Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?
I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.
Seriously?
You seriously think that it's unlikely for a drone to be able to take a decent quality photo from 200 feet away?
No, I can't even begin to put together a reply to this level of ignorance.
Copyright is needed to motivate people to create, cause it turns out that unless people think their hard work will be rewarded, they're unlikely to perform. Should be common sense, so enough said there.
Obviously there needs to be limits to this, which is where all the arguing comes in. The world has turned the 'reward for work' into it's own product, that can be bought and sold, and as such, there's lots of room for abuse.
If policy makers revised copyright law based on the people putting the effort in getting a fair reward, rather than looking at it as a commodity in and of itself, we might get something reasonable.
Um, no, the default is "Express Settings" which enables all that spyful telemetry by default. Most people are going to go with that. I turned it all off except for crash reporting.
I turned off crash reporting along with the rest of it. That's what the 'insiders' are for, I figure.
Ahh, I picked up a pair of rockports that are the most comfortable dress shoes I've ever had, weren't toooo expensive, and last forever. But they're not sneakers, and never will be.
Then again, I had a cold office for a while that I kept a pair of ugg boots in, and changed at work for the day, some days I'd wear sneakers into work, change in the elevator to dress shoes, and change 5 min later into ugg boots, and in reverse at the end of the day:)
But I'd rather just wear one comfortable pair of shoes all day long.
While cost is a factor, it isn't the only one. What about those of us who have a) a significant walking portion of our commute and/or b) women who are required to wear heels (while not often an outright requirement, a lot of pressure is often on women to wear them) and then you need to carry an extra pair of sneakers with you every day. One more thing to forget/remember/carry/juggle/distract from your day.
(And while I understand a lot of women who choose to wear high heels for dressing up will commonly carry sneakers/whatever with them by their own choice, I don't think going to work falls into the same arena, and should at least be your own choice)
I started working for the government about a year ago (Australia).
Previously I was a standard full stack contracting web developer, and while the allure of lower pay was dangled in front of me, it was the fixed work hours and no crunch that sold me, but I digress.
Before working here I was jeans and t-shirts 99% of the time, and business casual (that I upped to suit and tie) on occasional client interactions, where appropriate. No worries.
I was told (after starting, there's no official dress code) that my boss's boss wanted me to dress business casual, without any actual reason given.
Since then, I've purchased a dozen van heusen 'iron-free' business shirts, and a couple of pairs of chinos, which I cycle around, washing machine + clothes dryer + no iron.
So now I am constantly looking like a hobo. Wrinkled shirts and pants every day, cause I can't be arsed ironing.
Jeans and t-shirts don't hold wrinkles... and are much more comfortable, and save me from looking like a hobo, but at least my boss's boss is happy now.
p.s. Fridays we're allowed jeans (but still collared shirts) and Fridays are just as productive as any other day, just a hell of a lot more relaxed (in my experience, Fridays are usually less productive, all other things being equal)
tl;dr: It's weird how what you wear matters more to some bosses than your job performance.
"It's a bit of an assumption that it doesn't exist?"
In the absence of any evidence that it does exist the default presumption should be that it does not.
Well, when you're talking about intellectual property like that, I think there's quite a lot of stuff out there that you have no evidence of.... and if you're default presumption is that it doesn't exist, I feel kinda sorry for you and the road you're following through life, but to each their own, right? Good luck with that:)
p.s. just because evidence isn't provided (and not requested) doesn't mean there is no evidence, either.
"Q. There's no BNF available.
A. I'll publish it, it's just not on the website yet. We just went public, there's lots of work to still. Good suggestion!"
You do the BNF first dummy. You really should have just used Lisp if you want to create a domain specific language.
He said (if I may paraphrase): he will publish it, but hasn't yet, he's kinda busy.
It's a bit of an assumption that it doesn't exist?
The markets kill animals to extinction, not the poachers.
Yes, like gun makers kill people, not gunmen.
Disclosure, I stopped reading your post beyond the initial bit quoted above.
I think you should go and educate yourself a little bit, and think about what the gp said, and what it actually means.
Hopefully you will discover that:
a) If there were no gun makers, people would still kill people, arguably just as much.
b) If there was no market for endangered animal parts, poachers, conversely, would stop hunting endangered animals, (If you want to argue, probably not 100%, there's always a few nut cases out there, but arguably not to extinction)
If you read this, and realise your mistake, I'm happy to read an updated reply.
(Naturally, even if you don't read/think/self educate, you can still post an ignorant reply, and I'll probably read that too, but doubtful I'll expend any further time replying, but who knows?)
Stop making sense!
Next thing you'll be saying we should split poachers into 3 categories:
1)Those who knowingly kill endangered species for profit
2)Those who take someone else's animal property for profit
3)Those who support selves/families/communities on the local wildlife in a non-financial fashion
But then everyone could get justifiably upset with #1, lump #2 in with common criminals, and agree that #3 often should be acceptable.
That wouldn't make for a good/. discussion.
genocide
jensd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
I think he meant xenocide.
Personally (and I am pretty good with statistics) I think that outside of endangered species, the chance of a poacher achieving xenocide is going to be pretty damn rare, but feel free to point out any evidence of a xenocidal incidents by a majority of poachers, I mighta just missed it.
(And yes, poaching includes much more than endangered species)
...however i've noticed about 9 out of 10 posts this thread are super exaggerated or focused on a narrow segment of the worst/most altruistic poachers, depending on the argument that is trying to be made, and as such, they're kind of pointless arguments.
(Yeah, I'm in a pointless mood though, so still posting myself, trying to improve the balance of common sense)
Poaching is nothing more than firing a high powered rifle at a distance animal, waiting for it to die and then hacking off the parts that they want. Oh and a single rhino horn sells for $30,000 per pound.
You have the mental acuity of a child.
Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary.
Poaching is not identical to hunting.
The PETA-type crowd don't see the difference, as both poaching and hunting usually involve killing animals, and they don't want any animals to die, or whatever.
(I don't take PETA seriously enough to keep up with their current policies, I just like the commercials where hot chicks get naked, sue me, just being honest.)
Poaching is stealing. Weather you kill the animal or sell it or keep it as a pampered pet, it's been poached.
As for why people poach, there's many different reasons, some we think are more acceptable than others, for instance - natives to an area that have had an external society invade and take over their hunting grounds, claim them as their own and criminalise the poachers who are just continuing to do what they've always done - live of the resources of the land around them. Then, of course, there's the other end of the spectrum, for instance - Poachers who just want their Rhino horns. Not all poachers have the same motivations or uses of their stolen animals.
(Hopefully this reply displays mental acuity a step beyond the parent)
Their statistics are what we pay for the service instead of money.
It doesn't make them evil to offer useful tools in exchange for usage metrics, it just means we have more options.
But sure, if you don't want to pay in metrics, put some of your money on the table for a solution that fits you better
But expecting Google to modify their money-free service into a totally free service (free of data collection) would mean that it's no longer funded, and you know what happens to unfunded software/services? I'll let you figure that part out on your own.
If you think the esoteric procedures described by the GP are too difficult, then perhaps you're on the wrong forum.
And before you say "but the rest of the world..." stop. Aside for that most people wouldn't bother with that level of redundancy, short of the linux NAS (which you can buy in most large computer stores ready to go - plug and play, so to speak) even my grandmother could figure out how to import a pdf to word online, and store it to as many cloud storage accounts as are bothered to sign up for. This is 2015. That stuff was complex and involved and required a lot of tech-savvy in the 90's, when you had to string your solution together yourself with bash scripts and cronjobs, etc, but we're talking about polished consumer-grade software here that pretty much anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together can figure out how to use the basics of.
Hell I just want their sensors.
I've been in 4 accidents while driving in the last 20 years.
One was no fault; I got blamed
The other 3 were all other driver fault, and I got the short end of the stick for 2 of them.
This kind of video woulda saved me a lot of money and hassle.
The problem is that if the geographical limits are removed, then there's a global marketplace, which would mean the same price for all, and the majority of the world cannot afford the high prices, so it's sold discounted in many countries. This would allow everyone to get the cheapest price, and prevent the extra skimming from first world countries/wherever the cost of living is higher.
Of course, as it's all run by computer and thus costs essentially the same to produce and provide no matter where in the world you are (essentially, of course some infrastructure costs/rentals may vary, but I'm no expert in those factors), So they'll still make whatever profit, but not as much of it.
Besides, it feels right that those who have a higher cost of living (and usually commensurate wages) should pay more, however that doesn't mesh with a worldwide distributed network that doesn't care about cost of living, but purely about about relaying 0's and 1's.
Who wouldn't want to be able to carry around their own movie screen?
Hello ? Smartphone, tablet, laptop, portable DVD players,...
I don't like wearing glasses. But what I really don't like is wearing bulky glasses. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this sentiment.
History is full of people saying things will fail that are now commonplace. How many people said the iPod or iPad would be a flop? People said the same about the GUI, homeless carriage, and any number of things.
And the line of vaporware wraps a few times around the earth.
People don't like bulky glasses like they don't like bulky computers that take up a whole room, bulky mobile phones that take a car battery to run them, bulky laptops that... actually, they seem pretty good at taking these bulky devices people don't like and making them lighter. My new watch is half the bulk of my old one, and has a computer in it that does all sorts of wonderful stuff...
tl;dr version: Complaining that a new tech is 'bulky'? That's going to make the entire technology into vaporware?
Your reasoning might need to reevaluate what you can find out about previous technologies as wholes, and how they tend to progress.
If VR fails (doubtful, but possible), 'too bulky' is not going to be the reason why.
Yeah except chrome follows (and yeah, sets, but not on it's own) web standards, whereas the problem with (legacy) ie is all it's proprietary functionality, that microsoft wedged in to give web app developers more power, but never was or became a browser standard. Chrome has avoided even the possibility of this occurring from the get-go. FOSS for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?
I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.
Seriously?
You seriously think that it's unlikely for a drone to be able to take a decent quality photo from 200 feet away?
No, I can't even begin to put together a reply to this level of ignorance.
@mythbusters: this thread.
Copyright is needed to motivate people to create, cause it turns out that unless people think their hard work will be rewarded, they're unlikely to perform. Should be common sense, so enough said there.
Obviously there needs to be limits to this, which is where all the arguing comes in. The world has turned the 'reward for work' into it's own product, that can be bought and sold, and as such, there's lots of room for abuse.
If policy makers revised copyright law based on the people putting the effort in getting a fair reward, rather than looking at it as a commodity in and of itself, we might get something reasonable.
Um, no, the default is "Express Settings" which enables all that spyful telemetry by default. Most people are going to go with that. I turned it all off except for crash reporting.
I turned off crash reporting along with the rest of it. That's what the 'insiders' are for, I figure.
Ahh, I picked up a pair of rockports that are the most comfortable dress shoes I've ever had, weren't toooo expensive, and last forever. But they're not sneakers, and never will be. :)
Then again, I had a cold office for a while that I kept a pair of ugg boots in, and changed at work for the day, some days I'd wear sneakers into work, change in the elevator to dress shoes, and change 5 min later into ugg boots, and in reverse at the end of the day
But I'd rather just wear one comfortable pair of shoes all day long.
While cost is a factor, it isn't the only one. What about those of us who have a) a significant walking portion of our commute and/or b) women who are required to wear heels (while not often an outright requirement, a lot of pressure is often on women to wear them) and then you need to carry an extra pair of sneakers with you every day. One more thing to forget/remember/carry/juggle/distract from your day.
(And while I understand a lot of women who choose to wear high heels for dressing up will commonly carry sneakers/whatever with them by their own choice, I don't think going to work falls into the same arena, and should at least be your own choice)
I started working for the government about a year ago (Australia).
Previously I was a standard full stack contracting web developer, and while the allure of lower pay was dangled in front of me, it was the fixed work hours and no crunch that sold me, but I digress.
Before working here I was jeans and t-shirts 99% of the time, and business casual (that I upped to suit and tie) on occasional client interactions, where appropriate. No worries.
I was told (after starting, there's no official dress code) that my boss's boss wanted me to dress business casual, without any actual reason given.
Since then, I've purchased a dozen van heusen 'iron-free' business shirts, and a couple of pairs of chinos, which I cycle around, washing machine + clothes dryer + no iron.
So now I am constantly looking like a hobo. Wrinkled shirts and pants every day, cause I can't be arsed ironing.
Jeans and t-shirts don't hold wrinkles... and are much more comfortable, and save me from looking like a hobo, but at least my boss's boss is happy now.
p.s. Fridays we're allowed jeans (but still collared shirts) and Fridays are just as productive as any other day, just a hell of a lot more relaxed (in my experience, Fridays are usually less productive, all other things being equal)
tl;dr: It's weird how what you wear matters more to some bosses than your job performance.
Business casual doesn't even require suits. A shirt or even a polo shirt is fine. All it requires is basically that you don't look like a hobo.
Denim Jeans, a good t-shirt and nikes do not a hobo make.
p.s. Personally, I think polo shirts are gateway-hobo
In the absence of any evidence that it does exist the default presumption should be that it does not.
Well, when you're talking about intellectual property like that, I think there's quite a lot of stuff out there that you have no evidence of.... and if you're default presumption is that it doesn't exist, I feel kinda sorry for you and the road you're following through life, but to each their own, right? Good luck with that :)
p.s. just because evidence isn't provided (and not requested) doesn't mean there is no evidence, either.
You do the BNF first dummy. You really should have just used Lisp if you want to create a domain specific language.
He said (if I may paraphrase): he will publish it, but hasn't yet, he's kinda busy.
It's a bit of an assumption that it doesn't exist?
The markets kill animals to extinction, not the poachers.
Yes, like gun makers kill people, not gunmen.
Disclosure, I stopped reading your post beyond the initial bit quoted above.
I think you should go and educate yourself a little bit, and think about what the gp said, and what it actually means.
Hopefully you will discover that:
a) If there were no gun makers, people would still kill people, arguably just as much.
b) If there was no market for endangered animal parts, poachers, conversely, would stop hunting endangered animals, (If you want to argue, probably not 100%, there's always a few nut cases out there, but arguably not to extinction)
If you read this, and realise your mistake, I'm happy to read an updated reply.
(Naturally, even if you don't read/think/self educate, you can still post an ignorant reply, and I'll probably read that too, but doubtful I'll expend any further time replying, but who knows?)
Stop making sense!
/. discussion.
Next thing you'll be saying we should split poachers into 3 categories:
1)Those who knowingly kill endangered species for profit
2)Those who take someone else's animal property for profit
3)Those who support selves/families/communities on the local wildlife in a non-financial fashion
But then everyone could get justifiably upset with #1, lump #2 in with common criminals, and agree that #3 often should be acceptable.
That wouldn't make for a good
You'd be demented not to recognize the value of human life.
I value the recognisable dementedness of human life.
The term "genocide" only applies to people.
genocide jensd/ noun the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
I think he meant xenocide.
...however i've noticed about 9 out of 10 posts this thread are super exaggerated or focused on a narrow segment of the worst/most altruistic poachers, depending on the argument that is trying to be made, and as such, they're kind of pointless arguments.
Personally (and I am pretty good with statistics) I think that outside of endangered species, the chance of a poacher achieving xenocide is going to be pretty damn rare, but feel free to point out any evidence of a xenocidal incidents by a majority of poachers, I mighta just missed it.
(And yes, poaching includes much more than endangered species)
(Yeah, I'm in a pointless mood though, so still posting myself, trying to improve the balance of common sense)
Poaching is nothing more than firing a high powered rifle at a distance animal, waiting for it to die and then hacking off the parts that they want. Oh and a single rhino horn sells for $30,000 per pound.
You have the mental acuity of a child.
Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary.
Poaching is not identical to hunting.
The PETA-type crowd don't see the difference, as both poaching and hunting usually involve killing animals, and they don't want any animals to die, or whatever.
(I don't take PETA seriously enough to keep up with their current policies, I just like the commercials where hot chicks get naked, sue me, just being honest.)
Poaching is stealing. Weather you kill the animal or sell it or keep it as a pampered pet, it's been poached.
As for why people poach, there's many different reasons, some we think are more acceptable than others, for instance - natives to an area that have had an external society invade and take over their hunting grounds, claim them as their own and criminalise the poachers who are just continuing to do what they've always done - live of the resources of the land around them. Then, of course, there's the other end of the spectrum, for instance - Poachers who just want their Rhino horns. Not all poachers have the same motivations or uses of their stolen animals.
(Hopefully this reply displays mental acuity a step beyond the parent)
Their statistics are what we pay for the service instead of money.
It doesn't make them evil to offer useful tools in exchange for usage metrics, it just means we have more options.
But sure, if you don't want to pay in metrics, put some of your money on the table for a solution that fits you better
But expecting Google to modify their money-free service into a totally free service (free of data collection) would mean that it's no longer funded, and you know what happens to unfunded software/services? I'll let you figure that part out on your own.
If you think the esoteric procedures described by the GP are too difficult, then perhaps you're on the wrong forum.
And before you say "but the rest of the world..." stop. Aside for that most people wouldn't bother with that level of redundancy, short of the linux NAS (which you can buy in most large computer stores ready to go - plug and play, so to speak) even my grandmother could figure out how to import a pdf to word online, and store it to as many cloud storage accounts as are bothered to sign up for. This is 2015. That stuff was complex and involved and required a lot of tech-savvy in the 90's, when you had to string your solution together yourself with bash scripts and cronjobs, etc, but we're talking about polished consumer-grade software here that pretty much anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together can figure out how to use the basics of.
Hell I just want their sensors.
I've been in 4 accidents while driving in the last 20 years.
One was no fault; I got blamed
The other 3 were all other driver fault, and I got the short end of the stick for 2 of them.
This kind of video woulda saved me a lot of money and hassle.
Welcome to the internets.
Sorry, moderated you overrated instead of underrated :/
fixed.
The problem is that if the geographical limits are removed, then there's a global marketplace, which would mean the same price for all, and the majority of the world cannot afford the high prices, so it's sold discounted in many countries. This would allow everyone to get the cheapest price, and prevent the extra skimming from first world countries/wherever the cost of living is higher.
Of course, as it's all run by computer and thus costs essentially the same to produce and provide no matter where in the world you are (essentially, of course some infrastructure costs/rentals may vary, but I'm no expert in those factors), So they'll still make whatever profit, but not as much of it.
Besides, it feels right that those who have a higher cost of living (and usually commensurate wages) should pay more, however that doesn't mesh with a worldwide distributed network that doesn't care about cost of living, but purely about about relaying 0's and 1's.
Hello ? Smartphone, tablet, laptop, portable DVD players, ...
I don't like wearing glasses. But what I really don't like is wearing bulky glasses. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this sentiment.
And the line of vaporware wraps a few times around the earth.
People don't like bulky glasses like they don't like bulky computers that take up a whole room, bulky mobile phones that take a car battery to run them, bulky laptops that... actually, they seem pretty good at taking these bulky devices people don't like and making them lighter. My new watch is half the bulk of my old one, and has a computer in it that does all sorts of wonderful stuff...
tl;dr version: Complaining that a new tech is 'bulky'? That's going to make the entire technology into vaporware?
Your reasoning might need to reevaluate what you can find out about previous technologies as wholes, and how they tend to progress.
If VR fails (doubtful, but possible), 'too bulky' is not going to be the reason why.
Yeah except chrome follows (and yeah, sets, but not on it's own) web standards, whereas the problem with (legacy) ie is all it's proprietary functionality, that microsoft wedged in to give web app developers more power, but never was or became a browser standard. Chrome has avoided even the possibility of this occurring from the get-go. FOSS for a reason.
i.e. when searching for code-related stuff, use code.google.com
This is my favourite post this thread. I award you 1 internet.
(outta mod points atm)