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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 271

That religious meme is mainly confined to evangelicals and southern baptists in the US. It's not their own dogma, it was deliberately fed to them by politicians. Many other Christian sects use the same passages to argue god gave us ownership of the natural world and therefore we are responsible for keeping it in working order. At no point does god say "Don't worry, if you screw up this planet I will replace it"..

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 271

Actually the Catholic church has been down with Science for many years. They don't perceive a contradiction between science and religion, modern catholics consider science a "tool to better understand creation". For example, it was a Catholic priest working in the vatican observatory who came up with the big bang theory, they have accepted evolution as "god's handiwork" since the 60's, they're still dragging their feet on birth control but I think they will arrive at the same place as protestants in the not too distant future.

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 271

Conspiracy - organising people to achieve a specific hidden goal. What you are describing is what Karl Popper called "The republic of Science". There is no "we" in Science to conspire, there's no central authority picking winners or handing out funds, there's just a endless list of groups and individuals with competing ideas and explanations. It doesn't surprise me at all that 3/4 of the papers submitted are never published, they can't all be interesting and many will be just plain wrong. These days people and groups can publish their own papers on the web, IMO it's easier than it's ever been for a wannabe Galileo to get a leg up.

PS:I figure you already know that..

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 242

"Plain sight," as in "you don't need tools to get to it." The sort of thing any FAA inspector could simply walk over and easily see/get to.

Otherwise, semantics. You can't fly your over 9-ounce toy, at all, unless it bears your registration information. The uniqueness of the registration between someone's multiple toys is neither here nor there. It's "you can't fly your toy without federal involvement and a way to track the toy back to you via a publicly searchable database." That's what matters.

Comment Re:It's already known (Score 1) 242

The FAA has statutory authority over every bit of US (and territorial) air space from 1mm above the ground. They are exactly who defines who can fly where. That has nothing to do with things like privacy laws - that's about what you do with, for example, images taken while flying. Right now, that's a patchwork of local and state laws. But who (and what) can fly where and how high: that's FAA turf, entirely.

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 242

The over .55, under 55 pound RC aircraft must carry a registration number in plain site. If you own four of them, all four must carry that number. If you operate under part 107, all of your RC devices need their own unique registration codes. These aren't "guidelines," these are rules now formally in place with serious consequences should you blow them off.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini

Working...