Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:poorly researched article, if at all (Score 1) 528

And it took only actually watching the video to note that it reads -45.9ft when it hits the ground, so if that is to be taken seriously (assuming it isn't damaged), the take-off point was about 45ft higher than the house, and true altitude above ground was over 300ft at the point it was shot.

Comment Re:Might want to reconsider paying the fine... (Score 1) 528

It is a toy and not an aircraft.

The categories are not mutually exclusive; whether something is or is not a toy has no relevance to the question of whether it is or is not an aircraft. You think the law doesn't apply, the FAA says it does, the courts will have to decide.

Comment Re:80 versus 200 with no points of reference (Score 2) 528

200 feet is still pretty close.

Yes, but if I shoot someone's car who parked is on the street 200 ft outside my property and assert it was my right because he was parked "too close" to my property, the law is not going to consider "pretty close" to be close enough.

Airspace in general is the public domain. At what point it above your property it becomes yours is a legal grey area.

Comment Re:Why does his telemetry show ground being -46ft? (Score 1) 528

So when it hits the ground, telemetry shows -45.9ft which means he was actually over the neighbor's house at 154ft and not the 200ft he claims.

You fail basic math; the difference between 200 and -45.9 is 245.9.

Also, it was well over 200ft at the start. I didn't go frame by frame, but I did manage to pause at very close to the right point and it appears to read 262ft when shot. That would suggest a fall of over 300ft if the -45ft at the end is taken seriously, but I suspect it might just be damaged at that point...

Comment Re:Government knows best... (Score 1) 432

I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.

As a more liberty-minded individual, I don't want anyone restricting me in that manner, be they governments, corporations, "market forces" or whatever, and I understand that regulations are necessary to insure freedom in the market (a truly free market is as free as any anarchy, which is to say, not free at all -- laws and regulations are what protect the freedom of individuals).

Comment Re:What is wrong with SCTP and DCCP? (Score 1) 84

...and good for that. Bad standards arise from committees sitting around spit-balling ideas. Good standards come from committees blessing existing practices already proven in the field. Maybe you smooth out a rough spot or two, but ultimately it ought to look for the most part like what's already out there working well. "Not in scope" was precisely the right response for most of the junk people wanted to throw into HTTP/2.0. Alas, it does give people who didn't their favorite feature thrown in ample opportunity to whine. Kamp's whining has the wonderful virtue of being amusingly self-contradictory. "History has shown overwhelmingly that if you want to change the world for the better, you should deliver good tools for making it better, not policies for making it better." Exactly. Trying to improve the world by setting policy via IETF standards, though, is exactly what the IETF did not do in this case, by not adding those things he thinks should be used as a matter of course, and that's what's making Kamp so mad.

My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. -- Errol Flynn Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure. -- Errol Flynn

Working...