Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:Flying Law Mower (Score 1) 81

You need to null out idiots. They're everywhere as part of the noise, and cannot be eliminated.

You can't null the idiots, which is why we have to have so many regulations on roads and vehicles. Once you add safety features the flying lawn mower, they lose the ability to fly. I'm sure you understand the basics of physics and weight limitations for lift.

Wind gusts-- yep, need stabilizers. But we deal with black ice, snow, and have to dodge stuff with cars, like the dog that ran out into the road in front of me, this morning.

These flying lawn mowers are skimming 10-15 ft above surface, reaction time in wind requires a hell of a lot more than simple stabilizers. 0 for 2 on Science, lets see how bad you really are.

Your Edward Scissors-Hand thinking is a bit goofy. In urban environments, we're running out of space close to ground, because we can't convince people to take public transportation, although much of public transportation lacks convenience.

And you won't convince many people that an open deck flying platform with little to no weight bearing capability is better than the bus. These things will cost huge amounts of money to "drive", get insanely poor mileage, and be extremely expensive to insure. This is not the car we see in the Movies, this is a small flying drone with humans as the casualty. In terms of Science, you just struck out.

Will stuff fall out of the sky? Probably. Will we sue the living hell out of people that do this? Yep.

As mentioned above, they would have to have insurance. Insurance for these would be insanely high. This is a product that few people could afford to use, let alone would bother using.

The early adopters will be the super-rich. If you look at SillyCon Valley, they pay jaw-dropping amounts of money for simple housing, so a flying drone car that gets them over the 101 to their offices filled with barristas and pool tables is a no-brainer.

Yeah, and it'll stay that way until we have an actual flying car (which this is not). Reality. You should see if you can find some.

Comment Re:Flying Law Mower (Score 1) 81

You never heard of gusting winds, mechanical failure, or plain old human idiocy?

Are all of the current accidents with drones intentional? There are thousands of medical emergencies with current little shit drones. Everything from a nose being cut off at TGI Fridays to fingers, heads, and hands.

In your tiny little mind, it's okay to make flying lawn mowers because we have accidents with cars. That is called a false equivalency to the normal mind.

Comment Yet another ignorant troll (Score 1, Insightful) 191

Well, except for that idiotic electoral college

Once again, a leftist/communist/progressive demonstrating a complete irrational ignorance of history. The reason for the Senate and Electoral college is to protect against tyranny by a minority of states with a higher population against a majority of states with less population. Why do you idiots continue to repeat propaganda when it's so easily disproved? Crack a damn history book instead of smoking it!

Comment Logic and Reason, or lack thereof (Score 5, Insightful) 191

The 4th in particular is intended to protect Citizens, not protect the Government. The First amendment gives rights to whistle blowers, and as with the latter not to give protection to the Government. The 14th ensures that a State can not supersede the Federal Constitutional protections, so not relevant to the topic really.

The problem with people like you who belittle the Constitution as written, and who belittle people who believe that it was intended as written, is that you ignore all of the history that goes with the Constitution. You can find all of the wisdom in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers (the latter not being what most people believe either). You must have a delusional belief that Government intrusion and abuse of power is something the founders never saw or thought about. As with the Federalist papers and the Constitution, history in this regard is your enemy. England was paying for information, paying informants, paying propagandists, jailing and killing people who spoke out publicly against the Crown's control, etc... The only difference between today and then is the medium, the methods and purposes are the same.

Your cute little pet names don't sway the arguments or change history.

Comment Re:Almost (Score 1) 70

No, I'm using censorship in the correct fashion. You on the other hand are attempting to insinuate that only Governments can censor, which is false. When you point out the TV numbers alone it does not demonstrate the larger scope of the problem. Most likely your intentional way of attempting to minimize any claims that censorship is rampant in the US. It is, you are wrong. Pretty simple.

Comment Almost (Score 0) 70

Correct regarding the current state of media being monopolized, but off by about 10 years. We were warned back in the 80s that monopolization would lead to propagandizing of "news" and the people giving warning were absolutely correct.Media in the US Is pure propaganda. Some stations much worse than others (MSNBC/CNN) but they each have a hefty left tilt.

GP is correct however, that people should be bothered about further monopolization. I have been saying for over a decade that "News" needs to be addressed by the Sherman Act and broken up, not allowed to monopolize further. Media won't give voice to that need, and they lobby Congress so that no action gets taken. People (we) have to start pushing back, because we see what has been done to other mediums which have tried to substitute for the lack of real news. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, all being censored.

Comment FTFY (Score 1) 333

Trump got in to office by being lucky enough to run against Hillary Clinton. A huge part of the FULL electorate (Dems and Republicans) would vote for a ticket of Kim Jong-Un with Mahmood Ahmedinejad just to keep someone named Clinton out of the white house..

Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers for a full out Socialist over Clinton.

Comment Can we stop? (Score 1) 333

There is not a single person, anywhere, who actually expected him to even begin to deliver on this promise. He says whatever the hell he feels like saying in the moment and has absolutely no interest whatsoever in actually doing the work of running a country--then or now.

Please stop pretending otherwise. Things are bad enough without this layer of affectation.

Comment Re:"Neural signal diversity" (Score 1) 287

I can see that higher diversity might be some kind of "super awake" state.

Talk to people who've practiced meditation for years. "Super awake" is a way to describe it, but it doesn't quite do it justice.

"Super awake" does not accurately describe meditation; "Self-delusion', on the other hand, does.

I'm always a bit amused when someone feels they have the authority to tell someone else that they are not experiencing what they are experiencing.

Whatever floats your boat. I'm always amused by people who feel that their spiritual and religious experiences are objective.

I'm not sure they do. But it is still their experience. I'm not sure on what basis you can claim it isn't what they think it is, having not experienced it yourself. I think what you're really expressing is that someone's experience doesn't comport with your concept of reality, so you reject their experience and conclude they must be delusional.

Slashdot Top Deals

The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force. - Darth Vader