Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Not a drone (Score 2) 310

Even under the FAA's proposed new stricter definition, what these guys were flying was NOT a drone. It was a model aircraft.

Ãoe(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.Ã

As a model aircraft, it is outside of FAA flight rules. (The FAA published suggested guidelines, but these do not carry any enforcement weight as they are only recommendations.)

Comment: Re:So? (Score 1) 330

Actually the sig is from a Star Wars:Expanded Universe novel. From Han Solo. I just thought it was fun.

Yep. Think tanks are often in it for the money. Nothing evil about money. I think both sides of the debate have their liars and their fools. (Not saying Bengtsson was either. He certainly has the CV to not be called out as a fool. I find it unsettling that so many on one side of the debate have jumped out to do so.)

Whether or not Bengtsson would have fit in at GWPF is unclear. We won't know. He wasn't really given the opportunity to find out.

Comment: Re:So? (Score 1) 330

Anti-climate?

How can one be anti-climate? Does the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" advocate for elimination of climate?

[sarcasm off]

From thegwpf.org "The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated."

As I understand (from a very short reading), GWPF believes that the climate is changing, but debates whether the cost of measures to mediate that change outweigh the cost to adapt to that change.

It would seem like they would be in need of qualified scientist (say a former director at the Max Planck Institute...?) to help them accurately quote facts.

Comment: Way Way off. (Score 3, Informative) 291

A 10% increase in atmospheric CO2 does not equate to a 10% increase in temperature. Not by a long shot. According to the IPCC, a _DOUBLING_ of CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature of between 1.5 and 3 degrees. (With a lot of debate as to where this number lies. The IPCC itself has declined to issue a "best guess").

The current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is somewhere between 2-3 ppm/year. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth) At this rate, (and even taking into account that there is acceleration in the rate), the 400ppm will double in somewhere around 130 years.

So even at the more extreme case (3 degrees per doubling of CO2), we are looking at 1 degree increase in temp every 43 years.

I'm not really certain that this equates to a "race" to get poultry to adapt. (Especially if it would just mean a slow migration of poultry farming to more northern areas.)

Comment: Earl Camenbert (Score 1) 136

by crmanriq (#46327139) Attached to: Harold Ramis Dies At 69

I still remember sitting in my living room when I was a kid watching Second City TV and hearing Floyd Robertson (Joe Flaherty) and Earl Camenbert (Harold Ramis) muddle their way through the "local" news. That was my first exposure to Harold Ramis, and every time I have seen him since has brought back that memory.

I'm sad that he won't be making new ones for me.

Comment: Re:Is this really a problem? (Score 2) 445

by crmanriq (#46221193) Attached to: FBI: $10,000 Reward For Info On Anyone Who Points a Laser At an Aircraft

But to say that an el-cheapo red light wielded with harmless intent should be subject to the same penalties...

Is anyone saying that?

Well, yes. As it is now, the El-Cheapo(tm) 5 mW red laser pointer is subject to the same $10K penalty as the 2-Watt green laser.

So to use your analogy - it is as though we are treating NERF(tm) guns the same as hunting rifles.

Comment: Re:Is this really a problem? (Score 2) 445

by crmanriq (#46220665) Attached to: FBI: $10,000 Reward For Info On Anyone Who Points a Laser At an Aircraft

Which is why I specifically differentiated between the two in my post. There's a difference between driving at a reasonable speed and speeding. There's a difference between talking and a jet engine. There a difference between a harmless act and a harmful act.

Is it necessary to prosecute everyone who aims a laser pointer at a plane, or only those who aim multiwatt devices at cockpit windows?

I've had moron teenagers point a red laser at me at night while driving. It was annoying, but it did not make me crash my car. And this was from approximately 100 ft, not 500 or 5000.

 

Comment: Is this really a problem? (Score 2, Interesting) 445

by crmanriq (#46220041) Attached to: FBI: $10,000 Reward For Info On Anyone Who Points a Laser At an Aircraft

Okay, so an el-cheapo red laser pointer at a range of 500 ft (Aircraft on approach).

Daylight - Can the pilot even see it?

Night time. At 500 feet, is it even as bright as his instrument lights? Between dust and moisture vapor is the beam even still anywhere close to focused?

Yeah, I know people can go and by multi-watt green lasers that can pop balloons from 100 yards. But to say that an el-cheapo red light wielded with harmless intent should be subject to the same penalties as a multi-watt laser wielded with intent to disrupt/harm seems to be going the whole zero-tolerance BS route.

I'm curious. Has anyone ever actually caused harm in US airspace with a laser pointer yet? Or are we creating a crime around something that has never caused harm?

Comment: Re:Jet Fuel? (Score 5, Informative) 230

by crmanriq (#46068557) Attached to: New England Burns Jet Fuel To Keep Lights On

From Wikipedia (ya, I know...) on "Jet Fuel"

"Jet fuel is a clear to straw-colored fuel, based on either an unleaded kerosene (Jet A-1), or a naphtha-kerosene blend (Jet B). It is similar to diesel fuel, and can be used in either compression ignition engines or turbine engines. .... if it fails the purity and other quality tests for use on jet aircraft, it is sold to other ground-based users with less demanding requirements, like railroad engines."

So still not much of an event, other than to say "ooh, wow. Jet Fuel."

Comment: Violate the TOS (Score 4, Informative) 171

by crmanriq (#45807873) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Getting an Uncooperative Website To Delete One's Account?

Well. As a last resort.
1) Change all of your user data that you can. Edit your profile so that all of the data is either blank, or not yours at all.
2) Edit your age down to below 13 years old. This may kick in automatic account privacy settings.
3) If none of this works, then look at the TOS and find things that they don't want you to do. (ie, Wikipedia freaks out if you mention suing them on any forum. A TOS might make it a violation to badmouth the parent company, or to solicit other users. You might think of creating a couple of throwaway accounts, and getting into a royal flamewar with your invisible clones. Call them really bad names. Threaten to sue them.)
4) Do not let number three go into the realm of anything illegal. Don't post porn in public fora. You simply want to make yourself unwelcome at this location.

Nothing succeeds like success. -- Alexandre Dumas

Working...