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


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Ignorant fucking asshole (Score 1) 9

Douches like this prick are why we can't have nice things.

I fly all sorts of RC aircraft, Quads, fixed wing plane's, Helis, even a flying lawn mower (model, not actually a lawnmower) and I've been doing it for 25 years and never has there been an issue of people getting upset about it until recently.

You know why? Cheap electronics introducing artificial stability at a price that allows any fucking moron without the slightest clue to buy one and manage to fly it for more than 10 seconds. Before artificial stability (i.e. before there was any hope of an RC quadcopter), pricks like this would have bought one, flown it for 10 seconds, crashed it in his front yard and that would be the end of it because he wouldn't be willing to spend that money again for another 10 seconds of flight time until he learned to fly. He'd never learn to fly because he's not bothering to try, he's just throwing it in the air without understanding how/why/when its going to come down and what effects thats going to have on others.

When I see assholes like this, I tell them to get their fucking quad out of the air immediately or I'm calling the cops, and I've called them twice, the last for some asshole flying over a high school football game. Guy was a software dev at a large tech company, should fucking know better and understand that a 5 pound object falling on your head from even 10 feet above is WAY beyond potentially lethal.

So take this worthless fuck out back, string him up by his testicles and keep him the fuck out of RC * so he doesn't fuck it up for the rest of us.

This shit is why the FAA cares, and I'm 100% with them on it. I don't want additional laws, but this is a real problem in a new arena that previously had barriers to entry that kept idiots out. The modern flight controllers (which I use and love) are like exploit kits for script kiddies. They give ability to do something without the tempering that comes with learning how to do it 'the hard way', or understanding the consequences of what you're doing.

I don't have a good solution to this problem because the problem is caused by adults who haven't grown up yet or are too selfish/ignorant to care and those are problems we've been dealing with since the beginning of time without solving, but it does have to be addressed, which problem means I'm going to get screwed in the process.

I can not stress this statement enough: The guy flying that drone was an ignorant fucking asshole. 50 lashes wouldn't be enough.

Comment Re:hurrrudururrururur (Score 1, Interesting) 60

With deliberately responding to flamebait comments and pretending that they're not, we wonder why women invent complaints or make false harassment claims? Do you even know what went down during gamergate? Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if someone from your cabal wrote that comment and then directed that someone else reply to it. And if you're not in a should be.

Comment Re:Anarchy in Science (Score 1) 191

This is not a useful assertion, as you could say that about everything outside of pure mathematics.

That statement is logically incorrect. For if you were correct, then the above statement being outside of pure mathematics would be incorrect by its own assertion.

Plus the previous poster already granted the basic idea by saying:

This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.

They already state why incorrectness matters - when you try to apply the model beyond the regime where it works.

Most people are well aware that there no absolutes in reality (certainly most scientists), so declaring commonly-used models to be "incorrect" or "disproven" does not advance the discussion - rather, it seems to more often be used in attempts to undermine the scientific case against the declarator's beliefs.

That doesn't mean the effort is invalid. To the contrary, it is more often a valid, scientific reason for rejecting the model in question. For example, a universal problem with climate modeling is the lack of empirical testing of these models. That in turn is a valid reason to reject using those models for extraordinary costly endeavors.

Comment Re: Alert! (Score 1) 191

Scientific results exists even if you personally cannot confirm them. The point is that someone can confirm them, and does.

And the obvious rebuttal is a whole lot of people can confirm their invisible sky gods.

Can you personally confirm that electrons exist?

[...] Can you personally confirm that the Pope exists?

The answer is that yes, he can do that.

Comment Re:Watermelons! (Score 0) 191

If people with private/corporate power didn't act like selfish dicks a lot of the time, maybe we wouldn't need as much government. And maybe we wouldn't be wiping out species and ecosystems at 100 to 1000x background extinction rate, and maybe we wouldn't be warming the climate and acidifying the oceans.

The USSR is a great example of why that "maybe" is a waste of consideration. A powerful government will take the environmental shortcuts too and it'll waive the regulations for itself.

And it's worth noting here that most developed world spending does nothing to help the environment. But it does help to fund cronies and hide government abuse and lack of enforcement of environmental regulation.

Finally, what's wrong with the environmental regulation of the past 40 years? Well, aside from being a job-killing morass that is. If you want to change environmental regulation, do so in a way that helps businesses rather than just encourages the ongoing shift of power to China and elsewhere.

Comment Re:Their requirements are lacking (Score 2) 33

Most accidents occur at less than 40 mph; if "dozens of meters" equates to about 100 ft, that represents about 1.7 seconds at 40 mph. Assuming a coefficient of friction of 0.8, it is theoretically possible for a car traveling at 40 mph to stop in 67 ft; call it roughly 70 ft. If the system can apply the brakes within 500 ms, that's enough to be useful, although clearly it can't stop you from plowing into a car stopped in the fast lane of the highway.

Speaking of highways, the only reason people can manage to drive on highways is that the things you're most likely to hit are traveling in the same direction; if they were slaloming between stationary obstacles at 60 mph most drivers would be dead, fast. What makes highway driving safe is that the closing speed between vehicles is usually modest; usually on less than ten fifteen miles per hour. So actually the system might have more effect on the highway so long as speed discrepancies are in the normal range.

Comment Re:Or for slightly less per month (Score 1) 67

The higher priced the car, the less they lose as a percentage.

Hahahaha nope. A 1997 Audi and a 1997 Honda both cost around three grand now, but guess which one cost more to begin with? And you take a horrible bath on the most expensive cars (the S550s, the A8s, etc) in the first three years, almost without exception.

Comment Re:i8 or nothing baby (Score 1) 67

Yep the one car that is uglier than a PT Cruiser.

You forgot the first-generation Pontiac Aztek, and arguably, the VW Thing. But the Aztek is undeniable. It looks like the bounding box for a PT Cruiser. It looks like the shipping crate for a Citroen.

I saw my first i3 recently, though, and I was stunned at just how ugly it is in person. Serious wow factor, as in, wow that is about the ugliest pile of shit I've ever seen. I think the technology is pretty nifty, but I wouldn't like to be caught dead in the same photograph as an i3.

Comment Re:Their requirements are lacking (Score 1) 33

For a road-going autonomous vehicle, "dozens of meters" is useless at any real speed.

If you can see for 100 feet, you can stop most vehicles from most non-highway speeds... if you can make snap decisions.

So, how long does it take an autonomous vehicle to decide to brake?

Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.