Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 121

This is already the law, if the machine is over .55 pounds. So even small toys must be registered.

No, you are not even close. You have the number right, but none of the other facts. The drone operator must be registered, and he puts his UAS number on all of his remotely controlled flying machines over .55lb. Over 55lb, models require FAA registration just like an airplane, with a tail number and everything.

The FAA has just recently set up the guidelines for becoming a commercial drone pilot; prior to this if you wanted to engage in commercial activities with a drone, you were legally obligated to get a N-number just like a real airplane and put it on there in such a way that it was legible from the ground and all that jazz. Now that obligation has been relaxed in favor of a testing, registration, and background check process which appears to be heavily slanted towards the operation of fixed-wing drones and helicopters (as in, with a swashplate, not just any unicopter) as the test covers a lot of material that's quite irrelevant to operators of multicopters. There's only one type of registration and it covers you for anything you might want to fly. I believe (I'm a bit shaky on this news stuff) that within the size range, you only have to put your UAS label on the model, and you don't need a tail number.

Also, you are I hope aware that there are now FPV drones under .55lb?

Comment Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper (Score 1) 121

There's a fundamental difference between these so called drones and RC planes or choppers. Drone operators aren't interested in "piloting" . The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos and once that's the intention it changes the whole flight.


I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera.

...yeah see, there's the problem. You can do the same stuff with an RC aircraft. So what, does that mean we should aggressively control everything that's not attached to a control line? Wait, you can use a kite for aerial photography, we're going to have to think this through a little more...

FPV is showing up on everything now, because FPV is now cheap. So if you want to argue that FPV should be the differentiator you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Comment Re:Ruining it for everyone (Score 1) 121

I'm not sure how you can argue it was not invading privacy when it was downed with a shotgun. The maximum effective range is around 75 yards and you can pretty much shoot at people 300 yards away and pose no danger (do not do this obviously).

75 yards is damned near the minimum height at which you can legally fly an airplane, upon which you can mount a big fancy camera. The drone does not pose a privacy risk that isn't already posed by aircraft, when operated legally. Does it potentially "violate" your notional privacy? You betcha. Does that give you the right to shoot it with your shotgun? Nope. You shoot it with a camera, show that its camera was or at least could have been facing your daughter, and go to the DA. If they're doing their job, after consulting an expert they can file suit on your behalf and subpoena any camera footage if there is a legitimate privacy concern.

While the law may be somewhat incomplete, you are an asshole if you fly a drone close people or their dwelling on their property.

You're also an asshole if you shoot a drone out of the air with a shotgun where it may pose a significant fire hazard. There's assholes all around in this story.

Comment Re:This is stupid (Score 2) 100

The problem isn't ITT, it's that people think some school (or ANYONE ELSE) will make you successful.

Eh, yes and no.

You make yourself successful. Only you.

...and mostly no. You have to take advantage of opportunities, but you don't create opportunities by yourself. It's a group effort. Sometimes, others work against you, whether intentionally or incidentally. ITT deliberately defrauded students. Willful fraud is wrong because we know that it's possible to take advantage of people, and when that happens it harms society. It's expensive for all of us when people's lives collapse.

If you go to a school it's reasonable to expect (if not assume) that you're being provided useful education. It might not be moneymaking in itself, but if they promise that it will be, then it had damned well better be. If they are promising job placement, then they need to deliver. If they don't, they're committing fraud, and they rightfully should be held accountable.

Tech schools are mostly garbage, which is sad because if they were any good, they'd be great things. Being immersed in a learning environment solely with other people studying the same sort of things you're studying could be a massive boon for some people, and in some situations. Alas, they are mostly garbage, and you'd do yourself and your community (and by extension, your country) more good by simply going to a community college. They have their flaws to be sure, but they are still better than technical schools on average. They're a fairly poor place to get a good quality education and a degree on the same schedule, because good educators come and go from them somewhat irregularly, but a lot of them have fairly fantastic programs of various types — especially in the applied arts.

The problems with ITT tech equally apply to pretty much any of these technical schools, and they're pretty much all the same deal although they are not all equally sleazy. The automotive institutes are very much the same story; for less money you could attend a community college and actually get a legitimate degree along with a pile of ASE certifications, while learning from people with at least as much experience as those teaching in the purely for-profit technical schools. If you want to become a smog technician or a master auto body tech you don't want to go to a tech school, as they will rob you blind. But you can bang the former out in a couple of years (starting from scratch) and the latter out in three or four and for comparatively very little money by just going to a CC.

We all need help in our lives. Apprenticeship used to be popular, schooling still works... and sure, trial and error is a thing, but let me tell you, it can be more expensive than just going to school.

Comment Re:From Glassholes to snapholes (Score 1) 85

Um... didn't we learn something from the abhorrence of google glass.

Yes. We did. We learned that people want to know when they are being recorded. You have to touch your glasses every ten seconds to record continuously, assuming that's even possible. I think this addresses that problem fairly brilliantly.

Comment Re: It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score 1) 584

If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 1) 584

I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:

If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.

Comment Re:It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score 1) 584

Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.

With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.

Comment Re:It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score 1) 584

The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.

Comment Re:They didn't tolerate intolerance (Score 1) 584

Some people call that "democracy.

Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?

Comment My goodness, those are fugly (Score 4, Informative) 85

I was picturing something more like Oakley's MP3 glasses, but with a super-flat little camera between your eyes. Instead it's a child's toy. They got the button on the device right (because it makes it obvious when you're recording) but they seem to have everything else wrong, including the price. That's too much for something that goofy.

Slashdot Top Deals

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.