Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

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) 471 471

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) 815 815

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) 471 471

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?

Comment: Re:Why did you view the comments? (Score 1) 471 471

No, no, we haven't. Even if we had, what possible point is there in shouting down all discussion of gender in tech, of demanding Slashdot ban discussions of it?

Nobody's shouting anything down here. Some people are tired of the subject (perhaps largely because there's never any adult discussion, only agenda-pushing and resistance to it), hence not wanting these articles any more. Personally I'm not in that group.

And something tells me that the very fact you'd use the words "toxic masculinity" as something that apparently I (who has never used that term) are using the shutdown debate means you've heard some third hand version of what it means, but have actually no idea what it means.

I know the academic concept. And I know the surface definition. And I know there's a lot of equivocation between the two, what Scott Alexander calls the "motte-and-bailey" technique. Basically the term will be used derisively to attack men, and then when called on it, the feminist will retreat to the academic concept (even though it didn't make sense in context). The same goes for many of those other terms.

To tell the truth, a lot of the jargon used by academic feminists, from TM to privilege and even to "sexism" (which is used in a slightly different way to how most of us use it) is confusing, awkward, and frequently likely to be misinterpreted.

And there's a reason for that. The academic meanings are a cover. At least for internet feminists. The terms are used to mean exactly what they appear to mean, and when people cry foul, there's a retreat to the "academic" meanings to try to make it look like there's merely misunderstanding.

Do you realize what /r/KIA is doing to your brain? It's fucking you up man. It's not just making you look like a misogynist dick who gets literally everything wrong about the "other side", but it's actually moving you closer to being one.

I said "if people insist on arguing against your point of view you call them horrible misogynists and claim they personally are part of the problem", and you couldn't resist proving my point, could you?

No, Slashdot's approach is preventing any discussion from occurring at all. Almost every post that's modded up here is Off Topic. There is virtually no discussion of the issues raised by the program described. Viewing at -1? Not an option, because that's flooded with more crap.

Objecting to the program's sexism is off-topic? I don't think so. And since I browse at -1, I know that's an option. Nothing about Slashdot's system prevents discussion.

A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. -- Klipstein