In that the main difference with closed source is that open source shows it's dirty laundry. Why do you think a closed source solution would not have flaws of similar severity?
While that is true, in this case some restrictions should apply. My simple advice: 1. No drones on or within 100 m of airfields unless allowed by traffic control of that airfield. 2. No drones within 50 m of any manned aircraft. 3. Only drones that can prevent crossing those conditions by themselves can either fly outside of the field of view of the operator or without an operator.
Note: this is excluding 300 pages of encoding by lawyers.
This would not stifle innovation much. It would just push it towards drones with the capabilities of detecting those conditions. Capabilities they need to be able to fly without operator.
This can be accomplished by embedding the ad as an image in the website, writing the website in flash, product placement, etc.
Embedding the ads as an image: Problem fucking solved. Images aren't half as obtrusive as the script ads. Writing the website in Flash: They won't because that doesn't work for mobile users. Product placement: see image.
Any solution that is worse as what is no will be blocked. Any solution that is less bad is a partial solution.
The problem is that the balance is lost. One end is no ads and thus no income from websites. The other end is the current mess. The website operators need to go back to the middle so users will disable ABP. NoScript, ScriptDefender and all others. They need to regain the user's trust. That is a long way to go.
I agree with that. Birds are a problem, if only a minor one. There is no need to add drones to that. Shooting the drones out of the air seems like a reasonable solution.
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am pointing out where the logic of your position leads to.
No. You claim that I feel it should be so and everything is good and, by extension, that slavery was good. I don't feel that way. It does lead to "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want" but that doesn't mean that that is right. 10 minutes of medieval history tells you that that is exactly what happened in the past. For example Elizabeth Bathory: she liked to bathe in human blood. From the article: "her family's influence kept her from facing trial."
Please understand that natural rights are pointless if nobody protects them. Then we can talk.
That's nonsense. A right is not some object you have, it's something you are justified to do. At the very bare minimum, you are protecting your right - and if you aren't willing to protect it, you can't complain that someone else isn't protecting it.
If you protect it then someone is protecting it. You just can't practically protect your rights from everyone. We pay the government through taxes to protect our rights. We can complain they don't do an adequate job of it because we pay them to do, among other things, that. If someone is stabbing you in the heart what protection is shouting "it's my right not to be murdered"?
So let's clear this up if you wish to continue talking: Is the government the source of rights? Yes/No
No.
However that is academic. What is the practical difference between protecting a right for someone and being the source of that right? If you protect someones right you can simply remove that protection. If the other isn't capable of protecting that right, what use is that right? If someone is raping you what protection is "It's my right not to be raped"?
An uncomfortable truth is that we only recently have moved to a system of laws that prevents "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want". And it isn't doing a good job yet. The rich and famous get away with awful things. Another uncomfortable truth is that there isn't some magical protection on rights. Most likely there is no god, and if there is He isn't doing much on this front. We have to protect the weak ourselves. For that we use governments.
In the case that this becomes a real problem I hope that the airports are going to employ hunters that shoot the drones down. The cost would be limited, for the airport. The cost for the idiot who flew his drone there would be quite big.
What that engine is designed to do is already between a lithium fire and an explosion. Don't worry about the lithium. Having said that, anyone operating a drone on an airport (without authorisation from the tower) is an idiot and should, at the least, lose their drone. If it becomes a real problem I vote for a hunter that just shoots them down before they get anywhere dangerous.
As for bird strikes: Those do bring down the occasional aircraft. We can't do much about them. However, there is no need to actively add to that problem.
This is because their wavelength of 1064 nanometres means they are absorbed by the leaves and other organic matter such as oil, but not by metal, so energy from the lasers is reflected off the rails.
Assuming they are sane they will place a steel plate or similar in the path of the reflections. Perhaps even a box around the laser & part of the track to prevent those exact reflections.
I see no reason not to encase the whole setup in steel, with half a cm between the case and the rail. Then next to all reflections will stay within that casing.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that might makes things right. Fact is that people have been doing things that are wrong for as long as people exist.
You can't say it will not happen or did not happen - only that it should not - but why should it not happen if it's not wrong?
I can't say it will not happen because it has happened. Hitler, Stalin and slavery are prime examples of the fact that it has happened. That is a clear indicator that there is no magical protection on natural rights and that those rights need protecting. The best way we have now is protection from the government.
Please understand that natural rights are pointless if nobody protects them. Then we can talk.
I know sufficient about computers. You, however, fail at reading. I was saying that in day to day the difference isn't all that big. You confirmed it. You also missed that labels CAN be nested. Google's employees don't think that nesting is foolish (or maybe they don't think that anymore) because they have purposefully build it to work.
By the way: Copy to folder does exactly that. It copies the mail to the folder. Different beast for search engines. In Google you can search for multiple labels (IE "label:customers label:todo"). Can you search for mails that have copies in different folders?
At the company where I work they do that differently. All non-white listed HTTPS traffic is blocked. Banking sites are not on the white list. Nor, presumably, medical sites.
Slashdot Mirror
In that the main difference with closed source is that open source shows it's dirty laundry. Why do you think a closed source solution would not have flaws of similar severity?
Brownish white with some moisture stains in the corner over there.
While that is true, in this case some restrictions should apply.
My simple advice:
1. No drones on or within 100 m of airfields unless allowed by traffic control of that airfield.
2. No drones within 50 m of any manned aircraft.
3. Only drones that can prevent crossing those conditions by themselves can either fly outside of the field of view of the operator or without an operator.
Note: this is excluding 300 pages of encoding by lawyers.
This would not stifle innovation much. It would just push it towards drones with the capabilities of detecting those conditions. Capabilities they need to be able to fly without operator.
Well, just about anything could do that. Clapping my hands has an infinitesimally small chance of doing that.
This has a slightly larger chance.
It lines up perfectly:
Million = 1,000,000 = Mega
Milliard = 1,000,000,000 = Giga
Billion = 1,000,000,000,000 = Tera
Billiard = 1,000,000,000,000,000 = Peta
Trillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = Exa
Trilliard = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = Zetta
Quadrillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = Yotta
Quadrilliard = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Etc
We will not convince each other so I will drop it.
This can be accomplished by embedding the ad as an image in the website, writing the website in flash, product placement, etc.
Embedding the ads as an image: Problem fucking solved. Images aren't half as obtrusive as the script ads.
Writing the website in Flash: They won't because that doesn't work for mobile users.
Product placement: see image.
Any solution that is worse as what is no will be blocked. Any solution that is less bad is a partial solution.
The problem is that the balance is lost. One end is no ads and thus no income from websites. The other end is the current mess. The website operators need to go back to the middle so users will disable ABP. NoScript, ScriptDefender and all others.
They need to regain the user's trust. That is a long way to go.
No need to mourn them. They can get other jobs.
Hint: they do that with scripts. NoScript or it's cousins prevent that.
Not that it is perfect, but it is better than the headaches some sites create.
I agree with that.
Birds are a problem, if only a minor one. There is no need to add drones to that.
Shooting the drones out of the air seems like a reasonable solution.
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am pointing out where the logic of your position leads to.
No. You claim that I feel it should be so and everything is good and, by extension, that slavery was good.
I don't feel that way.
It does lead to "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want" but that doesn't mean that that is right. 10 minutes of medieval history tells you that that is exactly what happened in the past.
For example Elizabeth Bathory: she liked to bathe in human blood.
From the article: "her family's influence kept her from facing trial."
Please understand that natural rights are pointless if nobody protects them. Then we can talk.
That's nonsense. A right is not some object you have, it's something you are justified to do. At the very bare minimum, you are protecting your right - and if you aren't willing to protect it, you can't complain that someone else isn't protecting it.
If you protect it then someone is protecting it. You just can't practically protect your rights from everyone.
We pay the government through taxes to protect our rights. We can complain they don't do an adequate job of it because we pay them to do, among other things, that.
If someone is stabbing you in the heart what protection is shouting "it's my right not to be murdered"?
So let's clear this up if you wish to continue talking: Is the government the source of rights? Yes/No
No.
However that is academic.
What is the practical difference between protecting a right for someone and being the source of that right? If you protect someones right you can simply remove that protection. If the other isn't capable of protecting that right, what use is that right? If someone is raping you what protection is "It's my right not to be raped"?
An uncomfortable truth is that we only recently have moved to a system of laws that prevents "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want". And it isn't doing a good job yet. The rich and famous get away with awful things.
Another uncomfortable truth is that there isn't some magical protection on rights. Most likely there is no god, and if there is He isn't doing much on this front. We have to protect the weak ourselves. For that we use governments.
I have worked for temp agencies that were decent, as well as temp agencies that were not. You leave the second kind in hope to find the first kind.
A for mosquitoes: Most drink plant saps, not blood. Only the females of a percentage of the mosquitoes drink blood.
So your comparison was quite apt.
If the temp agency is decent then it is a dick move to use them for free advice and go to the employers directly.
In the case that this becomes a real problem I hope that the airports are going to employ hunters that shoot the drones down. The cost would be limited, for the airport. The cost for the idiot who flew his drone there would be quite big.
What that engine is designed to do is already between a lithium fire and an explosion. Don't worry about the lithium.
Having said that, anyone operating a drone on an airport (without authorisation from the tower) is an idiot and should, at the least, lose their drone.
If it becomes a real problem I vote for a hunter that just shoots them down before they get anywhere dangerous.
As for bird strikes: Those do bring down the occasional aircraft. We can't do much about them. However, there is no need to actively add to that problem.
Indeed, if you weigh it against the amount of passenger km/s in that same period.
From the article referenced in TFA:
This is because their wavelength of 1064 nanometres means they are absorbed by the leaves and other organic matter such as oil, but not by metal, so energy from the lasers is reflected off the rails.
Assuming they are sane they will place a steel plate or similar in the path of the reflections. Perhaps even a box around the laser & part of the track to prevent those exact reflections.
Maybe he is from Noord or Zuid Holland.
I see no reason not to encase the whole setup in steel, with half a cm between the case and the rail. Then next to all reflections will stay within that casing.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that might makes things right.
Fact is that people have been doing things that are wrong for as long as people exist.
You can't say it will not happen or did not happen - only that it should not - but why should it not happen if it's not wrong?
I can't say it will not happen because it has happened. Hitler, Stalin and slavery are prime examples of the fact that it has happened. That is a clear indicator that there is no magical protection on natural rights and that those rights need protecting. The best way we have now is protection from the government.
Please understand that natural rights are pointless if nobody protects them. Then we can talk.
I know sufficient about computers.
You, however, fail at reading. I was saying that in day to day the difference isn't all that big. You confirmed it.
You also missed that labels CAN be nested. Google's employees don't think that nesting is foolish (or maybe they don't think that anymore) because they have purposefully build it to work.
By the way:
Copy to folder does exactly that. It copies the mail to the folder. Different beast for search engines. In Google you can search for multiple labels (IE "label:customers label:todo"). Can you search for mails that have copies in different folders?
At the company where I work they do that differently. All non-white listed HTTPS traffic is blocked. Banking sites are not on the white list. Nor, presumably, medical sites.
But it is regulated. Just not in the way it should be.
Or, in the better case, they increase the warranty (and the price) and boast with the warranty.