Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Easy answer to the federal question (Score 2) 193

The answer to the federal question is easy. Get a few of these drones flying over the White House and see if anybody complains. Done.

The FAA has already designated a 30-mile-wide circle around the White House as a No Fly Zone - with serious penalties if you operate there. Bad example. You are not "done."

Comment Re:It's already known (Score 0) 193

Funny how you're asserting such specific details (anonymously) without something as simple as a link to this incredibly well established law. It doesn't exist. You're making it up. You're lying. And you know it, which is why you cannot cite even a general bit of guidance from the FAA (let alone a specific federal rule or piece of legislation) that to back up your hand-wavy assertion. Here's what we know: the FAA requires (without specific waiver) that operators stay UNDER 400'. The agency goes to great length to spell out dozens of specific rules that apply to newly certificed (part 107) commercial operators, and of course the rules for recreational operators are quite a bit looser. At no point, anywhere, does the FAA indicate the altitude below which you "own" the airspace around private property.

That doesn't mean operators should be jerks. But we know you're being one.

Comment Re: Rule of thumb (Score 1) 193

There are places for people to fly drones. A neighbor's property isn't one of them.

Why? What if the neighbor not only permits it, but encourages it? What if the neighbor has asked you to photograph her gutters or her chimney before she calls a roofing guy to come out and climb up for a look? What business is it of yours if your neighbor is just fine with it? Perhaps your neighbor doesn't think you should be allowed to go use your lawn mower to cut some OTHER person's lawn. Should they be able to stop you? No? I see.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

So in other words you are too uninformed about the issues to name your preferred prospective Supreme Court nominees. This all starts to make more sense, now. You won't address any of these issues directly because you actually have no idea what's going on. See? Asked to name even one prospective jurist, you have to resort to more childish deflection in an attempt to avoid confirming your ignorance. So, now you've had a while to at least look up some names. Let's try again: who do you think should sit on the Supreme Court? How about just one name.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

No, you're too much of a coward to even address the issue, as usual.

Here, let's break it down into the baby-sized bites you can't pretend you're unable to address:

Who would you like to see seated on the Supreme Court? Be specific. If you pretend you can't, we'll see you're just a craven BSer as usual. If you REALLY can't, then we'll see you shouldn't be voting regardless. So: name names.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

One or the other, but it won't be because of my vote.

So your vote has no effect on the election, then? You're choosing to use your vote in a way that deliberately reduces its impact on SCOTUS nominees?

So which do you prefer: liberal or conservative SCOTUS judges? There are real, substantive differences between them. If you DO have a preference, why are you choosing to use your vote in a way that you claim will not express that preference? Or, do you live in a state where you know that by withholding your vote from a candidate that actually can win, you know that you're already supporting the viable candidate that will sit the judges you want? Address this issue in less of a cop-out, non-answer way than you already have.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

See? Completely unable to acknowledge reality, or completely unwilling to admit it.

So: how will your choice in candidates influence the next Supreme Court nominees that are named? Be specific, if you have any sort of ability to talk about reality. If you can't answer the question, it's just another sign that your entire ongoing deflection on this topic is just you being an intellectual coward. So: which nominees will have a more likely chance of being seated, because of your vote?

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

Diversion? As usual, I address simple reality, and you go off on a hand-waving bender having zero relevance. See, you'll do it again right now.

One of the two main candidates will win the election. This is a fact. You don't like that fact, so you talk about guilt and prison yards.

Vacant Supreme Court seats will be filled by one of those two people. You are too timid to take the responsibility of influencing whether or not those seats are filled by liberal activist types or conservative/constructionist types. This is simple cowardice, but you will say that that you're somehow doing something noble by being sure that your vote goes to someone that cannot possibly influence this important process. But in doing so, depending on the state in which you live, you ARE choosing to lean your state's electoral votes to one of the two viable candidates. This is a simple fact. You don't like that fact, so you prefer to call reality a "diversion."

You will be unable to say anything on-topic in your response, because that would require you to either confront those realities, or lie. You don't want to do either in writing, so you'll of course say some sort of blathering nonsense about prison yards, guilt, and being hung with statistics or other childish attempts to evade the substance of the matter. Like you're about to do, right now.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

It's funny how you're the only one who ever uses the word "guilt" when it comes to this subject. All I'm doing is pointing out that the third party candidates cannot win, and that using your vote to support one of those cannot-win candidates will not, for example, do things like change which supreme court nominees one of the actual viable candidate will, in real life, end up naming.

We're all going to live with the actions and policies and appointees of one of those two viable candidates. You're choosing to stamp your feet and throw your vote away rather than impacting the actual outcome in a meaningful way. That you feel the urge to use the word "guilt" when someone simply points out the facts is your thing, not anyone else's.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

You can't hold us responsible for people we didn't vote for.

One of two candidates is going to win. When you choose to vote for a third party or not vote at all, you are making a choice that will impact one of only two outcomes. Wishing that away because you don't like it is just childish.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers