Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Yes still a dream (Score 1) 143

2 the FAA will require a pilots license

This flying jet ski is supposedly an ultralight; a true single seat ultralight requires no license to fly (assuming it meets the requirements of Part 103 for an ultralight aircraft).

The jet ski/ultralight part isn't enough to save you. You might want to refamiliarize yourself with all of Part 103, not merely the literal text:

The position of the FAA has consistently been that these vehicles may be operated for sport and recreation purposes only. The justification for allowing the operation of these vehicles without requiring aircraft and pilot certification has been that this activity is a ''sport" generally conducted away from concentrations of population and aircraft operations. Like any sport, the participants are viewed as taking personal risks which do not affect others not involved in the activity.

You're free to use your "no license to fly" vehicle in the middle of nowhere, but you're not going to be flying it over a recreational lake where people are boating, fishing, swimming, hanging out at their lakefront property, etc.

103.15 Operations over congested areas.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

The FAA's position is based on the fact that ultralight vehicles are not certificated as airworthy by any approved method and are flown by uncertificated pilots for sport or recreational purposes only. Similar limitations apply to the operations of experimental and restricted category aircraft based on catastrophic incidents which have occurred in the past....The FAA believes that concentrations of the general public must be protected from the possible dangers inherent in the operations of vehicles of uncertificated, possibly unproven designs. In specific limited instances, with appropriate operational limitations, ultralight operations may be approved over congested areas, through the waiver provisions of Â103.5.

Guess what, the FAA doesn't even like licensed pilots in certified aircraft cruising over recreational lakes. The moment the flying jet ski begins to regularly come into contact with regular jet skis, and everything else, you're going to see licensing added to part 103. Idiots and their drones made aircraft licensing mandatory for anything a bit more than half a pound (250 grams). A multi-hundred pound combination of aircraft and idiot will be a cinch to make GP's prediction come true.

Comment Re:$93.8M of my tax dollars (Score 1) 755

$93.8M of my tax dollars

You haven't made $93.8M, much less paid that amount in taxes, in your entire life. What it this "my" nonsense?

The notion that a piddly, five figure contribution to $3 trillion in federal tax revenue means that the the federal government should only do what each individual out of 300 million feels is appropriate needs to die in a fire.

It's not your tax dollars, and the amount attributable to your tax obligation to the federal government is 0.0033%, which, being extremely generous, means that you were indirectly the source of as much as $3.

I dislike DJT, but this is too much considering the reason why we bombed Syria. My tax payer dollars can pick up your three dollars, and you can suck a egg you heartless bastard.

Comment Re:The downfall of this idea (Score 3, Insightful) 307

[The downfall of this idea is] that landlords have access to bidders personal information.

You've apparently never rented residential property. Landlords always have access to personal information. First, you meet with them, or their manager, when you want to see the space. Then you fill out an application. Then the more savvy ones run a credit check, and potentially a litigation check to look for things like evictions, damage complaints, etc. They might even ask for a confirmation of your employment, to look for things like whether you can pay more than the first month's rent and deposit.

Some landlord somewhere will eventually turn down a higher bid from a black/latino/etc potential tenant in favor of a white one, or a male tenant instead of a female one or vice versa, etc etc. Then both the landlord and the company will be buried up to their eyeballs in litigation from every conceivable direction.

The company is going to be immune under the Telecom Act of 1996 (a.k.a. Communications Decency Act, section 230) unless the company itself puts prohibited questions in the applicant information. If you think that they haven't studied the litigation backwards and forwards, you're naive.

Comment Re:Shows the arbitrariness of style books (Score 1) 301

Singluar they has been used at least since Shakespeare's day.

Yes. And since Shakespeare's day, pedants who fail to realize that English is not a prescriptive language, for example in the manner certain French insist upon imposing upon other French, will denigrate writers who are far better than they are (as well as everyone else) by citing rules made from whole cloth, usually in an attempt to structure English like Latin. This appears to make them feel superior.

Someone you've never heard of will, almost without fail, stake their self-professed expertise and declare that the authors, dictionaries, and other sources cited in those Wikipedia footnotes and the underlying primary research are simply wrong.

Comment Re:The Discrimination is about wages, not age (Score 4, Interesting) 207

I don't need any government regulations backlash on my hands, so I try to ensure it just doesn't come to that. Hiring somebody older in the West means hiring somebody who is a more protected class (in terms of government laws) and it can be dangerous for me, as it can hurt me financially and this is where I draw the line.

As if discrimination in hiring isn't subject to "government regulations backlash".

I'm tempted to report you myself... it's not often that someone is stupid enough, even pseudononymously, to admit to a clear violation of the law in a manner that they cannot delete on a site that maintains logs...

Comment Re:Why isn't Social Security working? (Score 2, Informative) 207

You Libs sold it to the public in the 30's. Now it's failing. Why?

Failing in the sense that Social Security still raises more money in taxes than it pays out as benefits?

Or failing in the sense that you "cons" are deathly afraid of they day that that tax surplus goes away (as planned) and you cannot spend every cent on a defense budget larger than the next 10 countries' combined spending?

Comment Re:Funny, you ignore the Jan numbers... (Score 1) 398

Add Jan + Feb and you will find that 2017 > all years except 2013. Make sure you only connect the things that support your argument?

My argument which was, what exactly?

Ah, yes... that "the business world has an over-abundance of confidence in where the US is heading at this point which are driving these numbers" is not supported by "these numbers."

Also, Jan + Feb 2015 > Jan + Feb 2017, so you're doubly wrong.

Comment Re:Yeah (Score 5, Informative) 398

The business world has an over-abundance of confidence in where the US is heading at this point which are driving these numbers. These numbers were precipitated by Obama over his last 8 years but to be honest he never inspired this level of confidence.

Hell yeah! We will completely ignore that monthly job gains were even higher in the last month of Obama's presidency, as reported in the summary, and even higher still in February 2016, which preceded the election. But wait, also the same thing in 2015, which preceded Trump's nomination. Bit of a dip in 2014, but even higher numbers in 2013.

This totally supports your argument, so long as you avoid thinking about anything connected to reality.

1-Month Net Change: All employees, thousands, total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 211 286 130 197 226 162 122 261 190 212 258 47
2014 190 151 272 329 246 304 202 230 280 227 312 255
2015 234 238 86 262 344 206 254 157 100 321 272 239
2016 126 237 225 153 43 297 291 176 249 124 164 155
2017 238(P) 235(P)

Comment Re:Nothing of value left to measure (Score 1) 167

Real music disappeared long ago, Now we have this bleak, dystopian nonsense that seems to be designed to destroy the minds of those who listen to it.

Yeah! Wagner should take that operatic garbage back to Leipzig, and all right thinking people should only buy Cantata. Bach must be rolling over in his grave!

And get off my commons you hooligans!

Comment Re:A bit too much hype (Score 2) 78

First, it is a tiny continental fragment, not a whole continent. Second, their evidence is based only tiny crystals washed ashore, as all island is covered in more recent lava. I will trust this more when they actually drill through that one or two km of lava to recover the actual ancient continental crust.

No. Even the summary does not suggest that Mauritius is an "old" continental fragment ("Mauritius is an island, and there is no rock older than 9 million years old on the island."). They are reporting on zircon inclusions found within lavas and hypothesized to have come from subducted continental crust, rather than subducted oceanic plate (much younger) or the mantle itself.

Comment Banning for "inconvenient truths" is still OK. (Score 4, Insightful) 899

"It's clear that Reddit banned us because we were becoming very popular and spreading inconvenient truths about who's ruining our country and robbing our children of a future," the moderator said.

Whatever. You're still banned,and whining about secret 'persecutorial' motivations won't do anything to change that.

Stormfront will probably host you and not bat an eye. Why do you feel so deprived? If you wanted to stay on Reddit you could simply have stamped out the doxing problem and, you know, followed Reddit's 'pretextual' rules.

Comment Re:They need to fix their network (Score 1) 78

Only reason I stick with AT&T is their 4G LTE coverage and the civilized function of being able to use DATA whine in a call. Verizon and their archaic system that disallows data during a call needs to be thrown out.

Verizon's archaic VoLTE capability that lets you use DATA while in a call, that I used just last week, you mean?

That feature was introduced in late 2014. Sounds more like your knowledge is archaic.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.