Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Are there that many drone in the air in the US (Score 1) 46

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) 46

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) 46

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) 184

"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) 647

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.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.

Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.

Governments don't give rights. Governments impose limits on them, or protect against that happening. But they don't create them. Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long

Working...