Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Paranoia (Score 1) 119

The most government drones that will be authorized for use in US airspace will be surveillance drones. How can surveillance drones lead to death and destruction?

They don't. They lead to more spying, which is what GP said but was omitted in your quote. And sooner or later they'll be armed, let's not kid our selves.

Comment: Re:Plenty of speculative finction to consider (Score 1) 119

I see your point. And much though I admire Verne and his visionary imagination... I was under the impression that he was extrapolating from contemporary science and engineering.

Now, perhaps I'm just hopelessly out of touch, but I'm not aware of any current work, not even any out-of-box blue sky imagineering (eew), toward actual teleportation.

Would love to be wrong though!

Comment: Re:Cartels will be fine.... (Score 2) 239

by erikkemperman (#46787753) Attached to: Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops

AFAIK you can grow hemp for fiber legally in the Netherlands. I would not be surprised if that is how people got the cannabis in the first place.

Possibly so, at first. However, these days the strains used for industrial use (rope, clothes, paper) are almost a different species from the ones for, um, recreational use. In fact, some of the mom and pop growers specifically do so because they find the stuff from the coffeeshops too potent.

Is the law on cultivation actively enforced or not? If the law is only on paper but not enforced it might as well not be there.

Yes, it is actively enforced. Everything over 5 plants constitutes a rather serious offense, and people do get caught.

Comment: Re:Cartels will be fine.... (Score 5, Informative) 239

by erikkemperman (#46786211) Attached to: Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops

That is correct. Like I said, an utterly silly state of affairs. So the output of these coffeeshops is legal (provided they respect the weight limits, don't sell to underage visitors, etc) while their inputs aren't.

The way it is now (but this is being debated constantly) we are basically not enjoying the major potential benefit of decriminalisation, which is taking the wind out of the sails of organized crime.

Comment: Re:Cartels will be fine.... (Score 5, Informative) 239

by erikkemperman (#46785853) Attached to: Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops

Except for that's not how it's panning out in places like Colorado and the Netherlands, where it's largely smaller growers who are making money....

The Netherlands here. Not quite. We have this utterly silly situation where the selling of mj is sort of legal, up to a certain weight and only in designated establishments (the famous coffeeshops). However the growing and distributing is quite illegal.

The mom and pop growers are entirely insignificant compared to organized criminals. The latter produce way more than local demand, so much of that is exported.

Comment: Re:Helping the poor (Score 1) 318

... due to the simple fact that homeless want to live in the manner they do because it is easier or even a relief for them, having said that when you see what they go thru and how they try to live it in fact not easy at all.

How does the second part of that sentence not make you reconsider your assertion in the first?

I think you are right that might possibly be a very small fraction who actually do prefer the "vagabond" lifestyle, despite the obvious and many hardships. But to make a blanket statement that *all* homeless are in that situation as a matter of choice seems wildly inaccurate to me.

As to your analog about criminals, isn't it also quite likely that recidivism is largely due to the many bariers to any chance of building up a normal life post-incarceration, which is to say after formally having done their time?

Comment: Re:blame Washington (Score 2) 115

Your pretenses of open-mindedness really don't matter here (and likely wouldn't hold up if people actually started demanding your bicycle).

I wasn't aware that lack of chauvinism counted toward open-mindedness. At any rate, believe it or not, I was hardly pretending. More likely there's been a misunderstanding, why would anyone demand my bicycle?

There are simply several things inconsistent and self-defeating with your position.

Odd, in this context I can't remember having taken much of a position, other than a general remark that it is occasionally possible to fix a headache short of decapitation.

Unless you mean my attempt at answering to your "why don't you mind your own business" question -- which is a legitimate one, of course, even when put a bit abrasively.

Finally, beyond misunderstanding or actually different opinions, I'm not sure why you would doubt my sincerity in expressing mine. Why all those "pretend" and "claim to" ?

So start using your brain and stop advocating policies and supporting politicians that bring about exactly what you claim to dislike.

Well sorry for being thick, I suppose, but what policies or politicians did you imagine me having supported in these posts?

Comment: Re:blame Washington (Score 1) 115

You probably believe you have very effectively stung my national pride, or something. I'll get back to you when I have one. The only thing I could possibly take offense on, which is our country being "too politically ignorant" to make decisions for itself, but I'm just not sure what even means.

Really: why don't you stop giving advice to Americans and worry about your own country and continent? Between Wilders and the EU, it seems to me you have more than enough on your plate.

No argument there, we have enough on our plate (though the influence of Wilders, thankfully, seems to be finally diminishing somewhat).

I understand that my "advice" (really it's not even that, just anecdotal observations) is unsolicited and some would consider it unwanted, while others still seem to make a point of doing the exact opposite merely because "an outsider" made some suggestion.

The difference is, though, that I as a Dutchman am affected by some US policies, much more so than the other way around, obviously. If Dutch policies were somehow affecting you in the US, I am quite sure you would soon learn more about my country than you apparently know now, and no doubt some well-intentioned "advice" will be headed the other way.

Comment: Re:blame Washington (Score 1) 115

Washington has set the rules such that companies need to spend vast amounts on lobbying; if they don't, they go out of business, either killed by regulators or torn apart by their competitors using rigged rules in Washington. I'm sure Google is still "disdainful" of how this works, but it doesn't have a choice about whether to participate.

That sounds about right.

The way to get companies to spend less money in Washington is to take power away from Washington: fewer laws, fewer regulations, lower federal taxes, less federal spending. But, of course, some of the most vocal critics of lobbying promote just the kinds of policies that lead to the necessity for lobbying.problems.

So you're arguing that the only way to reduce lobbying in Washington is to, well, reduce Washington entirely. I honestly don't know if it's too late, given Citizens United and McCutcheon, but it's probably wise to double check. Wouldn't want to throw away the child with the bathwater, as we say in Dutch. I think the English equivalent might be curing the disease by killing the patient.

Comment: Re:Hero ? (Score 1) 236

There are recalls all the time on products through honest mistakes people make. Should we call out each of these people individually?

But what has happened here is they did NOT initiate a recall, though they knew enough about the problem to redesign the part. I have no idea how likely or unlikely it is that the named engineers were responsible for that, or even for not assigning a new part number, as opposed to their managers.

If the latter turn out to be culpable, the names of the engineers should be seen in headlines once more, to clear their reputations.

Comment: Re:changing part without changing number is common (Score 1) 236

I'd say that a part that doesn't lead to lethal accidents, as opposed to a part that sometimes does, constitutes a "significant change", no matter if the difference small. In this case, it actually seems to have been a fairly large change. They should have not only changed the number of the part, but made sure that cars in the wild with the old one got word, and probably should have been recalled immediately.

This is also why the question asked in TFS is the wrong one:

The next time your mail goes down, should we know the name of the guy whose code flaw may have caused that?"

To be comparable with the case at hand, it should've read something like "the next time you receive a swath of similar bug reports of crashing systems and don't put out a timely fix, or even just an advisory, while at the same time you know what the problem is and do have a fix which you apply to new installations... should we know the name ...?"
Hell yes.

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.