In fact I do. I farm roughly 3000 acres. We religiously stick to a 4 year rotation. Spring wheat, Canola, Winter Wheat, Legume. Any tighter of a rotation leads to massive disease problems (which, by the way, have nothing to do with GMO crops). My rotations are limited by several factors: soil type, total heat units, availability of water, labor, and most importantly, machinery investment. There are some crops I simply cannot grow because they would lead to massive soil erosion either in spring before the crop overs the ground and in the winter when only residue is left. Other crops I can't grow because they are too labor intensive for my operation. I currently don't have any row-crop equipment, so that precludes beats, potatoes,corn, etc. But my current equipment allows just a small number of people to effectively manage the crops I do grow.
In days of old, in my area, rotation really wasn't possible at all because it was too dry to grow anything but wheat and rye. Now with high-efficiency irrigation, everything from corn, potatoes beans, peas, wheat, canola, onions, dill, mint, and many other crops are grown. On a large scale, there is now more diversity in crops in my area than there ever was. However, these crops are grown in large fields (no smaller than 130 acres), so that leads to local monoculture, and also a difficulty in controlling weeds.
I do happily grow roundup-ready canola, and sometimes soybeans. I have relatively few qualms (except those I list below) with growing roundup-resistant broad-leafed crops. However roundup-ready wheats or grasses would be a very bad thing. The reason is that broadleaf weeds are easy to control with standard, relatively benign chemicals even if they are resistant to round-up, whereas grassy weeds not so much, especially wild oats. Likewise, I strongly oppose the current research into 24D-resistant soybeans because such plants, when volunteer weeds, would be much more difficult to control.
There was a Red Nose comedy special where Rowan Atkinson played the doctor. He and his girl decide they're going to stop adventuring, settle down, and get married. A series of events with the master and the daleks causes his rapid regeneration (several other famous actors including Richard E Grant and Hugh Grant. Finally he regenerates into a woman, played by Joanna Lumley. His companion realizes the doctor is now a women, and says, "Sorry Doctor, you're not the man I fell in love with." The doctor finally runs off with the Master.
Classic lines, including, "Look Emma, I've got a pair of etheric beam detectors!"
I should think it is obvious. You're getting more dpi so that letters and graphics will be crisp and clear. The difference is clear if you place an el cheapo android phone next to a nice high res amoled phone.
That's simply not true. No one was ever sued because it was merely contamination. In the original case, the farmer discovered volunteers from a previous crop growing, and knowingly cultivated them and multiplied seed from these volunteers knowing they had the gene in them and then planted a crop from that. Even if you feel the patents should be bogus, the farmer knowing profited from unlicensed use of the patents. Besides the IP issues, there was also the issue of breach of contract. The contract with Monsanto stated very clearly that the farmer could not keep back any of the crop for the purpose of planting for seed, or selling for seed. I the court case, the farmer claimed as his defense that he never did any deliberate infringing. But the court found that the farmer was acting deliberately.
Now, had the farmer simply let the volunteers grow and harvest them along with the rest of his canola on his farm and sold it into the food market, there'd have been no court case. I hope you can see the distinction here. One action is not only illegal but dishonest (due to the contract). The other action is not.
The most recent case of RR soybeans, too, involved deliberate infringing.
Wow. No wonder the US has so many problems if a lot of people think the way you do. Perhaps you should go back and revisit the concepts such as Locke's social contract. Concepts that inspired the founding fathers in the making of this republic.
My google calenders are all still working with Thunderbird. I went to the parent link and at the bottom of that blog post, they have an update where they reversed their decision to end CalDAV support. They say: "Update March 15, 2013: We worked with the developers who provide 98 percent of our current CalDAV traffic to assure access to the CalDAV API, which means many popular products will not be impacted. We remain committed to supporting open protocols like CalDAV."
So I guess making a stink really can make Google change their minds.
To each his own. To me the infinality patches make the fonts look bad at small point sizes. The shapes get distorted. On my system I set the fonts to use the default FreeType subpixel anti-aliasing, and turn hinting completely off. This makes the fonts a bit blurrier at small resolutions, but the shape is so much better. I used to dislike the OS X way of doing fonts without any hinting, but now I quite like it. It's soft, easy on the eyes, still readable, and true to the font designer's design for shape at nearly any point size. I don't use any non-latin font, so I don't see the issues others have seen where the hinting code in a font is abused to display asian letters.
There are numerous towns that google map shows (dots anyway) that don't exist in my area. Oddly enough they have wikipedia entries even. But I have no idea how to tell google this town doesn't really exist. Maybe it was on some old government record from a hundred years ago. No idea how to tell Google and Bing about this. But at least I can try to get it corrected in OpenStreetMap.
Sure but which toolkit do you stick in the IDE's designer? Even on Windows there are half a dozen UI apis people use. Even Microsoft uses a different one for each Office release, it seems.
KDevelop is a C and C++ IDE, not an MFC IDE, or a WinForms IDE. Or even a Qt IDE. In the olden days it used to have a GUI designer built into it, but that was removed some time ago, because Qt Designer (now Qt Creator) provided a much better GUI design tool that could be used in conjunction with KDevelop.
With most people going towards imperative GUIs (Qt Quick is a good example), it makes more sense to leave the UI designer as its own app. Code generation isn't done anymore, really, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to integrate it into the code IDE in the manner you suggest.
As far as well-integrated open-source IDEs go, Qt Creator is actually a lot of what you seem to be looking for an in an open source VS replacement.
Even something that ought to be as simple such as installing CyanogenMod on my i9000m phone is buried in pages and pages of forum posts, some dating back a long time. It's virtually impossible to track down the latest information. Sometimes people update the beginning post with the latest information and links, many times not. And installing from random file sharing sources? What a great way to get malware on my phone.
As the other poster put it, they do seem to want to keep this phone hacking stuff a fairly exclusive little club. It really doesn't make the phone hacking scene attractive to legitimate developers and Linux enthusiasts.
Been away from Slashdot for a while? Wayland has Benn in the Linux news a fair bit recently. And Jolla has been mentioned quite a few times.
But if you really don't want to read the article then I can fill you in. Wayland is the planet where the emperor hid his cloning cylinders and other artifacts he accumulated during his reign.
Sorry but you're full of it. Hate to break it to you but that's how all UI libraries work by definition! On Windows there is no standard widget set that everyone uses, an no agreement on how a widget should behave. Every framework has their own. MFC, WinForms, whatever MS Office uses, Wordperfect, etc. They all have their own ideas of what a widget looks like and does. MS Office has traditionally shipped it's own widget set with every release. Buttons, scroll bars, dialog boxes, the works. All of these uis use the Windows Theming API to give them common bitmaps to draw, and Qt is no different. Thus a Qt app absolutely looks and acts as good as any other widget toolkit on Windows.
On Mac also, Qt uses the Cocoa native apis to draw widgets, and then tries very hard to follow Mac standards to make them act natural, and to a very large extent they succeed. True on Mac people's idea of fidelity is at a very high standard, or so I've been led to believe.
Maybe your experiences have solely been on Mac where the fidelity wasn't as good in the past. I can tell your experiences with Qt were not on Windows, though.
On linux, of course, well Qt does its own thing, unless you have it use Gtk themes, where it does a very good job of looking and acting like my other Gtk apps.
In short you are definitely wrong about Qt. If you're right about Qt, then Winforms, MFC, MS Office are all just as unacceptable as Qt, as far as look and feel goes. There is no other way to do cross-platform ui toolkits. Don't even mention wxWidgets, because wxWidgets just thunks through to yet another toolkit, though it's provided by Microsoft on Windows so you would probably argue it is the one true widget set, even though precious few applications use it these days.
I think what the poster was referring to is that client-side rendering is now the norm. This has brought us nice fonts and compositing, among other things. So yes, most X11 apps are just sending bitmaps to the server. No longer are modern X-based applications asking the server to render text and buttons and shapes for it. Yes this does decrease remote performance. And modern toolkits like GTK do require a lot of server round trips, which makes things hard to deal with over a high-latency link.
I remember running Xemacs over a modem and it ran great remotely, since it was mostly just asking the server to draw in its behalf. Worked very well, but compared to modern apps, was very ugly.
X11 remoting is much more powerful than many people imagine. Like you say, it allows remote applications to display their icons in the local system tray. It also allows remote connections to communicate with locally-running apps. For example (and sometimes this behavior is not what I want!), running firefox on a remote machine will first check to see if there's an existing firefox instance on the X server running, and communicate with it to open the url. So on the remote machine I can click on a link that opens in a browser and have my locally-running browser pick that up.
Just recently I was testing out Fedora 18's version of Mate on a virtual machine. But I never bother with running the X on a virtual machine--that's just silly with X remoting--I just ssh in. I fired up mate-panel and it came up and displayed on my local machine over my own panel and loaded its own system tray and populated all the local apps icons right into its system tray. Pretty cool!
Finally, though it's less useful now with composited desktops, X11 does let you have a window manager running remotely.
X11 remoting does have many problems. First, round-trips make the latency prohibitive on a connection other than a LAN, especially for modern apps made using, say, GTK. NX tries to address this particular issue. Finally sound and local disk access to remote, and printing are not addressed at all. RDP does have a capability to do all that.
If Wayland's RDP can do many of these things (especially per-app remoting), then I do think it will finally possibly be an X11 replacement.
What an idea! Of course I have already done that and didn't find anything. The search function didn't return anything, and I wasn't going to go through 37 pages manually. So I gave up. You talk as if you have some knowledge that I don't; perhaps you could enlighten me.
One of the things in Gnome 2 that I rely on every day is the fact that in the pager applet, I can see the outlines of the windows on that desktop, and if the app is big enough, it's icon. This is invaluable feedback to me. I can tell at a glance where things are if I should forget. I typically never alter my desktops use, but it's nice to be able to see this. Cinnamon fails completely in this regard. It's pager is nothing but a dark square to identify which desktop I'm on. It gives no feed back other than this and may as well be just a number, which the screen shot of the new classic mode appears to do.
If either Gnome classic or Cinnamon could do this one small thing, I'm ready to switch. Until then, It's still Mate for me. That and I really like the way I have compiz set up with Mate.
Why would you want to do that? No it's not a trivial matter of porting. FreeDOS is an OS for a specific piece of hardware (real-mode x86). Even if it could be done why would you want to? DosBox and this emulator serve and entirely different purpose: to run older DOS apps (games) on modern computers regardless of the platform and OS.
Dosbox, an emulation of both the 16-bit x86 chip and DOS, has been around for years and is aimed at running old games. Dosbox has been ported to just about everything under the sun in recent years including my phone.
How does this emulator differ from dosbox? Is it faster, better graphics or fidelity? One nice thing is that it appears to be able to run any version of DOS you want, whereas Dosbox has its own DOS-compatible OS built in. Can you run FreeDOS on it?
I live in Canada now and have a visa card with the chip in it. While it's convenient, I question whether it is safer. I recently read that Visa will not allow you to dispute any transaction that was completed using the credit card's pin number. The logic being that since it's so secure, if the pin was actually used, it must have been you that did it. They are in a complete state of denial as to the fact that it is possible to clone a chipped card.
Think again. These craft are being used more and more professionally. And since there's a huge demand for aerial shots at low altitude, there's a huge market for these smaller devices. Even full-scale aerial photography is under some threat. Why hire a full scale heli to make a pass at 400 ft over a campus to do a shot when a couple of multi-rotor RC craft can do the same job, without requiring special permits, and do it faster, cheaper, and safer.
The advantages over a conventional RC heli are numerous for the purpose for which they are being used. They include first and fore most, cost. Multi rotor craft are way cheaper than an equivalent heli. That's because the parts are common, off-the-shelf components that are well-understood and very reliable. Multi-rotor craft are way simpler to build, operate, and maintain as well. No precision-machined swash plate mechanism is needed. A bad landing results in maybe a motor replacement or just a prop replacement. If a heli tips over, that can damage the blades, break or bend the swash plate mechanism.
Also multi-rotor craft are extremely easy to fly, thanks to the fly-by-wire. This makes this technology extremely attractive to the kinds of things the Golf Channel needs them for: slow-speed, close-quarters aerial photography. Think boom camera, but with way more flexibility. I could easily see movie studios (or at least TV studios) adopting these craft to do many of the shots that in the past an expensive rail or boom system would be needed. Lastly, flying an RC heli in such a way as to get useful photography out of it is very hard. RC Helis are very hard to fly. Even full scale require skill beyond your normal airplane pilot. The multi-rotor copters can be flown be virtually anyone with little experience. This is due to the amazing amount of work that has gone into autopilot systems. The computer makes the whole craft fly like a stable rock. Altitude and position-hold functions will keep the craft stationary while the camera is free to pivot around and film, all while the craft is being buffeted by winds. Sure you can do autopilot stuff on a heli, but it's fast and easy with a multi-copter.
It's kind of like Beta vs VHS. When it comes to this space (low-level aerial photography and filming), I think faster, cheaper, simpler is going to win out over aerodynamically superior.
For those that haven't been following the tremendous rapid development of multi-rotor craft lately, and the stabilizing techniques that go along with it, here's a video showing the latest generation of actively stabilized camera mounts. It's incredible, really. And much of it is developed in an open source fashion.
It was only a matter of time before, much to the horror of the industry, hobby stuff starts to supplant the full-scale traditional photography of years past.
Well, yes X11 does work very well for many of us. I agree with the GP's sentiment. Being able to remote individual applications (a rendering mode without 3d-acceleration) is definitely a must if you want to replace X11. There are many of us who use Linux professionally that use X11-over-ssh to run applications every single day. I don't care so much about the X protocol as I do being able to remote the apps. Remoting an entire desktop isn't that useful to me.
I still can't remote individual apps on Windows without resorting to hacks with rdp, or buying into Citrix. That seems so strange in a networked world where people remote apps all the time in their browsers, in a manner of speaking.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact I do. I farm roughly 3000 acres. We religiously stick to a 4 year rotation. Spring wheat, Canola, Winter Wheat, Legume. Any tighter of a rotation leads to massive disease problems (which, by the way, have nothing to do with GMO crops). My rotations are limited by several factors: soil type, total heat units, availability of water, labor, and most importantly, machinery investment. There are some crops I simply cannot grow because they would lead to massive soil erosion either in spring before the crop overs the ground and in the winter when only residue is left. Other crops I can't grow because they are too labor intensive for my operation. I currently don't have any row-crop equipment, so that precludes beats, potatoes,corn, etc. But my current equipment allows just a small number of people to effectively manage the crops I do grow.
In days of old, in my area, rotation really wasn't possible at all because it was too dry to grow anything but wheat and rye. Now with high-efficiency irrigation, everything from corn, potatoes beans, peas, wheat, canola, onions, dill, mint, and many other crops are grown. On a large scale, there is now more diversity in crops in my area than there ever was. However, these crops are grown in large fields (no smaller than 130 acres), so that leads to local monoculture, and also a difficulty in controlling weeds.
I do happily grow roundup-ready canola, and sometimes soybeans. I have relatively few qualms (except those I list below) with growing roundup-resistant broad-leafed crops. However roundup-ready wheats or grasses would be a very bad thing. The reason is that broadleaf weeds are easy to control with standard, relatively benign chemicals even if they are resistant to round-up, whereas grassy weeds not so much, especially wild oats. Likewise, I strongly oppose the current research into 24D-resistant soybeans because such plants, when volunteer weeds, would be much more difficult to control.
There was a Red Nose comedy special where Rowan Atkinson played the doctor. He and his girl decide they're going to stop adventuring, settle down, and get married. A series of events with the master and the daleks causes his rapid regeneration (several other famous actors including Richard E Grant and Hugh Grant. Finally he regenerates into a woman, played by Joanna Lumley. His companion realizes the doctor is now a women, and says, "Sorry Doctor, you're not the man I fell in love with." The doctor finally runs off with the Master.
Classic lines, including, "Look Emma, I've got a pair of etheric beam detectors!"
I should think it is obvious. You're getting more dpi so that letters and graphics will be crisp and clear. The difference is clear if you place an el cheapo android phone next to a nice high res amoled phone.
That's simply not true. No one was ever sued because it was merely contamination. In the original case, the farmer discovered volunteers from a previous crop growing, and knowingly cultivated them and multiplied seed from these volunteers knowing they had the gene in them and then planted a crop from that. Even if you feel the patents should be bogus, the farmer knowing profited from unlicensed use of the patents. Besides the IP issues, there was also the issue of breach of contract. The contract with Monsanto stated very clearly that the farmer could not keep back any of the crop for the purpose of planting for seed, or selling for seed. I the court case, the farmer claimed as his defense that he never did any deliberate infringing. But the court found that the farmer was acting deliberately.
Now, had the farmer simply let the volunteers grow and harvest them along with the rest of his canola on his farm and sold it into the food market, there'd have been no court case. I hope you can see the distinction here. One action is not only illegal but dishonest (due to the contract). The other action is not.
The most recent case of RR soybeans, too, involved deliberate infringing.
Wow. No wonder the US has so many problems if a lot of people think the way you do. Perhaps you should go back and revisit the concepts such as Locke's social contract. Concepts that inspired the founding fathers in the making of this republic.
My google calenders are all still working with Thunderbird. I went to the parent link and at the bottom of that blog post, they have an update where they reversed their decision to end CalDAV support. They say: "Update March 15, 2013: We worked with the developers who provide 98 percent of our current CalDAV traffic to assure access to the CalDAV API, which means many popular products will not be impacted. We remain committed to supporting open protocols like CalDAV."
So I guess making a stink really can make Google change their minds.
To each his own. To me the infinality patches make the fonts look bad at small point sizes. The shapes get distorted. On my system I set the fonts to use the default FreeType subpixel anti-aliasing, and turn hinting completely off. This makes the fonts a bit blurrier at small resolutions, but the shape is so much better. I used to dislike the OS X way of doing fonts without any hinting, but now I quite like it. It's soft, easy on the eyes, still readable, and true to the font designer's design for shape at nearly any point size. I don't use any non-latin font, so I don't see the issues others have seen where the hinting code in a font is abused to display asian letters.
Yeah I've put in a few corrections for roads in my area on openstreetmap. And they've not been overruled by anyone so far!
There are numerous towns that google map shows (dots anyway) that don't exist in my area. Oddly enough they have wikipedia entries even. But I have no idea how to tell google this town doesn't really exist. Maybe it was on some old government record from a hundred years ago. No idea how to tell Google and Bing about this. But at least I can try to get it corrected in OpenStreetMap.
Was this by international treaty? As they say, "I don't remember voting for you."
Doh. Make that "declarative" GUI design, not imperative which is the old-fashioned way of doing it with code generation.
Sure but which toolkit do you stick in the IDE's designer? Even on Windows there are half a dozen UI apis people use. Even Microsoft uses a different one for each Office release, it seems.
KDevelop is a C and C++ IDE, not an MFC IDE, or a WinForms IDE. Or even a Qt IDE. In the olden days it used to have a GUI designer built into it, but that was removed some time ago, because Qt Designer (now Qt Creator) provided a much better GUI design tool that could be used in conjunction with KDevelop.
With most people going towards imperative GUIs (Qt Quick is a good example), it makes more sense to leave the UI designer as its own app. Code generation isn't done anymore, really, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to integrate it into the code IDE in the manner you suggest.
As far as well-integrated open-source IDEs go, Qt Creator is actually a lot of what you seem to be looking for an in an open source VS replacement.
Even something that ought to be as simple such as installing CyanogenMod on my i9000m phone is buried in pages and pages of forum posts, some dating back a long time. It's virtually impossible to track down the latest information. Sometimes people update the beginning post with the latest information and links, many times not. And installing from random file sharing sources? What a great way to get malware on my phone.
As the other poster put it, they do seem to want to keep this phone hacking stuff a fairly exclusive little club. It really doesn't make the phone hacking scene attractive to legitimate developers and Linux enthusiasts.
Been away from Slashdot for a while? Wayland has Benn in the Linux news a fair bit recently. And Jolla has been mentioned quite a few times.
But if you really don't want to read the article then I can fill you in. Wayland is the planet where the emperor hid his cloning cylinders and other artifacts he accumulated during his reign.
Sorry but you're full of it. Hate to break it to you but that's how all UI libraries work by definition! On Windows there is no standard widget set that everyone uses, an no agreement on how a widget should behave. Every framework has their own. MFC, WinForms, whatever MS Office uses, Wordperfect, etc. They all have their own ideas of what a widget looks like and does. MS Office has traditionally shipped it's own widget set with every release. Buttons, scroll bars, dialog boxes, the works. All of these uis use the Windows Theming API to give them common bitmaps to draw, and Qt is no different. Thus a Qt app absolutely looks and acts as good as any other widget toolkit on Windows.
On Mac also, Qt uses the Cocoa native apis to draw widgets, and then tries very hard to follow Mac standards to make them act natural, and to a very large extent they succeed. True on Mac people's idea of fidelity is at a very high standard, or so I've been led to believe.
Maybe your experiences have solely been on Mac where the fidelity wasn't as good in the past. I can tell your experiences with Qt were not on Windows, though.
On linux, of course, well Qt does its own thing, unless you have it use Gtk themes, where it does a very good job of looking and acting like my other Gtk apps.
In short you are definitely wrong about Qt. If you're right about Qt, then Winforms, MFC, MS Office are all just as unacceptable as Qt, as far as look and feel goes. There is no other way to do cross-platform ui toolkits. Don't even mention wxWidgets, because wxWidgets just thunks through to yet another toolkit, though it's provided by Microsoft on Windows so you would probably argue it is the one true widget set, even though precious few applications use it these days.
I think what the poster was referring to is that client-side rendering is now the norm. This has brought us nice fonts and compositing, among other things. So yes, most X11 apps are just sending bitmaps to the server. No longer are modern X-based applications asking the server to render text and buttons and shapes for it. Yes this does decrease remote performance. And modern toolkits like GTK do require a lot of server round trips, which makes things hard to deal with over a high-latency link.
I remember running Xemacs over a modem and it ran great remotely, since it was mostly just asking the server to draw in its behalf. Worked very well, but compared to modern apps, was very ugly.
I too eagerly await details.
X11 remoting is much more powerful than many people imagine. Like you say, it allows remote applications to display their icons in the local system tray. It also allows remote connections to communicate with locally-running apps. For example (and sometimes this behavior is not what I want!), running firefox on a remote machine will first check to see if there's an existing firefox instance on the X server running, and communicate with it to open the url. So on the remote machine I can click on a link that opens in a browser and have my locally-running browser pick that up.
Just recently I was testing out Fedora 18's version of Mate on a virtual machine. But I never bother with running the X on a virtual machine--that's just silly with X remoting--I just ssh in. I fired up mate-panel and it came up and displayed on my local machine over my own panel and loaded its own system tray and populated all the local apps icons right into its system tray. Pretty cool!
Finally, though it's less useful now with composited desktops, X11 does let you have a window manager running remotely.
X11 remoting does have many problems. First, round-trips make the latency prohibitive on a connection other than a LAN, especially for modern apps made using, say, GTK. NX tries to address this particular issue. Finally sound and local disk access to remote, and printing are not addressed at all. RDP does have a capability to do all that.
If Wayland's RDP can do many of these things (especially per-app remoting), then I do think it will finally possibly be an X11 replacement.
What an idea! Of course I have already done that and didn't find anything. The search function didn't return anything, and I wasn't going to go through 37 pages manually. So I gave up. You talk as if you have some knowledge that I don't; perhaps you could enlighten me.
One of the things in Gnome 2 that I rely on every day is the fact that in the pager applet, I can see the outlines of the windows on that desktop, and if the app is big enough, it's icon. This is invaluable feedback to me. I can tell at a glance where things are if I should forget. I typically never alter my desktops use, but it's nice to be able to see this. Cinnamon fails completely in this regard. It's pager is nothing but a dark square to identify which desktop I'm on. It gives no feed back other than this and may as well be just a number, which the screen shot of the new classic mode appears to do.
If either Gnome classic or Cinnamon could do this one small thing, I'm ready to switch. Until then, It's still Mate for me. That and I really like the way I have compiz set up with Mate.
Why would you want to do that? No it's not a trivial matter of porting. FreeDOS is an OS for a specific piece of hardware (real-mode x86). Even if it could be done why would you want to? DosBox and this emulator serve and entirely different purpose: to run older DOS apps (games) on modern computers regardless of the platform and OS.
Dosbox, an emulation of both the 16-bit x86 chip and DOS, has been around for years and is aimed at running old games. Dosbox has been ported to just about everything under the sun in recent years including my phone.
How does this emulator differ from dosbox? Is it faster, better graphics or fidelity? One nice thing is that it appears to be able to run any version of DOS you want, whereas Dosbox has its own DOS-compatible OS built in. Can you run FreeDOS on it?
I live in Canada now and have a visa card with the chip in it. While it's convenient, I question whether it is safer. I recently read that Visa will not allow you to dispute any transaction that was completed using the credit card's pin number. The logic being that since it's so secure, if the pin was actually used, it must have been you that did it. They are in a complete state of denial as to the fact that it is possible to clone a chipped card.
Think again. These craft are being used more and more professionally. And since there's a huge demand for aerial shots at low altitude, there's a huge market for these smaller devices. Even full-scale aerial photography is under some threat. Why hire a full scale heli to make a pass at 400 ft over a campus to do a shot when a couple of multi-rotor RC craft can do the same job, without requiring special permits, and do it faster, cheaper, and safer.
The advantages over a conventional RC heli are numerous for the purpose for which they are being used. They include first and fore most, cost. Multi rotor craft are way cheaper than an equivalent heli. That's because the parts are common, off-the-shelf components that are well-understood and very reliable. Multi-rotor craft are way simpler to build, operate, and maintain as well. No precision-machined swash plate mechanism is needed. A bad landing results in maybe a motor replacement or just a prop replacement. If a heli tips over, that can damage the blades, break or bend the swash plate mechanism.
Also multi-rotor craft are extremely easy to fly, thanks to the fly-by-wire. This makes this technology extremely attractive to the kinds of things the Golf Channel needs them for: slow-speed, close-quarters aerial photography. Think boom camera, but with way more flexibility. I could easily see movie studios (or at least TV studios) adopting these craft to do many of the shots that in the past an expensive rail or boom system would be needed. Lastly, flying an RC heli in such a way as to get useful photography out of it is very hard. RC Helis are very hard to fly. Even full scale require skill beyond your normal airplane pilot. The multi-rotor copters can be flown be virtually anyone with little experience. This is due to the amazing amount of work that has gone into autopilot systems. The computer makes the whole craft fly like a stable rock. Altitude and position-hold functions will keep the craft stationary while the camera is free to pivot around and film, all while the craft is being buffeted by winds. Sure you can do autopilot stuff on a heli, but it's fast and easy with a multi-copter.
It's kind of like Beta vs VHS. When it comes to this space (low-level aerial photography and filming), I think faster, cheaper, simpler is going to win out over aerodynamically superior.
For those that haven't been following the tremendous rapid development of multi-rotor craft lately, and the stabilizing techniques that go along with it, here's a video showing the latest generation of actively stabilized camera mounts. It's incredible, really. And much of it is developed in an open source fashion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daC4T_Qlpk
It was only a matter of time before, much to the horror of the industry, hobby stuff starts to supplant the full-scale traditional photography of years past.
Well, yes X11 does work very well for many of us. I agree with the GP's sentiment. Being able to remote individual applications (a rendering mode without 3d-acceleration) is definitely a must if you want to replace X11. There are many of us who use Linux professionally that use X11-over-ssh to run applications every single day. I don't care so much about the X protocol as I do being able to remote the apps. Remoting an entire desktop isn't that useful to me.
I still can't remote individual apps on Windows without resorting to hacks with rdp, or buying into Citrix. That seems so strange in a networked world where people remote apps all the time in their browsers, in a manner of speaking.