, Informative) 132 132

The BBC is funded by a tax on the UK citizens, enforced by the criminal code. Your assertion is completely wrong.

Ah, so in Britain the government isn't involved in tax collection and enforcement. They don't do the collecting, they don't penalize people who don't pay, and they don't get involved in picking and choosing who receives those funds, or have any say, whatsoever, over how that money is allocated. That is an interesting system indeed! Who handles all of that, if not the government?

Comment Re:We need better legislation (Score 2) 102 102

In the US, yes. It makes no difference if it's a 50-pound Octo carrying a Red Epic shooting a Mercedes commercial, or a 15-gram kid's toy. In places like all of the US's national parkland, rivers, and coasts administered by the Park Service, they are all 100% banned. Likewise for 30 miles around Washington DC, without any regard to size or range. And no, it's not about "drones," it's about all RC (or autonomous) flying contraptions of any type or size, period. And they're just getting started.

Comment Re:The perception of "drone" is powerful (Score 1) 269 269

Right. Trained and licensed just like the millions of car drivers around you, who area also in their cars, with license plates that can be identified. That explains why we have so many more drone injuries and deaths than we do car-related injuries and deaths. Well, actually, it doesn't. Manufacturers are selling hundreds of thousands of small multirotors every month, and the number of deaths is ... zero. As opposed to thousands killed by licensed, tagged, trained, on-board car drivers. Now that you're re-thinking this, I'm sure you're going to be looking for ways to ban cars from driving past your property ... because any one of those cars could hop the curb and smash right into your house. This MUST be banned.

Comment Re:This is what drones can do now... (Score 1) 269 269

Sure, other than the part where that's pure fantasy on your part, and it's nothing like that at all in real life. And if someone IS behaving that badly in a real and public way, there are already a jillion statutes in place to make them stop, or make them pay for being jerks to other people. And yet, untold thousands of these devices are being sold every month - how many ACTUAL cases of anything even approaching what you're describing actually occur? Especially compared to the typical street harassment you're describing, which is as old as time? Some perspective here, please.

Comment Re:The perception of "drone" is powerful (Score 1) 269 269

I don't care about your excuses. I think you should be banned from flying over a property if the property owner deems he doesn't want you flying over his property

Of course you also think that a person flying a Cessna at a 1000 feet should have to check with every landowner below his flight path, too, right? No?

Why? Be very, very specific.

If all else fails, lower your standards.