Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:FAA is not allowing Drone use in farming today (Score 1) 94

by xdor (#48272781) Attached to: Drones Could 3D-Map Scores of Hectares of Land In Just a Few Hours

I'm positing the farmer owns his own airspace: and if he wants to contract someone to fly his field with 20-pound drone or a paper airplane I believe he has the right to do so without anyone's permission.

And if the drone flies off course and crashes into the neighbors house/barn/cattle: the contractor is as liable as anyone trespassing and destroying property with a vehicle.

Comment: Re:FAA is not allowing Drone use in farming today (Score 1) 94

by xdor (#48272733) Attached to: Drones Could 3D-Map Scores of Hectares of Land In Just a Few Hours

You may want to up that privacy fence. FAA rule 103 allows ultra-lights (unlicensed light-frame aircraft/no pilots license needed) to fly up to 1200 feet (and lower) right over your property and look right in your window no questions asked, no permission needed.

But contracted semi-autonomous/para-drones can't take pictures of a land owners own property with the land owners permission -- without first having an FAA permit, according to the FAA's spiel. And you can't get one! Permits are only granted to law enforcement and big foreign oil concerns flying the backside of Alaska.

Comment: Re:FAA is not allowing Drone use in farming today (Score 1) 94

by xdor (#48262233) Attached to: Drones Could 3D-Map Scores of Hectares of Land In Just a Few Hours

I believe there is a concept called "enjoyment of the land". The FAA has to pay land-owners for navigation right-of-way if flights (usually near airports) routinely go below 500 feet. Obviously not a legal coat hook, but sure seems like an indication the land owner owns that space.

Heck, now that I think about it I want the FAA to compensate me for limiting the use of my own airspace by threatening to fine me!

Comment: Re:FAA is not allowing Drone use in farming today (Score 1) 94

by xdor (#48262127) Attached to: Drones Could 3D-Map Scores of Hectares of Land In Just a Few Hours

Which is why most companies won't sign-off on it (and I'm not inspecting pipelines with mine). Though farmers (even incorporated ones) probably have a better chance of this playing out in court in their favor than any other venture.

Still haven't heard if the FAA's appeal was ever in court.

FAA Fine Dismissed

Comment: Re:FAA is not allowing Drone use in farming today (Score 2) 94

by xdor (#48261875) Attached to: Drones Could 3D-Map Scores of Hectares of Land In Just a Few Hours

Yes, I noticed that. Maybe as a reminder that the rest of the world is moving on with this whilst the US government manages to (at least verbally) stifle innovation.

And as one of the thousands of people who own a UAS in "the land of the free" who can't use it for anything but recreation, I never miss an opportunity to disparage FAA policy and pseudo-policy regarding drone use.

Comment: Re:FAA is not allowing Drone use in farming today (Score 4, Insightful) 94

by xdor (#48261443) Attached to: Drones Could 3D-Map Scores of Hectares of Land In Just a Few Hours

Agree. Either by design or ineptitude the FAA couldn't put together a workable process for commercial UAS

For farmers (private land owners) below the navigational airspace (500 feet above obstacles) IMO this the land-owner's property and non of the FAA's domain.

i.e. the FAA is blowing smoke to threaten people out of working their own land until they can contort it into a regulatory money pump.

Comment: Re:Read Slashdot (Score 1) 479

by xdor (#48087437) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Finding a Job After Completing Computer Science Ph.D?

I only highlighted this because of sabri's reply:

I don't know

He doesn't know if you are able to work for him, but he does have the power to permit you to work for him.

My Uncle used to get me and my cousins with this nuance all the time. So it was kind of reflex to highlight it here.

Comment: Re:Communism Inspired Tyranny (Score 1) 652

by xdor (#48078053) Attached to: Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?

Essentially what I'm getting at is, whenever I hear this objection to "central planning", the real issue always seems to boil down to "rich people might not make enough money."

Obviously, that's what you're hearing, because that's what you think. But there's a huge difference between this and the interstate highway system: the interstate highway does not tell you what to do (well, unless you're on it, or you happen to be one of the properties condemned in order to build it...)

Using the freeway is optional. Food, clothing, shelter to the degree required isn't as much. The moment you abstract basic human needs/wants away from the source the more chance there is for misery: since the person most in tune with what they need is the person himself. Someone else in a far away city through malice or negligence sooner or later is going to get it wrong.

IMO, government control should have an exponential scale. Tyranny begins at home, and should taper off from there precipitously.

  1. As an individual I should have exclusive rule over my thoughts, my speech, my body, and my property. (kids you don't get that until your old enough to have some common sense!)
  2. My neighborhood and town has lots to say over how things should be conducted. That's fine: though it should do as little as possible about my property. And next to nothing about my person.
  3. Even less control at the county level.
  4. My state should have even less control.
  5. Finally the national/federal government should have the very least amount of control over my person.

All levels should defend me, the individual. So two major caveats for the federal level: they get to repel foreign invaders, and they may see to it that no level of rule may be enacted at other level that deprives me of my ability to move freely or to defend my own body. (Civil war kind of decided that one: except hello Obama Care! Oh the irony of history...)

Okay, we're a stone's throw from the east side of Jupiter on all of this right now in the United States. But that's the way I think it was suppose to run.

Central planning that has direct control of the individual is courting equal misery for the common man: the author of TFA is promoting a way to achieve it.

Comment: Communism Inspired Tyranny (Score 5, Insightful) 652

by xdor (#48075069) Attached to: Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?

First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.

i.e.

We the central planners will determine what you need, because anything you think you need, is just a want -- at least that's what we think -- and since we're in charge, we decide. This is just not something you little citizens think about enough!

Comment: Expand the Market (Score 1) 389

by xdor (#48072551) Attached to: Is It Time To Throw Out the College Application System?

BOARD MEMBER 1:

Our profits are flat. We need a way to boost our income, but with this economy we can't raise prices much more. We're already getting heat from the state for last year's tuition rates.

BOARD MEMBER 2:

We could lower admissions requirements: you know, expand our market.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

What? And degrade our reputation as an institution of high academic integrity! Impossible.

BOARD MEMBER 3:

What if everyone lowered their admissions standards?

BOARD MEMBER 2:

Everyone?

BOARD MEMBER 3:

All the colleges.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

Impossible!

BOARD MEMBER 3:

We float the idea that colleges are missing creative and talented people, who just aren't good at testing: old standards were just to rigid and old fashioned. Out with the old, in with the new: that sort of thing.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

And then what?

BOARD MEMBER 2

Profit!

BOARD MEMBER 3

Exactly!

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...