but, they do not have to deal with the issue of net neutrality or caps
What makes you think, they will not? On the contrary, the speed-limits on the actual roads suggest the opposite — if their upstream is saturated, there will be caps.
Then, how long before someone proposes to install a network-wide filter to block "smut" on the public network? The board will vote for it unanimously — because who wants to be known as a "porn defender"?
Worse, various things — such as "excessive" bandwidth use or piracy — will, likely, "graduate" from being merely a Terms of Service violation to a Civil Infraction?
That a town can legally offer a commercial service of their own is bad enough. That a government is in a position to deny a business a right to operate there is an outrage.
And here we are, once again, reminded of the centuries-old wisdom: "That government is best which governs least." Ajit Pai et al did not rule on whether equal treatment of packets is a good or bad thing. They only decided, it is not up to them...
I just happen to side with the decision to implement NN rules
Still, you seem to agree, government should not have involved itself in it in the first place — or, at least, this follows from your skepticism over government officials' competence in such matters.
I seriously doubt anyone capable of landing a position in government has a clue about the internet or aspects of it that they currently enjoy
If I'm reading the above correctly, in your opinion, Barack Obama — and his FCC appointees — had no such clue either.
It then follows, that the "Net Neutrality" rules they instituted were created by clueless people — and undoing them is the right thing to do for that reason alone...
extending the power of existing government bodies in order to regulate AI issues, including use of facial recognition
Deity forbid, a private citizen will collect a database of strangers passing by his house, is that it? Horrors, if allowed at all, it must require a government-issued license and assault-type face-recognition must be banned by Federal Law!
That would be investors. Consumers are protected by laws and regulations. VCs are free for the fleecing.
AMZN more than quadrupled since 2013, when the promise discussed in TFA was made. Investors buying the stocks back then based on this promise have no grounds for complaining today. But I doubt, there were many such, because the stock at a peak at the end of 2013, when the announcement was made, and dived in the Q1 2014.
If the economy was doing that well, companies would be falling over themselves trying to retain workers by increasing compensation packages. That has not happened yet.
What in TFA has lead you to this conclusion, please?
My reading of it is not, that these people aren't paid well. It is that they want to be paid better — which is a normal and constant human condition...
In order to navigate my neighborhood, the drone would have to duck and weave like a drunken sailor - unless at street level.
The ducking and weaving would still be much easier to program into an autonomous flying machine, than programming pedestrian-avoidance and traffic-sign observance into a surface vehicle.
And yet, we have robo-taxis already — where regulations are "friendly" — but do not have drone-deliveries...
Even stipulating — without you citing any sources — that the "hype" really was about quadcopters in particular, the real issue is autonomous over the air delivery in general. That is, no one would've blamed Amazon for "violating its promise" — as TFA does — if, having promised to use quadcopters, they used quintocopters instead.
Any such devices — however many or few rotors they employ — are currently against federal regulations. That's the topic.
Cars and drones are very different things, with very different risks and benefits
Actually, no, they aren't very different — both are judged on the dangers of a) programming bugs; b) equipment failure — and any differences are in the drone's favor.
Drone operators are free to get special permits
"Free to get permit" is a self-contradictory construct in general. And even more so in particular, when — as has already been pointed out to you — the rejection-rate is 99%.
But, you've already admitted — perhaps, unwittingly — that the regulation is the barrier. You are just arguing, that it is a good barrier, which should continue to exist.
Helicopters can and do have blades much longer than the width of the fuselage. You could do delivery with helicopters.
I don't believe, the topic of this thread is heli- vs. quadcopters. I don't think, Amazon've ever specified, which they technology they'll use — and if they did, that's not the relevant part anyway.
The topic, is the government's ban on unmanned flying apparata in general — except within line of sight of the remote operator.
Driverless cars are irrelevant to the state of readiness of drones
Of course, they are relevant — if the question really is the technology's safety. They are inherently less safe than drones, but are allowed nonetheless.
They are. As I said already, FAA bans drone-operation outside of the operator's line of sight. One may ask for a waiver, but 99% of such requests are rejected.
When the technology is ready and benefit is clear
Driverless cars are both harder to program and inherently more dangerous, should the programming fail. Yet, robotic taxis are already in operation — in places, quoth the article: "chosen deliberately for its friendliness to driverless cars" — while the federally-regulated delivery drones remain firmly in the future.
Government is an impediment to progress, and this cases demonstrates it more clearly than most...
This kills off the most attractive use of drone — sending it out straight from the distribution center nearest to the customer. If a wheeled vehicle still needs to be used to get to where an Amazon employee can see the destination, that employee may as well walk up to it in the vast majority of cases.
Never mind that drone is a lot easier to program than a self-driving vehicle, never mind that it is a lot less dangerous should the programming fail — we may still get robo-taxis before we get the drone-deliveries. Because of the regulatory hurdles.
So Amazon's drones would have to fly at street level with the cars.
Why can't they fly above the trees — only descending to the street level when reaching the target address?
At that point, you might as well just have a delivery truck
A truck could be used the way air-carriers are used by the Navy — get to the general vicinity of the multiple delivery-destinations, park safely, and deploy drones for the "last mile" part. Multiple devices could be used, with the driver loading them up and replacing batteries as may be needed.
"Regulatory problems" is the key reason — current regulations prohibit operating drones outside of the operator's line of sight...
But you do! You believe, someone — a government agency or official — should be allowed to shut down any source of (what he considers to be) a lie.
That's a recipe — and a very quick recipe — to government corruption. Trump may accuse CNN of spreading "fake news", for example, but he can neither shut them up, nor imprison them over it. You'd like your government to be able to do that...
You'd best stay in America.
Oh, I certainly have no interest in shitholes, worry not.
The rest of the world would prefer America stayed out of their business.
The better parts of the rest of the world tend to share our attitudes towards freedom of speech. The shitholes that do not — remain shitholes forever...
but if they don't shut off the supply of poisonous water, they are to blame for that and the resulting deaths.
Lies are words — equating them with deeds is where your analogy went wrong.
America IS to blame for assuming the rest of the world has a "right to spread lies"
America believes — and has that belief codified as the very first item in its Bill of Rights — that everybody, wherever in the world they are, has a right to spread lies.
punishing [false - assumption by -mi] rumour mongers
Here in America we've agreed centuries ago, that allowing government to judge, what is and what is not true, is more dangerous than an occasional falsehood slipping through. See also Ministry of Truth — which is what you'd like established to go after these "rumour mongers".
So, someone requested, you remove a page — and you decide to comply. By replacing it with something like "Content removed by on date on request from such and such."
Requesting removals of evidence suddenly becomes less effective — an explicit record of removal may appear even more sinister, than whatever was there before...
Damian Collins, the chair of the culture, media and sport select committee, invoked a rare parliamentary mechanism to compel the founder of a US software company, Six4Three, to hand over the documents during a business trip to London.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really need evidence, that government-provided "services" cost too much and are of poor quality?
Let's start with public schools, for example. Per-pupil costs have quadrupled since the 1960ies (inflation-adjusted), while 2/3rds of 8th graders still aren't be considered proficient in reading .
I now expect you to apologize for the condescending tone and, as a penance, challenge dgatwood below for evidence of his claims...
What makes you think, they will not? On the contrary, the speed-limits on the actual roads suggest the opposite — if their upstream is saturated, there will be caps.
Then, how long before someone proposes to install a network-wide filter to block "smut" on the public network? The board will vote for it unanimously — because who wants to be known as a "porn defender"?
Worse, various things — such as "excessive" bandwidth use or piracy — will, likely, "graduate" from being merely a Terms of Service violation to a Civil Infraction?
That a town can legally offer a commercial service of their own is bad enough. That a government is in a position to deny a business a right to operate there is an outrage.
"Municipal" will be worse.
For the same reasons you don't want the town hall to run pizzeria.
And here we are, once again, reminded of the centuries-old wisdom: "That government is best which governs least." Ajit Pai et al did not rule on whether equal treatment of packets is a good or bad thing. They only decided, it is not up to them...
Still, you seem to agree, government should not have involved itself in it in the first place — or, at least, this follows from your skepticism over government officials' competence in such matters.
If I'm reading the above correctly, in your opinion, Barack Obama — and his FCC appointees — had no such clue either.
It then follows, that the "Net Neutrality" rules they instituted were created by clueless people — and undoing them is the right thing to do for that reason alone...
Although Communists and their sympathizers — and that's what "Liberal" means today — really are the enemy of humanity, it is not, what Trump claimed.
His actual claim was, Fake News media are the enemy of the people. And he was right — he usually is...
Deity forbid, a private citizen will collect a database of strangers passing by his house, is that it? Horrors, if allowed at all, it must require a government-issued license and assault-type face-recognition must be banned by Federal Law!
AMZN more than quadrupled since 2013, when the promise discussed in TFA was made. Investors buying the stocks back then based on this promise have no grounds for complaining today. But I doubt, there were many such, because the stock at a peak at the end of 2013, when the announcement was made, and dived in the Q1 2014.
That's an argument against existing lie-detectors as well.
What's particularly "dystopian" about this new device?..
What in TFA has lead you to this conclusion, please?
My reading of it is not, that these people aren't paid well. It is that they want to be paid better — which is a normal and constant human condition...
The ducking and weaving would still be much easier to program into an autonomous flying machine, than programming pedestrian-avoidance and traffic-sign observance into a surface vehicle.
And yet, we have robo-taxis already — where regulations are "friendly" — but do not have drone-deliveries...
Even stipulating — without you citing any sources — that the "hype" really was about quadcopters in particular, the real issue is autonomous over the air delivery in general. That is, no one would've blamed Amazon for "violating its promise" — as TFA does — if, having promised to use quadcopters, they used quintocopters instead.
Any such devices — however many or few rotors they employ — are currently against federal regulations. That's the topic.
Actually, no, they aren't very different — both are judged on the dangers of a) programming bugs; b) equipment failure — and any differences are in the drone's favor.
"Free to get permit" is a self-contradictory construct in general. And even more so in particular, when — as has already been pointed out to you — the rejection-rate is 99%.
But, you've already admitted — perhaps, unwittingly — that the regulation is the barrier. You are just arguing, that it is a good barrier, which should continue to exist.
I don't believe, the topic of this thread is heli- vs. quadcopters. I don't think, Amazon've ever specified, which they technology they'll use — and if they did, that's not the relevant part anyway.
The topic, is the government's ban on unmanned flying apparata in general — except within line of sight of the remote operator.
...
Of course, they are relevant — if the question really is the technology's safety. They are inherently less safe than drones, but are allowed nonetheless.
They are. As I said already, FAA bans drone-operation outside of the operator's line of sight. One may ask for a waiver, but 99% of such requests are rejected.
Driverless cars are both harder to program and inherently more dangerous, should the programming fail. Yet, robotic taxis are already in operation — in places, quoth the article: "chosen deliberately for its friendliness to driverless cars" — while the federally-regulated delivery drones remain firmly in the future.
Government is an impediment to progress, and this cases demonstrates it more clearly than most...
Some times I actually wish this were true. It is not. Current regulations prohibit drone-operations outside of the operator's line of sight.
FAA could give you a waiver, but have so far rejected 99% of such applications.
This kills off the most attractive use of drone — sending it out straight from the distribution center nearest to the customer. If a wheeled vehicle still needs to be used to get to where an Amazon employee can see the destination, that employee may as well walk up to it in the vast majority of cases.
Never mind that drone is a lot easier to program than a self-driving vehicle, never mind that it is a lot less dangerous should the programming fail — we may still get robo-taxis before we get the drone-deliveries. Because of the regulatory hurdles.
Why can't they fly above the trees — only descending to the street level when reaching the target address?
A truck could be used the way air-carriers are used by the Navy — get to the general vicinity of the multiple delivery-destinations, park safely, and deploy drones for the "last mile" part. Multiple devices could be used, with the driver loading them up and replacing batteries as may be needed.
"Regulatory problems" is the key reason — current regulations prohibit operating drones outside of the operator's line of sight...
But you do! You believe, someone — a government agency or official — should be allowed to shut down any source of (what he considers to be) a lie.
That's a recipe — and a very quick recipe — to government corruption. Trump may accuse CNN of spreading "fake news", for example, but he can neither shut them up, nor imprison them over it. You'd like your government to be able to do that...
Oh, I certainly have no interest in shitholes, worry not.
The better parts of the rest of the world tend to share our attitudes towards freedom of speech. The shitholes that do not — remain shitholes forever...
Lies are words — equating them with deeds is where your analogy went wrong.
America believes — and has that belief codified as the very first item in its Bill of Rights — that everybody, wherever in the world they are, has a right to spread lies.
Here in America we've agreed centuries ago, that allowing government to judge, what is and what is not true, is more dangerous than an occasional falsehood slipping through. See also Ministry of Truth — which is what you'd like established to go after these "rumour mongers".
So, someone requested, you remove a page — and you decide to comply. By replacing it with something like "Content removed by on date on request from such and such."
Requesting removals of evidence suddenly becomes less effective — an explicit record of removal may appear even more sinister, than whatever was there before...
Are you saying, the Legislature can issue its own Search Warrant? Could you elaborate, which Article of the Constitution gives them this power?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Suppose, a similar technology existed to remotely disable your gun. Suddenly, the same people denouncing such control over cars have second thoughts.
And then conclude, that, not only would they welcome such feature's availability, they'd like it to become mandatory!