tomswartz07

Technically, it's 400' from the tallest surrounding object.

So, yes; you can technically fly to 1400ft near a 1000ft building.

Not much.

It uses GSM, which can be listened to by a RTL-SDR or any other software defined radio.

http://www.rtl-sdr.com/receiving-decoding-decrypting-gsm-sig...

Could it be that you're accidentally adding/copying a space at the beginning of the command?

I know Linux BASH will ignore the command from history if that's the case, and I think that OSX is similar.

Somewhat tangentially related: a non-scientific discussion on what Type I, II, and III Societies are, and why they might not quite make it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhkwT466ykc

It's metric ton, as in one thousand kilograms.

That's to illustrate the difference between an imperial ton, which is 2000 lbs (or ~907kg).

Once you sink the time into setup, it really takes care of itself.

You could basically schedule/cron/whatever the job to build once a month/week/day on your machine and it will always dump the up-to-date virtual machine in the location you choose.

I should also point out that Packer is the program that they use to create Vagrant boxes.

Probably not a lot. I use it to bypass firewalls sometimes.

If it's worth that much money to you, how much of your time would you say?

The reason I ask is that Hashicorp's Packer[1] is awesome at doing things like that.

Personally, I have an automated Packer build that spins up Windows 8.1 and Windows 10, provisions it and installs all of the necessary software, and then preps it for Windows Deployment Services. I originally based the work off of packer-windows[2] but ended up re-rolling most of it again from scratch.

If you don't mind spending roughly a day or two figuring it out, then it's well worth it!

[1] https://www.packer.io/ [2] https://github.com/joefitzgerald/packer-windows

Just a side note, as well:

`apt-get` is depreciated, they've moved to just plain `apt`

`apt install foo`

On a lighter note, I can imagine that the size of the ego which accompanies the type of person that lives to 9,000 years old would more than likely encourage someone to poison or strangle them.

I think you're having trouble grasping exactly how fast 200km/s actually is.

> There's nothing to force LinkedIn to change the negative aspects of their service

Yeah there is: a $10 billion drop in their stock valuation.

It's not the standard that's bad, it's the actual wiring of it.

That's akin to saying:

The US power grid is a bad standard because I wired up my house wrong and it burned down.

That's a humongously bad precident to set.

    You happened to record, using your cell phone, a major news story?

    Whoops, sorry. That video is no longer yours.

It's far better to fix the Copyright regs that have been so modified recently that is causing this. Thanks, Disney.

Here's a 100% serious question:

If you 'absolutely must' use Windows 10, would it be possible to firewall off every outbound port from this machine to prevent this sort of tracking? Or does it just use Port 80, piggybacking on the normal http traffic?

Has anyone done a comprehensive analysis of exactly how this info is being sent?

If they make the limit infinite, you'd end up being paid -1/12 of a cent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww

    `Uncaught TypeError: PC Load Letter?` 

What the fuck does that mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QQdNbvSGok

Personally, I absolutely love the design of the Soviet space vehicles.

Perhaps it's a result of the chronic underfunding of the program, but the utilitarian look for the LK3 lander is amazing.

You're correct.

Having no power in a model airplane is definitely an issue.

My main point being, however, it's arguably far easier to manuver an airplane after motor failure than a drone/quadcopter.

I wouldn't say 'absurd', I'd consider it very conservative, however.

I think 2.5 miles is plenty, but there could be legitimate reasons that full-size aircraft would be flying near 400 feet near an airport.

Quadcopters ("drones", ugh) are unable to maintain their altitude if there is a power failure. If one or more of the motors fail, it falls like a brick.

Airplanes, however, are much different in that they could softly and easily glide back to earth after a motor fails.

Only if you're flying rocks at over 328 feet in the air.

A good number of idiots do fly 'only above [their] own property'. The issue is that they fly much higher than 400' above their property.

The only requirement is the weight.

Yes, if your 'toy' is over the minimum weight, then it has to be registered.

However, there are a great number of inexpensive toy drones that are less than $100 and fall below the weight requirement. See the Cheerson CX-10: http://www.amazon.com/Bestpriceam-Cheerson-Cx-10-Quadcopter-...

If you want to avoid having to deal with the registration, then purchase a toy that doesn't have the ability to hurt someone.

The article does not link to the FAA's website.

Here's the link to the actual FAA page: https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/

It appears that registration opens on 21 Dec, 2015. Further, if registration is done before January 20, 2016 the $5 registration fee will be refunded.

Or ArchLinux ARM: http://archlinuxarm.org/

This is a similar method to what I use as well.

I even wrote a Vim syntax plugin for the todo files: https://github.com/tomswartz07/vim-todo

Really it depends on the frame.

I have a $50 UDI U818A and (with the plastic frame) if I cut the power, it falls no faster than a leaf. It actually does the same 'wobble' and lands softly on the ground.

Larger multicopters, like the DJI ones in the article, are much heavier. About 5lbs or so. They fall fast and hard.

> Enough of an obstacle to block general population from doing their stupid things, while still allowing those who know what they're doing to exercise the full capabilities of the machine (taking the responsibility for eventual damage).

This is exactly it. I'm 1000% okay with this. I hope that the eventual DOT regulations are following this line of thought.