The entire rest of the arena settled on FRAND, generally cross-licensing everything, and focused on out-competing each other with ever better products for quite a while. There were some tiffs, but the complete mess of lawsuits didn't start until Steve decided that Android had to die. So no, it's not just me. It was the entire industry for a long time. Apple is the outlier, not the status quo.
Apple is the largest company on Earth by market capitalization, and they continue to gain market share. I think that's a compelling argument for Steve being right, and everyone else being wrong. Mind you, I despite intellectual property; But you're trying to minimize and marginalize what has obviously been a runaway success. Apple is not the problem here -- it's intellectual property as a whole, and whether the rest of the industry follows Apple or not doesn't matter. The market is rewarding Apple right now, not the people who are choosing not to litigate.
Knock it off. My comment was about internet access, not even anything remotely like fiddling with or "configuring" a mesh network. Please READ the comments you are replying to.
My low opinion of your comments is not a reflection on my reading ability; It's a reflection of your diminished critical thinking skills. You're fixated on internet access, but there's nothing on the internet that can't be accessed just as readily as a radio, or simply kept in the vehicle. Tablets can contain hundreds of gigabytes of data -- more than sufficient to handle a database and application to assist with triage in a standalone capacity. There is simply isn't a compelling argument for internet access. There are compelling reasons for two-way communication, even digitally, even using a packet switched network, even using IP protocols. But not internet access, which is firmly in the "Not Medically Necessary" category.
Again, bullshit. I am coming at this from the perspective of someone who is FAMILIAR with the job being discussed
Keep chanting "bullshit" over and over. It makes you seem smarter, in the same way drinking beer does. And no, you're not familiar with the job being discussed. You know a guy. So what? I know someone who was a police officer for 15 years. That does not make me qualified to offer advice on police procedure or the law.
I did nothing of the sort. But he certainly tried to do that to me. He ASSUMED too much about what I meant. Maybe I did not explain as clearly as I could have but his assumptions are still not my responsibility.
Once upon a time, there was a point someone was trying to make. I think you killed it some ways back and are now eating its dessicated corpse.
And for the last time, "google" is about the farthest thing from what I was talking about. If you really thought I was, then I could understand your criticism... but since I already explained that I wasn't, well before you replied, then I can't honestly give you that much credit.
You're the one advocating internet access, yet you've failed to come up with a single concrete example of how having internet access could improve any aspect of an EMTs primary job function. Why don't you step back from this a moment, and then look at this from the perspective of a manager who has asked you to provide a business proposal? Because you might know a shit ton about IT and maybe you're even Dr. House himself as well, and can diagnose people just by looking at them crossways, but you clearly don't have a clue about business. In business, you need justifications beyond "Well, I think it would be nice."
Capturing withough inflicting damage seems rather hard, a major part of it being the approach + synchronization with the satellite.
I was not trivializing the task accomplished. I was saying that when you look at the entire project goals, it's amongst the easier. If they simply return to Earth with the satellite, they'll oblitherate most of the cost benefits associated with recycling -- they still have to pay to launch again, and the payload will be used kit, not new. If they do it in orbit, they'll need to basically build a factory in space and mate it to a recycling center. To date, nobody's even attempted large-scale industrial process in orbit. It is a task that dwarfs the challenges of the ISS. We've also learned that things in orbit tend to accumulate fungus, and not a small amount either. There are modules on the ISS that frankly wouldn't meet health code if people lived on them here. When you consider all the obstacles involved in creating a functional assembly line for this kind of thing, and doing it in an economically viable fashion, yes, capturing is the easy part.
How would it be harder than the normal process of developing and deploying a sat?
Let me put it in terms you can relate to: If I walk into a recycling center, select twenty dead computers at random, disassemble them, and put them on a table, how many working computers can you make? Oh, each of those computers is 5 to 30 years old. They also contain explosives and occasionally radioactive material. Now realize that computers at least have standards for how they're supposed to fit together.
I know few places have such things now, but it's happening, gradually. Try to be forward-looking.
Yes. Poster would like you to experiment with configuring a wifi mesh instead of saving his life. He'll understand because he wants people who care for him medically to be "forward-looking", not "prudent."
BS. If you could have at your fingertips their recent medical history, current medications, etc. on the way to the site, you would be much better prepared even if they aren't responsive.
An EMTs job is to stabilize your vitals, not to diagnose and treat your condition. They don't need to be prepared for anything except keeping you breathing, your heart beating, and, since you're unconscious in the above scenario, not much else.
But if you COULD have a doctor there, without messing with Skype or a webcam, would you think that's a bad idea?
The doctor is at the hospital, treating the other patients who may have life-threatening injuries. You're suggesting the doctor step away from those duties to help the EMTs perform... basic triage?
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're being shortsighted. You are fixated on what the current systems do for you, but you don't seem to be very receptive to what improvements in the technology COULD do for you.
He's fixated on the only thing that matters: Keeping the patient alive. Who the fuck cares what systems he uses? Unless they contribute to Job #1, they're worthless. I don't want someone googling "bleeding to death" or trying to skype or webcam to someone else to tell them what to do when I'm taking the ride, I want them trained in keeping my ass alive until someone with the right qualifications to fix whatever put me in that ambulance can see me.
You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who's spent too many years in technical support -- treat the EMT like he's some kind of moron or puppet, to be directed about by the guy on the other end of the line. Medicine isn't like that. They work as an integrated team, and they depend on their training and experience, not their google-fu, to do the job.
FOUL! When someone says something about a thing outside their field, it's the god-given right of everyone else to point out that since they're not actually an expert, they must be wrong. Having an actual expert come in and 1UP the poster is poor form. As an expert, you're supposed to keep quiet and let others figure out that the poster's vision of EMTs fiddling with web cams and wifi settings while their patient bleeds out is preferable to people using older, but more reliable, technology. Newer = better. Don't you know anything about slashdot?:D The correct answer to everything on this site is to increase the version number, make it open source, do it yourself, or add more horsepower.
Bullshit. They have an obligation to represent the interests of the shareholders. I am a shareholder in several companies, and I am interested in ethical behavior over profits.
And you speak for all the shareholders?
That aside, I don't even think it's a good strategy to maximize profits: it may work short term, but turning the patent cold war into a shooting war is going to hurt everyone in the arena long term, Apple included.
That's nice. But you're one guy, with a few extra dollars, saying it's a bad idea. There are tens of thousands of lawyers who say it's a good idea. There's hundreds of thousands of pages from various court decisions, legislative works, and contracts, that support that notion. There's millions of workers that go to work every day to make sure that notion keeps right on ticking. And there's hundreds of billions of dollars backing that notion.
While I admire your devotion to ideals, few will respect the choices of a man who stands outside while the hurricane makes landfall and shout "I forbid this!" It's folly to think everyone is like you -- most people are not so idealistic. Most people like money first, and ideals, perhaps, as long as they're fashionable.
Capturing defunct satellites is easy. Disassembling them, assembling them into a new configuration, validating the work, and then deploying it again is hard. Very hard.
That solves nothing. Companies will continue to abuse intellectual property law and ideology to limit consumer choice. Every company has to -- that's how the game is played. Singling out Apple for being the most successful player doesn't change the fact that its the game that's fucking you, the consumer.
You can ban, cry, shout, scream, boycott -- but it's not the players that are the problem, it's the game. If you really want to make a difference, stop buying products designed or produced in the United States, and only buy from companies based in countries that do not buy into intellectual property (like China). It seems strange to advocate purchasing from a communist country with a long list of human rights issues and no labor rights to speak of -- but I'm of the opinion that supporting slave labor is superior to supporting intellectual property.
It's simple, really: We all learn by copying each other. This is neurological and hardwired. When you see someone performing an activity, you may be unaware of this but the same muscles they are using to do it will tense very slightly. These clusters of 'mirror' neurons, along with their connection to the limbic system, form the basis for learning. Intellectual property is a barrier interposed between ourselves and the environment which limits and manipulates that natural process so that industrialists can profit off of it.
It has to be stopped, or it'll stall out human progress for centuries to come -- our technological progress which up until now could be plotted exponentially upwards is rapidly flattening and we're going to have another Dark Ages on our hands if we don't stop this, and our children will live in some dystopic world where they are materially better off, but intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically enslaved. Our bodies will be comfortable, but our souls won't.
You got what you wanted thanks to an incompetent judge and a jury with conflicts of interest.
That is not Apple's fault.
You can't go about trying to use that as a cudgel to ban things that weren't even in the original case.
They can, they should, and they must. They have a legal obligation to maximize profits. They were just handed a victory, however ill-earned it may be, and now they have to press that advantage. If they don't, they can be sued by the shareholders, and the entire board of directors could be thrown out. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
It's funny how Jobs once said Apple has always been "shameless in stealing great ideas."
First, he's dead. Second, that quote is a mutilation of the actual one from a 1996 PBS documentary titled "Triumph of the Nerds", in which Steve paraphrased Picasso's statement "Good artists copy, great artists steal." And in design, nothing is new. Anyone can tell you that -- we all steal from each other. It's respectable to give credit, but you still imitate, you still steal, and that's true in any line of work. In fact, theft is a word that probably should never be applied to ideas -- it just legitimizes intellectual property as an ideology. All human progress is built upon the advances of others -- not taking advantage of that is not only stupid, but goes against basic human nature. Most of how we learn is from watching others and copying their behavior.
Yet when you think someone else has done the same thing to you (regardless of evidence or prior art), you clowns get your panties in a bunch and start stamping your feet, crying to the courts, and whining about "going thermonuclear" on Android.
That's how the game is played. Intellectual property is now enshrined in the legal process; They can't decide to sit out on it, they'd be steamrollered. They have to play, whether they want to or not. So save your vitrol for Apple and put it where it belongs: A massively corrupt government.
To close, Jobs was a great businessman. But he was also a COLOSSAL douchebag with no sense of perspective or grip on reality. I thought when he died that rational heads would prevail in Cupertino. Apparently I was wrong. This fucker's cult of personality is so strong that even now people worship him like he was some sort of deity.
He had an absolute perspective and grip on reality -- you can't be crazy and bring a company from the brink of financial ruin and technological obscurity to the largest company (by market capitalization) on the planet. He was also a great designer. And most great designers, engineers, etc., are assholes. Actually, for any sufficiently large group, the majority are assholes. I'd love to get into it with you why the Dark Triad of social traits shows up so often in our leaders, but it's beyond the scope of this ever-lengthening reply.
So yes, Apple. You can go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw, because you're pissing away whatever good-will you may have had left. One day, the drooling iZealots will wake up and get off of the trend-whore treadmill.
You are one of those "drooling iZealots", just as much as they are. Your Galaxy S3 has patented software and hardware in it, and Samsung and every parts manufacturer that contributed to its development, assembly, production, and distribution, also has them. And they all have a legal obligation to do so, and to get new ones, and to fight with each other. That's how the game is played.
You want to blame Apple for the failings of the judicial system, but that's pointless. If tomorrow Apple exploded in fire and doom and was no more, you'd cheer... and in a few years choose a new object of your hatred. You're part of the problem because you're attacking the players, not the game. The only winning move here is not to play.
I have to wonder though, what's wrong with good old fashioned radios.
They're fine for dispatching and communicating status amongst units. And that's all most emergency vehicles do. I can't see much use in setting up "ad hoc" networks to give emergency responders internet access; I can however see any number of uses for being able to gain control over the RF environment of a small geographical area... Anyone who has studied military tactics knows that gaining control over the environment is a major force multiplier.
I could see something more being needed for military / SWAT responses. Say you have a hostage situation and want to relay the thermal imaging of the building to headquarters or your other units in the field in preparation for an assault, or you want gun camera footage during the insertion. You need a lot of bandwidth to share that data, and the government's solution was to design satellite uplinks and encrypted mesh networking that doesn't rely on the environment to operate.
I could also see having RF equipment capable of cutting in on wifi or other civilian broadcast equipment as having a use in hostage situations; By using a highly directional antenna and a software definable radio, it might be possible to locate the cell phones of the hostages, cutting through any jamming that may be present, in order to communicate with them, activate cameras or microphones, etc.
But you're right; For most emergency responders, internet access isn't needed or warranted. Should that ever change, you want a network under your administrative control; not relying on routers that may or may not be present in theatre. In an emergency, anything that isn't highly reliable is worthless. The last thing I want to see is critical communications going out because someone picked a bad time to make ramen noodles next door!
Thanks for stepping up. It's rare to see that online. Unfortunately, condescending attitudes are a dime a dozen online. Things people would never say in person they do with gusto online, because they're small people in real life, and so they need to emotionally abuse strangers to feel better. Anyway, fair enough. I personally wish more IT professionals would do what I do. I have a homebrew install disc of winxp and win7 (all versions of each) that installs a slew of antivirus, antimalware, firewall, etc., on their systems. It installs a browser to a restricted account and uses the 'runas' functionality to call it so it can't see any of the user's actual files. I have scripts to harden the file permissions, install and configure tor, setup noscript and other goodies for Firefox, etc. All told, about 50 odd programs and patches get loaded.
Then I sit down and spend a few hours explaining to them how to use each item and why it's there. I let them make choices about whether or not to use auto-updating software, how to safely download and check files, etc. Now, most of them call me for weeks on end after because they forgot what I told them, or broke something because it wasn't configured in the expected way, but I'm okay with helping them -- remote desktop and VNC are my friends.
But then, most people on slashdot, as the internet at large, don't believe in social responsibility. They're happy to point at the victim and say "ha ha, sucks to be you."
I genuinely do not understand how people don't get this. You want to push against the big boys? Assume they have tools you've never even imagined. It's just like sterilization in medicine. You don't know what the patient has, so you treat everything they touch like it's covered in plague. Diligence, children, diligence is the key to anonymity.
You say that like it's easy for anyone to pick up the tools of the trade. It isn't. There's tor, proxies, networking protocols, you need to understand RF fields, propagation, you need to be able to do an inventory of every electronic item you possess, you need to understand the differences between PKI and symetric key encryption, and how, if, and whether encryption provides plausible deniability or not. You need to understand Tempest -- how devices can radiate RF (and thus, information) on an otherwise perfectly secured system. You also need to understand how malware operates, how to detect it... and not only do you need all this understanding and technical expertise, but the equipment required to create a sterile lab environment from which to test, assemble, and validate your builds.
Large corporations have problems getting this right because it's so complicated. Major world governments have screwed up. Actuall, all of them have. This is not just a simple matter of "spray and wipe down". Stop being so condescending, like it's just a simple matter. It's not -- not for you, not for them, not for anyone. And you can't go it alone. It's too complex for one person to navigate without making at least one mistake.
it's a pretty cool resource to check things before you say dumb things on the internet.
Well, aren't you a condescending fuck. and a +5 condescending fuck at that. The slashmods must have started drinking early this week to reward such pussant behavior. First, ultralights don't require avionics. That's what the article is asking for. That implies a real aircraft, not a Mighty Puff Jr. Second, I didn't get into the regulations because this is a casual web forum for IT nerds, who probably would not want me to regurgitate 150 pages of text just so I can prove they exist, and are complicated. It's the government. It's airplanes. It's fucking complicated, okay? If it wasn't, Anonymous Coward would have his flying car by now. But he doesn't. All he has is a condescending attitude.
It's actually pretty cool that it's still legal for people to be able to commit and risk their own lives in the pursuit of invention
Yes... and it's somewhat less cool when they're risking your life as their flying contraption crashes into your house at two in the morning while you're sleeping, or makes an emergency landing during rush hour.
Um, yes, yes it is. You say it isn't a problem, then go on to confirm every single point I made...
As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world.
Citation needed. At least 95 to be exact, enough to cover half the countries you're claiming this for.
In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt.
Which still require certification, even if it is only a "technical counselor" of the Experimental Aircraft Association or a "Designated Airworthiness Representative". You cannot simply print a plane out, take it to an airstrip, and yell "Yippie kai-yay!" and bolt into the air. Even the guy who decided to strap a bunch of weather balloons to a lawn chair found out the FAA takes a rather dim view of people fucking off in controlled airspace without clearance and certification.
Only after the required testing period can you use the plane as normal, and you are free to use it the same as a Cessna except for commercial operations.
Er, with a cessna, if you have a license you can take on passengers. Not paying passengers, but you can have them. A license to fly your experimental plane does not cover that. You need to get the plane certified to take passengers up in it, and a kit plane will never get that certification. The FAA has even said as much.
Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places.
Yeah, and you keep it under 100 feet and only fly it in areas that operate under VFR instead of IFR. Most of these maker labs are in densely urban areas: In other words, IFR. You'll have to drive a hundred miles in any direction from where you built it before you can fly it. And did you read the article -- he's talking about a full avionics loadout. That implies something that runs on something a bit beefier than a lawn mower engine hung out the back and playing Ride of the Valkyries on your iPod.
Not necessarily in the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration "... does not certify, certificate, or approve aircraft kits. Also, the FAA does not approve kit manufacturers." Though I'm sure there are regulations for the person piloting the aircraft.
The FAA is in charge of certifying all planes for flight. Your own direct quote doesn't say they don't do the very thing their name implies they do, it says they won't do it for kit planes. No kit plane will ever be certified by the FAA. Now I haven't read the law too closely, and maybe you can get a license to fly a sports plane, or some kind of personal-use plane, but anything that carries passengers or cargo? Forget it.
Open source people don't like regulation, because it confines the creative process.
You're trolling pretty hard there. Many open source licenses depends on regulation. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright law. So no, regulation by itself doesn't confine the creative process; Bad regulation does.
Gravity is also inconvenient and confining. We need to rally the people to overturn this law.
They've been trying, but every time they drop an apple it lands on the ground instead of the ceiling. They've tried threatening the apple with a lawsuit, they've tried applying intellectual property laws saying things landing on the floor is prohibited by law, but the damn apple keeps landing on the ground. One person even tried firing it into orbit with a giant gun, but we're not sure if it worked -- he was later found covered in applesauce and shrapnel.
First: Awesome project. Don't let what I'm about to say slow you down if you're interested.
I see a few problems here -- first is that in order to actually fly the plane, it has to be certified by the FAA. A manufacturer can guarantee the process made to create the first plane off the assembly line will result in about the same quality and performance for the 1,000th plane to roll off the line. "Printing" a plane opens the door for a lot of variation, not just in terms of materials and workmanship, but also that there's no way to verify that there have been changes to the design. The whole point of 3D printing is to rapidly prototype and make quick and dirty modifications to designs prior to validation of the components in its finished state.
The other is that you still need an FAA license. That means training, and that training isn't cheap. There's also a whole bunch of medical requirements, not all of which are really fair. For example, did you know taking anti-depressants could disqualify you from flying a plane? I won't even get into the requirements if you've ever been convicted of a crime -- even a trivial one. So even if you have the tools to print yourself your very own plane, it doesn't change the cost by a whole lot. The training and certification requirements can in many cases surpass the cost of the plane itself.
And then there's the problem of being able to build an airplane without the authorities knowing; It's pretty easy to create an explosive device. If it's just as easy to print a delivery system (hello plane!), then you can just add some remote controls and a camera and build yourself a plane bomb. Yes, I know it would be cheaper to build a missile, and more practical, but the authorities (cough, american law enforcement, cough) will always assume the worst. In there eyes, everything is a weapon, or components to build a weapon, and will happily and with great gusto violate every one of their own laws to catch you, the bad guy with a 3D printer, because you possess the capability to create weapons. Nevermind that you don't actually have any, or the intent to do so, the mere possibility that you could if you wanted to seems to be enough these days to get you disappeared in many countries... especially mine.
With all these problems, don't you think you're being a bit naive to think that your open source aircraft will actually get off the ground (literally)?
America sets the example of how a human rights-violating Republic should act, and lately we've been setting a very bad example by Not respecting basic individual rights.
When the original bottle and items inside are auctioned off, he'll make far more. Assuming he doesn't succumb to a case of stupidity and opens the bottle like the article suggests, in which case he deserves being whipped repeatedly by angry historians -- and the whip's price shall be six pence.
I will not connect industrial control systems to the internet.
I will not connect industrial control systems to the internet.
I will not connect industrial control systems to the internet. ...
Okay. Good. Now, onto the next set...
I will not allow anyone to connect outside storage devices to any networked system.
I will not allow anyone to connect outside storage devices to any networked system.
I will not allow anyone to connect outside storage devices to any networked system. ...
Sigh. How effing hard is it to understand the concept of an "air gap"? Air -- something that doesn't conduct electricity or data. Gap -- a space between two other things. Jeez.
If I were the UK, I would not want to model anything after California.
Anything modeled after California is known to cause cancer in the State of California. But only slightly more seriously, there's a subtle distinction between comparing what happened in California with what happened to California. The company with the largest market capitalization of any on earth is located there. Ten years ago, The Company Which Must Not Be Named was barely a blip on anyone's radar. There are many success stories to come out of Silicon Valley, and understandably, many business-minded folks would like to replicate that success.
Unfortunately, they're suffering from a massive case of survivor bias. It's true that silicon valley has birthed some of the largest, most successful tech firms out there. It's also true that the valley is littered with the corpses of failure. During the dot com bust, companies were erecting fences to keep creditors from repossessing the cars out of company lots. Silicon Valley's success story should be likened to another California success story: The California gold rush. You can't discuss success without also discussing the odds of failure.
Can England gather together a bunch of self righteous, self absorbed a**holes that will hop from one company to another hoping to strike it obscenely rich?
Were you asleep in civics class when they discussed the British East India Company?
Perhaps Jon Daly was correct, someday there might be a vagina that doubles as a Wifi hotspot.
The only thing going in my vajayjay that runs on batteries comes with a happy at the end. I'm sure most women feel similar. Second, do you really want your dick in a microwave? What do you think rubbing your man-sausage on a transmitter pumping out several watts is going to your little swimmers?
Slashdot Mirror
The entire rest of the arena settled on FRAND, generally cross-licensing everything, and focused on out-competing each other with ever better products for quite a while. There were some tiffs, but the complete mess of lawsuits didn't start until Steve decided that Android had to die. So no, it's not just me. It was the entire industry for a long time. Apple is the outlier, not the status quo.
Apple is the largest company on Earth by market capitalization, and they continue to gain market share. I think that's a compelling argument for Steve being right, and everyone else being wrong. Mind you, I despite intellectual property; But you're trying to minimize and marginalize what has obviously been a runaway success. Apple is not the problem here -- it's intellectual property as a whole, and whether the rest of the industry follows Apple or not doesn't matter. The market is rewarding Apple right now, not the people who are choosing not to litigate.
Knock it off. My comment was about internet access, not even anything remotely like fiddling with or "configuring" a mesh network. Please READ the comments you are replying to.
My low opinion of your comments is not a reflection on my reading ability; It's a reflection of your diminished critical thinking skills. You're fixated on internet access, but there's nothing on the internet that can't be accessed just as readily as a radio, or simply kept in the vehicle. Tablets can contain hundreds of gigabytes of data -- more than sufficient to handle a database and application to assist with triage in a standalone capacity. There is simply isn't a compelling argument for internet access. There are compelling reasons for two-way communication, even digitally, even using a packet switched network, even using IP protocols. But not internet access, which is firmly in the "Not Medically Necessary" category.
Again, bullshit. I am coming at this from the perspective of someone who is FAMILIAR with the job being discussed
Keep chanting "bullshit" over and over. It makes you seem smarter, in the same way drinking beer does. And no, you're not familiar with the job being discussed. You know a guy. So what? I know someone who was a police officer for 15 years. That does not make me qualified to offer advice on police procedure or the law.
I did nothing of the sort. But he certainly tried to do that to me. He ASSUMED too much about what I meant. Maybe I did not explain as clearly as I could have but his assumptions are still not my responsibility.
Once upon a time, there was a point someone was trying to make. I think you killed it some ways back and are now eating its dessicated corpse.
And for the last time, "google" is about the farthest thing from what I was talking about. If you really thought I was, then I could understand your criticism... but since I already explained that I wasn't, well before you replied, then I can't honestly give you that much credit.
You're the one advocating internet access, yet you've failed to come up with a single concrete example of how having internet access could improve any aspect of an EMTs primary job function. Why don't you step back from this a moment, and then look at this from the perspective of a manager who has asked you to provide a business proposal? Because you might know a shit ton about IT and maybe you're even Dr. House himself as well, and can diagnose people just by looking at them crossways, but you clearly don't have a clue about business. In business, you need justifications beyond "Well, I think it would be nice."
Capturing withough inflicting damage seems rather hard, a major part of it being the approach + synchronization with the satellite.
I was not trivializing the task accomplished. I was saying that when you look at the entire project goals, it's amongst the easier. If they simply return to Earth with the satellite, they'll oblitherate most of the cost benefits associated with recycling -- they still have to pay to launch again, and the payload will be used kit, not new. If they do it in orbit, they'll need to basically build a factory in space and mate it to a recycling center. To date, nobody's even attempted large-scale industrial process in orbit. It is a task that dwarfs the challenges of the ISS. We've also learned that things in orbit tend to accumulate fungus, and not a small amount either. There are modules on the ISS that frankly wouldn't meet health code if people lived on them here. When you consider all the obstacles involved in creating a functional assembly line for this kind of thing, and doing it in an economically viable fashion, yes, capturing is the easy part.
How would it be harder than the normal process of developing and deploying a sat?
Let me put it in terms you can relate to: If I walk into a recycling center, select twenty dead computers at random, disassemble them, and put them on a table, how many working computers can you make? Oh, each of those computers is 5 to 30 years old. They also contain explosives and occasionally radioactive material. Now realize that computers at least have standards for how they're supposed to fit together.
I know few places have such things now, but it's happening, gradually. Try to be forward-looking.
Yes. Poster would like you to experiment with configuring a wifi mesh instead of saving his life. He'll understand because he wants people who care for him medically to be "forward-looking", not "prudent."
BS. If you could have at your fingertips their recent medical history, current medications, etc. on the way to the site, you would be much better prepared even if they aren't responsive.
An EMTs job is to stabilize your vitals, not to diagnose and treat your condition. They don't need to be prepared for anything except keeping you breathing, your heart beating, and, since you're unconscious in the above scenario, not much else.
But if you COULD have a doctor there, without messing with Skype or a webcam, would you think that's a bad idea?
The doctor is at the hospital, treating the other patients who may have life-threatening injuries. You're suggesting the doctor step away from those duties to help the EMTs perform... basic triage?
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're being shortsighted. You are fixated on what the current systems do for you, but you don't seem to be very receptive to what improvements in the technology COULD do for you.
He's fixated on the only thing that matters: Keeping the patient alive. Who the fuck cares what systems he uses? Unless they contribute to Job #1, they're worthless. I don't want someone googling "bleeding to death" or trying to skype or webcam to someone else to tell them what to do when I'm taking the ride, I want them trained in keeping my ass alive until someone with the right qualifications to fix whatever put me in that ambulance can see me.
You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who's spent too many years in technical support -- treat the EMT like he's some kind of moron or puppet, to be directed about by the guy on the other end of the line. Medicine isn't like that. They work as an integrated team, and they depend on their training and experience, not their google-fu, to do the job.
FOUL! When someone says something about a thing outside their field, it's the god-given right of everyone else to point out that since they're not actually an expert, they must be wrong. Having an actual expert come in and 1UP the poster is poor form. As an expert, you're supposed to keep quiet and let others figure out that the poster's vision of EMTs fiddling with web cams and wifi settings while their patient bleeds out is preferable to people using older, but more reliable, technology. Newer = better. Don't you know anything about slashdot? :D The correct answer to everything on this site is to increase the version number, make it open source, do it yourself, or add more horsepower.
Just because the rules of the game allow you to play in a certain way, does not mean that everyone must actually do so.
True, but most people play a game with the goal of winning it.
Bullshit. They have an obligation to represent the interests of the shareholders. I am a shareholder in several companies, and I am interested in ethical behavior over profits.
And you speak for all the shareholders?
That aside, I don't even think it's a good strategy to maximize profits: it may work short term, but turning the patent cold war into a shooting war is going to hurt everyone in the arena long term, Apple included.
That's nice. But you're one guy, with a few extra dollars, saying it's a bad idea. There are tens of thousands of lawyers who say it's a good idea. There's hundreds of thousands of pages from various court decisions, legislative works, and contracts, that support that notion. There's millions of workers that go to work every day to make sure that notion keeps right on ticking. And there's hundreds of billions of dollars backing that notion.
While I admire your devotion to ideals, few will respect the choices of a man who stands outside while the hurricane makes landfall and shout "I forbid this!" It's folly to think everyone is like you -- most people are not so idealistic. Most people like money first, and ideals, perhaps, as long as they're fashionable.
Capturing defunct satellites is easy. Disassembling them, assembling them into a new configuration, validating the work, and then deploying it again is hard. Very hard.
Add all Apple devices to you own ban list today !
That solves nothing. Companies will continue to abuse intellectual property law and ideology to limit consumer choice. Every company has to -- that's how the game is played. Singling out Apple for being the most successful player doesn't change the fact that its the game that's fucking you, the consumer.
You can ban, cry, shout, scream, boycott -- but it's not the players that are the problem, it's the game. If you really want to make a difference, stop buying products designed or produced in the United States, and only buy from companies based in countries that do not buy into intellectual property (like China). It seems strange to advocate purchasing from a communist country with a long list of human rights issues and no labor rights to speak of -- but I'm of the opinion that supporting slave labor is superior to supporting intellectual property.
It's simple, really: We all learn by copying each other. This is neurological and hardwired. When you see someone performing an activity, you may be unaware of this but the same muscles they are using to do it will tense very slightly. These clusters of 'mirror' neurons, along with their connection to the limbic system, form the basis for learning. Intellectual property is a barrier interposed between ourselves and the environment which limits and manipulates that natural process so that industrialists can profit off of it.
It has to be stopped, or it'll stall out human progress for centuries to come -- our technological progress which up until now could be plotted exponentially upwards is rapidly flattening and we're going to have another Dark Ages on our hands if we don't stop this, and our children will live in some dystopic world where they are materially better off, but intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically enslaved. Our bodies will be comfortable, but our souls won't.
You got what you wanted thanks to an incompetent judge and a jury with conflicts of interest.
That is not Apple's fault.
You can't go about trying to use that as a cudgel to ban things that weren't even in the original case.
They can, they should, and they must. They have a legal obligation to maximize profits. They were just handed a victory, however ill-earned it may be, and now they have to press that advantage. If they don't, they can be sued by the shareholders, and the entire board of directors could be thrown out. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
It's funny how Jobs once said Apple has always been "shameless in stealing great ideas."
First, he's dead. Second, that quote is a mutilation of the actual one from a 1996 PBS documentary titled "Triumph of the Nerds", in which Steve paraphrased Picasso's statement "Good artists copy, great artists steal." And in design, nothing is new. Anyone can tell you that -- we all steal from each other. It's respectable to give credit, but you still imitate, you still steal, and that's true in any line of work. In fact, theft is a word that probably should never be applied to ideas -- it just legitimizes intellectual property as an ideology. All human progress is built upon the advances of others -- not taking advantage of that is not only stupid, but goes against basic human nature. Most of how we learn is from watching others and copying their behavior.
Yet when you think someone else has done the same thing to you (regardless of evidence or prior art), you clowns get your panties in a bunch and start stamping your feet, crying to the courts, and whining about "going thermonuclear" on Android.
That's how the game is played. Intellectual property is now enshrined in the legal process; They can't decide to sit out on it, they'd be steamrollered. They have to play, whether they want to or not. So save your vitrol for Apple and put it where it belongs: A massively corrupt government.
To close, Jobs was a great businessman. But he was also a COLOSSAL douchebag with no sense of perspective or grip on reality. I thought when he died that rational heads would prevail in Cupertino. Apparently I was wrong. This fucker's cult of personality is so strong that even now people worship him like he was some sort of deity.
He had an absolute perspective and grip on reality -- you can't be crazy and bring a company from the brink of financial ruin and technological obscurity to the largest company (by market capitalization) on the planet. He was also a great designer. And most great designers, engineers, etc., are assholes. Actually, for any sufficiently large group, the majority are assholes. I'd love to get into it with you why the Dark Triad of social traits shows up so often in our leaders, but it's beyond the scope of this ever-lengthening reply.
So yes, Apple. You can go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw, because you're pissing away whatever good-will you may have had left. One day, the drooling iZealots will wake up and get off of the trend-whore treadmill.
You are one of those "drooling iZealots", just as much as they are. Your Galaxy S3 has patented software and hardware in it, and Samsung and every parts manufacturer that contributed to its development, assembly, production, and distribution, also has them. And they all have a legal obligation to do so, and to get new ones, and to fight with each other. That's how the game is played.
You want to blame Apple for the failings of the judicial system, but that's pointless. If tomorrow Apple exploded in fire and doom and was no more, you'd cheer... and in a few years choose a new object of your hatred. You're part of the problem because you're attacking the players, not the game. The only winning move here is not to play.
I have to wonder though, what's wrong with good old fashioned radios.
They're fine for dispatching and communicating status amongst units. And that's all most emergency vehicles do. I can't see much use in setting up "ad hoc" networks to give emergency responders internet access; I can however see any number of uses for being able to gain control over the RF environment of a small geographical area... Anyone who has studied military tactics knows that gaining control over the environment is a major force multiplier.
I could see something more being needed for military / SWAT responses. Say you have a hostage situation and want to relay the thermal imaging of the building to headquarters or your other units in the field in preparation for an assault, or you want gun camera footage during the insertion. You need a lot of bandwidth to share that data, and the government's solution was to design satellite uplinks and encrypted mesh networking that doesn't rely on the environment to operate.
I could also see having RF equipment capable of cutting in on wifi or other civilian broadcast equipment as having a use in hostage situations; By using a highly directional antenna and a software definable radio, it might be possible to locate the cell phones of the hostages, cutting through any jamming that may be present, in order to communicate with them, activate cameras or microphones, etc.
But you're right; For most emergency responders, internet access isn't needed or warranted. Should that ever change, you want a network under your administrative control; not relying on routers that may or may not be present in theatre. In an emergency, anything that isn't highly reliable is worthless. The last thing I want to see is critical communications going out because someone picked a bad time to make ramen noodles next door!
Thanks for stepping up. It's rare to see that online. Unfortunately, condescending attitudes are a dime a dozen online. Things people would never say in person they do with gusto online, because they're small people in real life, and so they need to emotionally abuse strangers to feel better. Anyway, fair enough. I personally wish more IT professionals would do what I do. I have a homebrew install disc of winxp and win7 (all versions of each) that installs a slew of antivirus, antimalware, firewall, etc., on their systems. It installs a browser to a restricted account and uses the 'runas' functionality to call it so it can't see any of the user's actual files. I have scripts to harden the file permissions, install and configure tor, setup noscript and other goodies for Firefox, etc. All told, about 50 odd programs and patches get loaded.
Then I sit down and spend a few hours explaining to them how to use each item and why it's there. I let them make choices about whether or not to use auto-updating software, how to safely download and check files, etc. Now, most of them call me for weeks on end after because they forgot what I told them, or broke something because it wasn't configured in the expected way, but I'm okay with helping them -- remote desktop and VNC are my friends.
But then, most people on slashdot, as the internet at large, don't believe in social responsibility. They're happy to point at the victim and say "ha ha, sucks to be you."
I genuinely do not understand how people don't get this. You want to push against the big boys? Assume they have tools you've never even imagined. It's just like sterilization in medicine. You don't know what the patient has, so you treat everything they touch like it's covered in plague. Diligence, children, diligence is the key to anonymity.
You say that like it's easy for anyone to pick up the tools of the trade. It isn't. There's tor, proxies, networking protocols, you need to understand RF fields, propagation, you need to be able to do an inventory of every electronic item you possess, you need to understand the differences between PKI and symetric key encryption, and how, if, and whether encryption provides plausible deniability or not. You need to understand Tempest -- how devices can radiate RF (and thus, information) on an otherwise perfectly secured system. You also need to understand how malware operates, how to detect it... and not only do you need all this understanding and technical expertise, but the equipment required to create a sterile lab environment from which to test, assemble, and validate your builds.
Large corporations have problems getting this right because it's so complicated. Major world governments have screwed up. Actuall, all of them have. This is not just a simple matter of "spray and wipe down". Stop being so condescending, like it's just a simple matter. It's not -- not for you, not for them, not for anyone. And you can't go it alone. It's too complex for one person to navigate without making at least one mistake.
it's a pretty cool resource to check things before you say dumb things on the internet.
Well, aren't you a condescending fuck. and a +5 condescending fuck at that. The slashmods must have started drinking early this week to reward such pussant behavior. First, ultralights don't require avionics. That's what the article is asking for. That implies a real aircraft, not a Mighty Puff Jr. Second, I didn't get into the regulations because this is a casual web forum for IT nerds, who probably would not want me to regurgitate 150 pages of text just so I can prove they exist, and are complicated. It's the government. It's airplanes. It's fucking complicated, okay? If it wasn't, Anonymous Coward would have his flying car by now. But he doesn't. All he has is a condescending attitude.
It's actually pretty cool that it's still legal for people to be able to commit and risk their own lives in the pursuit of invention
Yes... and it's somewhat less cool when they're risking your life as their flying contraption crashes into your house at two in the morning while you're sleeping, or makes an emergency landing during rush hour.
Nothing you listed is a problem.
Um, yes, yes it is. You say it isn't a problem, then go on to confirm every single point I made...
As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world.
Citation needed. At least 95 to be exact, enough to cover half the countries you're claiming this for.
In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt.
Which still require certification, even if it is only a "technical counselor" of the Experimental Aircraft Association or a "Designated Airworthiness Representative". You cannot simply print a plane out, take it to an airstrip, and yell "Yippie kai-yay!" and bolt into the air. Even the guy who decided to strap a bunch of weather balloons to a lawn chair found out the FAA takes a rather dim view of people fucking off in controlled airspace without clearance and certification.
Only after the required testing period can you use the plane as normal, and you are free to use it the same as a Cessna except for commercial operations.
Er, with a cessna, if you have a license you can take on passengers. Not paying passengers, but you can have them. A license to fly your experimental plane does not cover that. You need to get the plane certified to take passengers up in it, and a kit plane will never get that certification. The FAA has even said as much.
Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places.
Yeah, and you keep it under 100 feet and only fly it in areas that operate under VFR instead of IFR. Most of these maker labs are in densely urban areas: In other words, IFR. You'll have to drive a hundred miles in any direction from where you built it before you can fly it. And did you read the article -- he's talking about a full avionics loadout. That implies something that runs on something a bit beefier than a lawn mower engine hung out the back and playing Ride of the Valkyries on your iPod.
Not necessarily in the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration "... does not certify, certificate, or approve aircraft kits. Also, the FAA does not approve kit manufacturers." Though I'm sure there are regulations for the person piloting the aircraft.
The FAA is in charge of certifying all planes for flight. Your own direct quote doesn't say they don't do the very thing their name implies they do, it says they won't do it for kit planes. No kit plane will ever be certified by the FAA. Now I haven't read the law too closely, and maybe you can get a license to fly a sports plane, or some kind of personal-use plane, but anything that carries passengers or cargo? Forget it.
Open source people don't like regulation, because it confines the creative process.
You're trolling pretty hard there. Many open source licenses depends on regulation. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright law. So no, regulation by itself doesn't confine the creative process; Bad regulation does.
Gravity is also inconvenient and confining. We need to rally the people to overturn this law.
They've been trying, but every time they drop an apple it lands on the ground instead of the ceiling. They've tried threatening the apple with a lawsuit, they've tried applying intellectual property laws saying things landing on the floor is prohibited by law, but the damn apple keeps landing on the ground. One person even tried firing it into orbit with a giant gun, but we're not sure if it worked -- he was later found covered in applesauce and shrapnel.
First: Awesome project. Don't let what I'm about to say slow you down if you're interested.
I see a few problems here -- first is that in order to actually fly the plane, it has to be certified by the FAA. A manufacturer can guarantee the process made to create the first plane off the assembly line will result in about the same quality and performance for the 1,000th plane to roll off the line. "Printing" a plane opens the door for a lot of variation, not just in terms of materials and workmanship, but also that there's no way to verify that there have been changes to the design. The whole point of 3D printing is to rapidly prototype and make quick and dirty modifications to designs prior to validation of the components in its finished state.
The other is that you still need an FAA license. That means training, and that training isn't cheap. There's also a whole bunch of medical requirements, not all of which are really fair. For example, did you know taking anti-depressants could disqualify you from flying a plane? I won't even get into the requirements if you've ever been convicted of a crime -- even a trivial one. So even if you have the tools to print yourself your very own plane, it doesn't change the cost by a whole lot. The training and certification requirements can in many cases surpass the cost of the plane itself.
And then there's the problem of being able to build an airplane without the authorities knowing; It's pretty easy to create an explosive device. If it's just as easy to print a delivery system (hello plane!), then you can just add some remote controls and a camera and build yourself a plane bomb. Yes, I know it would be cheaper to build a missile, and more practical, but the authorities (cough, american law enforcement, cough) will always assume the worst. In there eyes, everything is a weapon, or components to build a weapon, and will happily and with great gusto violate every one of their own laws to catch you, the bad guy with a 3D printer, because you possess the capability to create weapons. Nevermind that you don't actually have any, or the intent to do so, the mere possibility that you could if you wanted to seems to be enough these days to get you disappeared in many countries... especially mine.
With all these problems, don't you think you're being a bit naive to think that your open source aircraft will actually get off the ground (literally)?
"The bottle has been donated to a Shetland museum"
I think there might be a typo here.
America sets the example of how a human rights-violating Republic should act, and lately we've been setting a very bad example by Not respecting basic individual rights.
FTFY
Yes, but was he awarded the promised six pence?
When the original bottle and items inside are auctioned off, he'll make far more. Assuming he doesn't succumb to a case of stupidity and opens the bottle like the article suggests, in which case he deserves being whipped repeatedly by angry historians -- and the whip's price shall be six pence.
I will not connect industrial control systems to the internet.
...
I will not connect industrial control systems to the internet.
I will not connect industrial control systems to the internet.
Okay. Good. Now, onto the next set... I will not allow anyone to connect outside storage devices to any networked system.
...
I will not allow anyone to connect outside storage devices to any networked system.
I will not allow anyone to connect outside storage devices to any networked system.
Sigh. How effing hard is it to understand the concept of an "air gap"? Air -- something that doesn't conduct electricity or data. Gap -- a space between two other things. Jeez.
If I were the UK, I would not want to model anything after California.
Anything modeled after California is known to cause cancer in the State of California. But only slightly more seriously, there's a subtle distinction between comparing what happened in California with what happened to California. The company with the largest market capitalization of any on earth is located there. Ten years ago, The Company Which Must Not Be Named was barely a blip on anyone's radar. There are many success stories to come out of Silicon Valley, and understandably, many business-minded folks would like to replicate that success.
Unfortunately, they're suffering from a massive case of survivor bias. It's true that silicon valley has birthed some of the largest, most successful tech firms out there. It's also true that the valley is littered with the corpses of failure. During the dot com bust, companies were erecting fences to keep creditors from repossessing the cars out of company lots. Silicon Valley's success story should be likened to another California success story: The California gold rush. You can't discuss success without also discussing the odds of failure.
Can England gather together a bunch of self righteous, self absorbed a**holes that will hop from one company to another hoping to strike it obscenely rich?
Were you asleep in civics class when they discussed the British East India Company?
Perhaps Jon Daly was correct, someday there might be a vagina that doubles as a Wifi hotspot.
The only thing going in my vajayjay that runs on batteries comes with a happy at the end. I'm sure most women feel similar. Second, do you really want your dick in a microwave? What do you think rubbing your man-sausage on a transmitter pumping out several watts is going to your little swimmers?