Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Industrial accidents happen (Score 1) 319 319

The regular safety measures weren't in place because they were installing the systems, so most likely they had people working on different things and someone started testing their piece without realizing it was already connected.

Right. Standard procedure (not just with robots but with many industrial systems) usually involves the person working on the system installing a lockout tag on the controls, and anyone removing the lockout tag without checking with the person who put it on is in deep shit trouble.

Comment: Re:Actual *real pilots* discussion on another foru (Score 1) 268 268

While there are wealthy pilots, most of us are of modest means. My (small) car is paid off so I spend the equivalent of its payment on my hobby during the on season, and that amount will go down once I finish my license. I won't need to buy my own glider outright, but if I do decide to do so, there are perfectly adequate specimens for sale in the $10k-$20k range.

Sure, and how much does it cost to store the thing, to have it launched, and do whatever else has to be done with a glider? I know powered aircraft are often white elephants in that respect.

As for time, I fly one day per week - sometimes two, sometimes zero. On the days I do fly, I still have time to mow the lawn, cook dinner, work on household projects, and even watch a movie with family.

I don't have a day a week to train so I could legally (under the sort of regime being proposed) fly my model aircraft. And they'd cost that same $10k-$20k once all the proposed equipment to do things like respect NOTAMs and restricted areas is put in. Because no one would make such equipment for hobbyists, they'd make it for the commercial market.

Comment: Re:Actual *real pilots* discussion on another foru (Score 1) 268 268

Student pilot here, you're wrong. I fly for a hobby and will never earn a living doing it so I have no fear of lost income, but drones are scary because they could kill me.

A lot of things could kill you. Most likely your own piloting, statistically.

Nobody wants draconian restrictions like mandatory licensing

On the contrary, a lot of people want draconian restrictions like mandatory licensing and restrictions on sale of such vehicles. Which will basically kill their use by hobbyists (except relatively wealthy ones with a ton of time, like yourself). Spend a shitload of time getting a license, then pay the ridiculously inflated prices for a US-legal version of the equipment... ain't nobody going to do that.

Comment: Re:Actual *real pilots* discussion on another foru (Score 1, Informative) 268 268

And Uber scares the crap out of taxi medallion holders. Same reason; might make their licenses less valuable. They both talk about safety and propose onerous restrictions which would just happen to make the service untenable unless you're a large operator.

Comment: What we need is disclosure (Score 4, Insightful) 268 268

How much is Diane Feinstein's office paying Slashdot to publish stories like this? I fly R/C helicopters and I sure as fuck don't want them banned or restricted to the point where they have to be equipped with the sort of expensive equipment it would take for them to respect NOTAMs.

Not to mention that it won't work. There's already open-source versions of the control systems. What component are you going to restrict?

Comment: Re:Fairly clear (Score 1) 144 144

It's fairly clear that either the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect or that the feds can't be trusted with permanent markers or grown-up scissors, much less the ability to obtain a gag order.

I think it's both. Certainly delivering the subpoena before obtaining the gag order was ridiculously amateurish. I mean, did they really expect _Reason_ to voluntarily comply? Or did they try to say "voluntarily" in the tone of voice used by Mafia dons and IRS agents, but their voice cracked?

Comment: Re:What about low-income boys? (Score 1) 473 473

You deny that the social consequences that specifically affect girls interested in technology are far more serious that those that affect boys.

That's correct.

The social consequences for boys, obviously, are minimal to non-existent!

See, this is where you lose your audience. Slashdot has a whole lot of men on it who know through personal experience that this is absolute bullshit.

Comment: Re:Bandwagon (Score 2) 816 816

The outrage over the flag wasn't that the flag itself exists. It was that a State of the United States of America had it flying over or in front of their capitol building, and worse still than that, was doing it as a "Fuck you" to the rest of the country for "imposing" civil rights on it.

THAT outrage should have been over 15 years ago, when the flag was moved from over the capitol building (where it was certainly inappropriate as a symbol of a defeated rebellion) to a war memorial honoring the dead of that state who fought on the side of the rebellion.

Comment: Re:Comments make me despair.... (Score 1) 473 473

First, there is massive confirmation bias going on. The fact that the system selects people that look like you (and, frankly me) to be successful is not evidence that the system is fair for everyone.

I'm not Asian, so strike that point.

Second, the fact that you yourself (or someone you know) achieved success against overwhelming odds (whether it be poverty, lack of opportunity, gender, race, whatever) does not mean that there are no barriers to entry into STEM.

Show them. Poverty I'll grant; poverty makes everything harder. Gender and race are being assumed either without evidence, or with very shaky evidence (such as raw outcome numbers).

Third, how can everyone on a site that claims to be nerds completely ignore the scientific evidence of how internalized gender stereotypes affect the decision of women to go into STEM?

Because the "science" is shaky as hell. The gender disparity in CS and engineering is both enormous and resilient to attempts to dispel it, yet we're supposed to believe these "internalized gender stereotypes" are the main cause despite those same stereotypes somehow not affecting chemistry or advertising and only barely affecting mathematics?

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition. - Isaac Asimov

Working...