Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:Self-sustaining civilization on Mars (Score 1) 404

How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?

Already done. Too well. That's why we have population growth when we don't need it anymore. The more advanced sectors of society are actually shrinking, population-wise and resource-use-wise. It's the slow to catch up third world that hasn't refined its culture to the point where having too many babies eases off on its own.

Comment Re: Comment (Score 1) 312

Well, I'm definitely opposed to this law, but think about your example: regardless of whether you know Anthony Hopkins age or not (I certainly don't know it without looking it up), he is visually and obviously unsuited to that role.

Consider more a case of Emily Kinney, whose age was at one time a bit hard to look up. She was pretty convincingly portraying Beth Greene on The Walking Dead - a 16-17 year old character - while the actress was in her late 20's.

You have to think of cases where people CAN'T really tell that the person isn't suited for the role just by looking at them.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 312

Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is. I don't care if Microsoft wrote a program that caused my computer to intentionally come to life and shoot my dog, I wouldn't sue them for fear of maybe just POSSIBLY losing, which would mean I'm on the hook for their legal fees and I'm basically screwed for life.

Now, loser pays some capped portion of the opponent's legal fees and I could get behind that.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 312

The Supreme Court hasn't seem to have made any rulings lately that I'd say are too far off-base, and their title *SUPREME* court basically means that they're the ones tasked with interpreting what the constitution means. You might as well accuse Hermin Melville of not knowing the ending of Moby Dick.

Of course I'm guessing your post is just another one of those "government is bad, mmmkay" type posts where everyone is always doing everything wrong despite never including any actual examples. It's always easier to bring generic discontent than specific talking points.

Comment Re: Rule of thumb (Score 1) 305

Really? No domestic or international commercial air traffic flies over your house? Where do you live that there's no such air traffic. That would be refreshing, I must say. Around here, we see and or hear hundreds of flights a day. The lower altitude stuff is not as common, but there's really no distinction from an FAA perspective.

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 305

"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) 305

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Of course there's no reason for it, it's just our policy.

Working...