Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why are you so angry? (Score 1) 74

by geekoid (#47491651) Attached to: Drone Search and Rescue Operation Wins Fight Against FAA

No, his post is exactly spot on.

", but making the entire RC hobby illegal "
It, in no way, will do that.

I've been an enthusiast since '79, off and on, not hard core.
Also, I'm a thinker, can understand context and regulation, and look historically at how thing have happened.

If you think the proposed regulation will outlaw RC, with then you are being an idiot. Literally., you are being idiotic. Stop it.

Comment: Re:both? (Score 0) 74

by geekoid (#47491639) Attached to: Drone Search and Rescue Operation Wins Fight Against FAA

You are incorrect. The current regulation remove the profit motive from everyone.

". If they did, they would be based on drone weight, method of control, altitude, etc."
They are working on those. Maybe you should pay attention instead of just spew nonsense?

"rather than "commercial" vs "non-commercial""
becasue it's the easiest way to do so until regulation are finished.
They are making regulation and understanding the details.

"The polices appear to be designed solely to ensure that nobody creates any jobs for Americans,"
What the fuck? Are you an idiot or some Fox alarmist?
You're post is idiotic, and contrary to all evidence and history of the FAA.

Comment: Re:comments are now underway on just this issue (Score -1, Troll) 74

by geekoid (#47491601) Attached to: Drone Search and Rescue Operation Wins Fight Against FAA

"The skies should belong to the people, not the government"
Are you fucking kidding me? Yeah, lets just shoot all kind of shit into the air. Lets ignore the regulation are there for a reason. It's only a spinning blade cappale of killing people, lets not regulation. Hell, lets buzz airliners as the land, cause it's are skies not the governments.

Any of you shit land on my yard, I hope you don't plan on getting it back. If any of your shit endangers anyone I know, I hope you ready to loose every thing

Comment: Re:Negative mass- not antimatter, but odd (Score 1) 213

by silentcoder (#47480963) Attached to: Cosmologists Show Negative Mass Could Exist In Our Universe

>On the other hand, if the +apple runs into a brick wall at several km/sec, itâ(TM)s going to make a fair-sized hole. Where did the energy to break the bricks come from? You donâ(TM)t expect the wall to reform as the â"apple deals it a second blow, do you?

Nope, nothing of the kind, at most I would expect the bricks it knocks lose to land a tiny bit further away.
The +apple hits, transferring kinetic energy to the wall (it had to have a lot if it was moving at several km/h as in your hypotheses) - which knocks the bricks out and makes the hole.

Now what happens when the -apple hits depends on what the nature of the particle's are, more specifically whether they obey the Pauli exclusion principle. If not, it passes straight through the wall without breaking it at all (though the repelling between the particles as it passes through might cause some micro-cracks). This is the prevailing theory.
If it does obey the exclusion principle - then you have energy transfer just like with the +apple, and the +bricks move WITH the energy regardless of the source, so the bricks fall in the same direction - however because as they are knocked out they are ALSO repelled by the -apple's negative mass, they fall a few microns further than when the +apple hit.

At least, that's my understanding. I am not a physicist, just a fan of physics.

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.