Of course bad decisions that degrade the performance of the group are failures of the leader.
absolutely wrong. failure of leadership is failing to achieve or failing to hold on to the position of leadership
if the entire society goes to shit, but you retain leadership, you're a successful leader
Just like a chemist who accomplishes nothing but retaining his job is not a successful chemist.
no. a chemist who makes a discovery is a successful chemist. whether or not his lab is clean has no bearing on his status as such. to say he has dirty beakers does not mean he has failed at chemistry. just like you saying a leader failed to do {X} or {Y}, which has no bearing on him actually obtaining or retaining leadership, somehow magically has any meaning. it doesn't. you're just projecting your agenda onto an outside domain, and expecting that to matter for some reason, when your agenda really has no meaning as to whether or not a leader succeeds or fails
again, you are applying judgments on parameters that have nothing to do with the actual success or failure of the job
yes, while the guy who does good on his SAT is usually also socially intelligent as well, as you say, my point is that the guy who does poorly on his SAT but is socially intelligent, will be more successful in life, and is more intelligent according to the most important measure, than the guy who has stellar SAT scores but can't persuade or impress for shit
there are people who think, for example, an amazing ability to manipulate complex topological shapes in your head means you're somehow a more intelligent person or will be a more successful person than a guy who can't do much math at all, but is charismatic
having social intelligence is not a magic cloak of perfection, it is merely the most important kind of intelligence in terms of all the types of intelligence in regards to your success or not
and then you go off on a tangent about leadership. off topic, but i'll follow regardless:
you've given me examples of leaders making stupid decisions according to your judgment outside of the domain of leadership. so what. they're still the leader. that's the point. the skill of obtaining and retaining leadership has nothing to do with listening to engineers or academics. it's about being the person making the decision
The more successful leader types know their own limitations and use expert advisors - and listens to them.
nope. you're imposing an outside judgment of quality that has no meaning to the domain of what leadership is and how it works
whatever decision they make on other aspects of society because they have power: correct, mediocre, or absolutely destructive, doesn't even matter. if they can sway enough idiots with enough passion to retain power, that's all that matters. mao's great leap forward was beyond stupid, it was a tragedy of the death of millions. so what? he was still the dude in charge. making a decision that would cost him his leadership would be the real failure of leadership
that's the definition of success according to the parameters of being a leader: obtaining it, retaining it. that's it. that's the only yardstick to measure quality
actually advancing society, humanity, technology, science: who fucking cares? you are imposing an outside judgment of success that actually has no value in terms of success in that actual domain
whatever the academics in the ivory tower see or think or perceive, their opinion: who gives a fuck. does it mean i get more power? no? whatever
if you're a chemist, and you discover an amazing new catalyst, you're successful according to that domain: chemistry. but according to the guy who cleans your equipment, you're a dismal failure because you keep a messy lab. is his judgment of your success or lack thereof somehow magically more important than what you've achieved in the domain of chemistry?
likewise your judgment of what success is in leadership: an outside measure according to parameters that have no impact on obtaining and retaining leadership, is without merit
address the fundamentals of the domain to make a judgment call on success or failure in that domain
SAT and IQ tests certain domains that are predictive of intelligence and achievement but don't gauge the most important intelligence for life: social intelligence
much as you can have as autistic savant/ asperger's individual who can play 12 games of chess in his head but doesn't know the difference between the price of a candy bar and a car, the rest of us also have small mental domains where we are geniuses, but in other domains we are idiots. all of us. for those who attach much value to topological manipulation or word memorization, tested intelligences, real life will come as a shock when someone else who isn't "smart," according to traditional testing methods, achieves highly and surpasses the "smart" individuals, because they are able to perceive, communicate, and manipulate in the social sphere of life at a more advanced level
social intelligence is the real iq, the real true intelligence, and the most crucial and vital mental skill you can have in your life. the rest are pathetic sideshows. there are math professors who can't balance their checkbooks. see the problem?
btw, i scored near perfect on my SAT and very highly on my IQ tests. i attach no self-worth to either. they are cute little games, sandboxed kiddie stuff, not my sense of meaning in life. anyone who attaches meaning to their SAT scores or IQ tests is, in all serious, an idiot
I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.
- Response upon being questioned as to his IQ, in interview with Deborah Solomon "The Science of Second-Guessing", The New York Times (12 December 2004).
yes, agreed. the idea of keeping anything larger than an atom entangled for anything longer than a second over any distance over an inch seems like a colossal almost impossible task with today's technology
i was only doing a thought experiment
in the realm of way out there then: i wonder if you could entangle a number of "copies" of yourself: dozens, hundreds, millions
you just sort of disperse throughout the universe (not interacting with anything, i know, basically impossible by today's standards)
but in an instant, if you, or someone outside, decides one "copy" of you should be the one that coheres at a given place: boom, you're there
just an interesting thought with interesting ramifications- you (or someone else) doesn't have to decide out of dozens or maybe thousands of destinations... until the very last moment. that's a pretty exotic form of "travel"
if they desalinate ocean water for drinking purposes, the question is what to do with all that salt
answer: process it and take out all of the economically important trace elements, not just lithium
The total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes, where the element exists at a relatively constant concentration of 0.14 to 0.25 parts per million (ppm),[40][41] or 25 micromolar;[42] higher concentrations approaching 7 ppm are found near hydrothermal vents.[41]
sure, this would put lithium at a high price point, but not that high if the desalination and concentration process is mostly solar powered and on a massive scale for drinking water purposes
but if there were some way to make sure the two "copies" do not interact with anything. i didn't say that was remotely possible today, or perhaps ever. just a way out there thought experiment
i get it: they are guaranteed the same white noise, which is fine for encryption purposes (and know if someone snooped, because that would render their white noise dissimilar)
but there is no preserving the integrity of a particle/ wave for transportation purposes
we have no technology remotely capable of this, but:
1. a quantum entangled version of yourself moves away from you (at "normal" speed, less than c)
2. say... many light years away (i know, i said we have no technology remotely capable of this, bear with me here, just a thought experiment)
3. the "copy" of you can't violate c, but at the last moment, one version of you interacts with its surroundings, collapsing you to that single copy. such that you have achieved instantaneous transportation across light years of distances
i do not know many things about many topics. all of us are ignorant of many things
but i know enough about racism to understand that racists are not intelligent people. i am absolutely certain of that
oh i am certain you can find some mathematician who can do complex topological analysis in his head who is a fervent racist. there's also mathematicians who can't balance their checkbooks or know how to talk to girls. much like autism, extreme intelligence in a small domain does not often extend to basic social intelligence. on a site like slashdot, i am certain there are minds brilliant in small esoteric areas that are social morons, aspergers syndrome types
but anyone of average social development and of ordinary iq can easily spot the logical fallacies with racist "thinking"
and so you must be socially retarded to be a racist. i am certain of that to an absolute degree
there are certain beliefs, like creationism, antivaccine, racism, that to believe in those things *requires* you to be mentally deficient and socially stunted
if you are racist, you are a low intelligence individual. truth
to believe in racism is to be a stupid person because to believe in it requires falling for a logical fallacy
if you don't understand that you are indeed a stupid person. objectively true. to hold a belief that requires low iq is to be a stupid person. objectively determined truth of low intelligence
i don't really give a shit what you think of me. because i am 100% correct here. racists are stupid people. you have to be a genuinely dumb, low iq, moron to believe the borken "if... then..." bullshit reasoning behind racist beliefs
I can't have a serious discussion with you if you believe racist things. No one intellectually honest and capable can have a serious discussion with a racist, because it is only possible to believe in racist things if you are of low intellect. Objectively true. To correlate skin color and intellect is gross prejudice composed of logical fallacies. It is ironic too (you need to be low iq to commit to the fallacies and believe this arbitrary link between skin color and intellect).
I can't have a serious discussion with a creationist or an antivaxxer or a ufo cultist either. Because to firmly believe these things is only possible if you are a person with a serious defect in intellect. I'm being 100% serious and sincere. You are a stupid person. Objectively true based on you having a racist belief. You are not worth the time of anyone serious, and you will never find the "fair" airing of your thoughts that you seek because everyone intelligent has discarded your entire domain. No one intellectually honest is interested in indulging and entertaining an idiot's idea. And that is exactly what racism is: the "thoughts" of the dumb people.
And if you want to improve the gene pool: don't have children. Again, I am completely sincere. You are a dumb person. To have a racist belief is only possible if you are.
You disrespect people based on the color of their skin. Therefore you deserve no respect. You withhold respect for ignorant reasons. You see a skin color, and make a baseless judgment on intellect and character from that. Which, ironically, is proof you are unintelligent and of low character. Because to believe racist thoughts is only possible if you lack cognitive capacity in certain areas of reasoning and social intelligence, and if you have bad intent on society and individuals in general.
You're a disrespectful asshole, so you get nothing but insults and disrespect in return. You get what you give you ignorant douchebag.
Want to improve the gene pool? Don't have children. I mean that sincerely. The quality of your words here belies low intellect and low character on your part, objectively speaking.
let us say, just for the sake of argument (i don't really believe your ignorance), that skin color and race are correlated somehow
it's a bell curve. you understand that, right?
so, for example, we have on one end one of the most cerebral presidents we've maybe ever had, at least since wilson: barack obama. obviously more intelligent than the vast majority of white people, as well as black people. more intelligent than people of all races, period
what is the value, exactly, of saying that because his skin is brown, that we have to ascribe some sort of negative modifier on how we perceive his intelligence, just because a bunch of other people who are brown are supposedly less intelligent on average?
intelligence is an INDIVIDUAL value. it does no good to class all people according to an arbitrary signifier. if you were interviewing a bunch of people for computer programmer, and disregarded the ones with brown skin because they were "less intelligent," you might have hired a dumb white person and disregarded the black genius. it does no good to you, nevermind black people, to use this shallow useless prejudice, because it doesn't actually help you. an INDIVIDUAL assessment is what matters
for example: most african americans have scottish, irish, english, etc. blood in them, because a lot of their forebearers were raped. therefore, a lot of white people were doing a lot of raping. therefore, according to racist "thinking," we should assume all white people are rapists, because we can prove they rape a lot ( i don't believe this, i'm just demonstrating your ignorance to you)
i'm not really sure this argument is worth having with you though, because i doubt you have enough intellectual capacity to appreciate the argument, since it requires a low iq to believe in racism. by believing in racism, and all of the logical fallacies that come with it, you have objectively proven to me that you are a stupid person. i don't respect you
what i find interesting is that people who ascribe moronic connections: skin color and intelligence, for example, are, by definition of making that ignorant connection and taking it seriously, stupid people. you have to be low iq to be racist. so when they prescribe exclusionary social engineering to "fix" society of the problem of undesireables, they should take their own medicine and not breed, thereby vastly increasing the iq of the population. that's some good eugenics to improvie the "race"
besides, most african americans aren't really african: too many of them were raped. analyze any of their genetics and chances are you find german, irish, english, etc heritage
so, by the "logic" of how racists think, the real race problem is that all europeans are rapists. i don't believe that. i'm just demonstrating how fucking ignorant and low iq racist "thinking" is
what's crazier than lame algorithms is trolls and racists having so much time and energy to devote to mental vomit generation
when attempting to understand something pathetic and useless, do not think "it has to be a machine," you give humanity too much credit. never underestimate how much of a depraved loser someone can become
words drift in meaning all the time. nobody owns a language. what a word means is pretty much what people use it for. that's the only rule
as RC aircraft, especially quadcopters, have exploded in popularity, the term drone has come into common use to refer to this burgeoning sector
therefore, drone is a perfectly acceptable term now for this new generation of RC aircraft definition. no other authority needed, because there is no authority at all
neither you nor anyone else can say otherwise
people "misuse" the term hacker too. and certain mentally fragile and rigid, socially maladaptive folk get really upset about the semantic change for some reason. it's alternatively confusing and funny, that people get so upset at the simple and common notion that words change in meaning
don't be bad at adapting to change in your world. the word's new meaning continues on without you, your protestations mean nothing and simply marginalize you
show me where and when rights granted to religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities is as good or was better in as large an area for as large a time, in any previous time period or location
it never was. not even remotely close
oh yes, there were fleeting utopian fragile experiments in tiny areas, or fragile decrees by enlightened rulers that the status quo thugs quickly erased
but what we have now is a large amount of dominant powers in the world and large areas of the world granting a robust spectrum of rights, and have been doing so for some time now, extending them every year
the rights we grant people today was never extended to so many, over as wide an area, for as great a time. never. not even remotely as close and not even remotely as robust as the rights we have now
not that our rights aren't threatened today. our rights are always threatened and always will be. rights require maintenance. we don't live in a utopia, and we can certainly do better
but we are definitely doing better than any other time period in any other location, by a long shot
learn your history, don't subscribe to ignorant mythologizing
Slashdot Mirror
absolutely wrong. failure of leadership is failing to achieve or failing to hold on to the position of leadership
if the entire society goes to shit, but you retain leadership, you're a successful leader
no. a chemist who makes a discovery is a successful chemist. whether or not his lab is clean has no bearing on his status as such. to say he has dirty beakers does not mean he has failed at chemistry. just like you saying a leader failed to do {X} or {Y}, which has no bearing on him actually obtaining or retaining leadership, somehow magically has any meaning. it doesn't. you're just projecting your agenda onto an outside domain, and expecting that to matter for some reason, when your agenda really has no meaning as to whether or not a leader succeeds or fails
again, you are applying judgments on parameters that have nothing to do with the actual success or failure of the job
yes, while the guy who does good on his SAT is usually also socially intelligent as well, as you say, my point is that the guy who does poorly on his SAT but is socially intelligent, will be more successful in life, and is more intelligent according to the most important measure, than the guy who has stellar SAT scores but can't persuade or impress for shit
there are people who think, for example, an amazing ability to manipulate complex topological shapes in your head means you're somehow a more intelligent person or will be a more successful person than a guy who can't do much math at all, but is charismatic
that's my point here
having social intelligence is not a magic cloak of perfection, it is merely the most important kind of intelligence in terms of all the types of intelligence in regards to your success or not
and then you go off on a tangent about leadership. off topic, but i'll follow regardless:
you've given me examples of leaders making stupid decisions according to your judgment outside of the domain of leadership. so what. they're still the leader. that's the point. the skill of obtaining and retaining leadership has nothing to do with listening to engineers or academics. it's about being the person making the decision
nope. you're imposing an outside judgment of quality that has no meaning to the domain of what leadership is and how it works
whatever decision they make on other aspects of society because they have power: correct, mediocre, or absolutely destructive, doesn't even matter. if they can sway enough idiots with enough passion to retain power, that's all that matters. mao's great leap forward was beyond stupid, it was a tragedy of the death of millions. so what? he was still the dude in charge. making a decision that would cost him his leadership would be the real failure of leadership
that's the definition of success according to the parameters of being a leader: obtaining it, retaining it. that's it. that's the only yardstick to measure quality
actually advancing society, humanity, technology, science: who fucking cares? you are imposing an outside judgment of success that actually has no value in terms of success in that actual domain
whatever the academics in the ivory tower see or think or perceive, their opinion: who gives a fuck. does it mean i get more power? no? whatever
if you're a chemist, and you discover an amazing new catalyst, you're successful according to that domain: chemistry. but according to the guy who cleans your equipment, you're a dismal failure because you keep a messy lab. is his judgment of your success or lack thereof somehow magically more important than what you've achieved in the domain of chemistry?
likewise your judgment of what success is in leadership: an outside measure according to parameters that have no impact on obtaining and retaining leadership, is without merit
address the fundamentals of the domain to make a judgment call on success or failure in that domain
SAT and IQ tests certain domains that are predictive of intelligence and achievement but don't gauge the most important intelligence for life: social intelligence
much as you can have as autistic savant/ asperger's individual who can play 12 games of chess in his head but doesn't know the difference between the price of a candy bar and a car, the rest of us also have small mental domains where we are geniuses, but in other domains we are idiots. all of us. for those who attach much value to topological manipulation or word memorization, tested intelligences, real life will come as a shock when someone else who isn't "smart," according to traditional testing methods, achieves highly and surpasses the "smart" individuals, because they are able to perceive, communicate, and manipulate in the social sphere of life at a more advanced level
social intelligence is the real iq, the real true intelligence, and the most crucial and vital mental skill you can have in your life. the rest are pathetic sideshows. there are math professors who can't balance their checkbooks. see the problem?
btw, i scored near perfect on my SAT and very highly on my IQ tests. i attach no self-worth to either. they are cute little games, sandboxed kiddie stuff, not my sense of meaning in life. anyone who attaches meaning to their SAT scores or IQ tests is, in all serious, an idiot
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/S...
i get it
so "he went to alpha centauri"/ "he didn't leave at all" isn't known until you interact
there's no guaranteeing you go anywhere
schrodinger's rocket ship
yes, agreed. the idea of keeping anything larger than an atom entangled for anything longer than a second over any distance over an inch seems like a colossal almost impossible task with today's technology
i was only doing a thought experiment
in the realm of way out there then: i wonder if you could entangle a number of "copies" of yourself: dozens, hundreds, millions
you just sort of disperse throughout the universe (not interacting with anything, i know, basically impossible by today's standards)
but in an instant, if you, or someone outside, decides one "copy" of you should be the one that coheres at a given place: boom, you're there
just an interesting thought with interesting ramifications- you (or someone else) doesn't have to decide out of dozens or maybe thousands of destinations... until the very last moment. that's a pretty exotic form of "travel"
it's called desalination and it's a common mundane technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
"boiling the oceans" makes me think you have no fucking clue about the kind of scale we're talking about here
if every nation exerted every single drop of it's GDP building desalination plants, we wouldn't make the tiniest of dents in the oceans genius
exactly
or fire risk
dc is less safe for both shock and fire
if they desalinate ocean water for drinking purposes, the question is what to do with all that salt
answer: process it and take out all of the economically important trace elements, not just lithium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
sure, this would put lithium at a high price point, but not that high if the desalination and concentration process is mostly solar powered and on a massive scale for drinking water purposes
i understand that
but if there were some way to make sure the two "copies" do not interact with anything. i didn't say that was remotely possible today, or perhaps ever. just a way out there thought experiment
i get it: they are guaranteed the same white noise, which is fine for encryption purposes (and know if someone snooped, because that would render their white noise dissimilar)
but there is no preserving the integrity of a particle/ wave for transportation purposes
thank you, i learned something
isn't quantum entanglement a burgeoning field in quantum cryptography?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...
quantum key distribution would not be researched if what you say is true
yes, only a collapse to a single frame of reference according to physics
but, for the intents and purposes of outside human observers, haven't you instantly blinked across light years?
it's a legalistic, semantic cheat, but... it "works"?
that's an excellent analogy, thank you
and you are correct, there's no real movement, only a collapse to a single frame of reference
however, for the intents and purposes of outside human observers, haven't you instantly blinked across light years?
we have no technology remotely capable of this, but:
1. a quantum entangled version of yourself moves away from you (at "normal" speed, less than c)
2. say... many light years away (i know, i said we have no technology remotely capable of this, bear with me here, just a thought experiment)
3. the "copy" of you can't violate c, but at the last moment, one version of you interacts with its surroundings, collapsing you to that single copy. such that you have achieved instantaneous transportation across light years of distances
doesn't that happen faster than c?
on the issue of racism, no
i do not know many things about many topics. all of us are ignorant of many things
but i know enough about racism to understand that racists are not intelligent people. i am absolutely certain of that
oh i am certain you can find some mathematician who can do complex topological analysis in his head who is a fervent racist. there's also mathematicians who can't balance their checkbooks or know how to talk to girls. much like autism, extreme intelligence in a small domain does not often extend to basic social intelligence. on a site like slashdot, i am certain there are minds brilliant in small esoteric areas that are social morons, aspergers syndrome types
but anyone of average social development and of ordinary iq can easily spot the logical fallacies with racist "thinking"
and so you must be socially retarded to be a racist. i am certain of that to an absolute degree
there are certain beliefs, like creationism, antivaccine, racism, that to believe in those things *requires* you to be mentally deficient and socially stunted
if you are racist, you are a low intelligence individual. truth
we're dealing with racists here
to believe in racism is to be a stupid person because to believe in it requires falling for a logical fallacy
if you don't understand that you are indeed a stupid person. objectively true. to hold a belief that requires low iq is to be a stupid person. objectively determined truth of low intelligence
i don't really give a shit what you think of me. because i am 100% correct here. racists are stupid people. you have to be a genuinely dumb, low iq, moron to believe the borken "if... then..." bullshit reasoning behind racist beliefs
I can't have a serious discussion with you if you believe racist things. No one intellectually honest and capable can have a serious discussion with a racist, because it is only possible to believe in racist things if you are of low intellect. Objectively true. To correlate skin color and intellect is gross prejudice composed of logical fallacies. It is ironic too (you need to be low iq to commit to the fallacies and believe this arbitrary link between skin color and intellect).
I can't have a serious discussion with a creationist or an antivaxxer or a ufo cultist either. Because to firmly believe these things is only possible if you are a person with a serious defect in intellect. I'm being 100% serious and sincere. You are a stupid person. Objectively true based on you having a racist belief. You are not worth the time of anyone serious, and you will never find the "fair" airing of your thoughts that you seek because everyone intelligent has discarded your entire domain. No one intellectually honest is interested in indulging and entertaining an idiot's idea. And that is exactly what racism is: the "thoughts" of the dumb people.
And if you want to improve the gene pool: don't have children. Again, I am completely sincere. You are a dumb person. To have a racist belief is only possible if you are.
You disrespect people based on the color of their skin. Therefore you deserve no respect. You withhold respect for ignorant reasons. You see a skin color, and make a baseless judgment on intellect and character from that. Which, ironically, is proof you are unintelligent and of low character. Because to believe racist thoughts is only possible if you lack cognitive capacity in certain areas of reasoning and social intelligence, and if you have bad intent on society and individuals in general.
You're a disrespectful asshole, so you get nothing but insults and disrespect in return. You get what you give you ignorant douchebag.
Want to improve the gene pool? Don't have children. I mean that sincerely. The quality of your words here belies low intellect and low character on your part, objectively speaking.
let us say, just for the sake of argument (i don't really believe your ignorance), that skin color and race are correlated somehow
it's a bell curve. you understand that, right?
so, for example, we have on one end one of the most cerebral presidents we've maybe ever had, at least since wilson: barack obama. obviously more intelligent than the vast majority of white people, as well as black people. more intelligent than people of all races, period
what is the value, exactly, of saying that because his skin is brown, that we have to ascribe some sort of negative modifier on how we perceive his intelligence, just because a bunch of other people who are brown are supposedly less intelligent on average?
intelligence is an INDIVIDUAL value. it does no good to class all people according to an arbitrary signifier. if you were interviewing a bunch of people for computer programmer, and disregarded the ones with brown skin because they were "less intelligent," you might have hired a dumb white person and disregarded the black genius. it does no good to you, nevermind black people, to use this shallow useless prejudice, because it doesn't actually help you. an INDIVIDUAL assessment is what matters
for example: most african americans have scottish, irish, english, etc. blood in them, because a lot of their forebearers were raped. therefore, a lot of white people were doing a lot of raping. therefore, according to racist "thinking," we should assume all white people are rapists, because we can prove they rape a lot ( i don't believe this, i'm just demonstrating your ignorance to you)
i'm not really sure this argument is worth having with you though, because i doubt you have enough intellectual capacity to appreciate the argument, since it requires a low iq to believe in racism. by believing in racism, and all of the logical fallacies that come with it, you have objectively proven to me that you are a stupid person. i don't respect you
what i find interesting is that people who ascribe moronic connections: skin color and intelligence, for example, are, by definition of making that ignorant connection and taking it seriously, stupid people. you have to be low iq to be racist. so when they prescribe exclusionary social engineering to "fix" society of the problem of undesireables, they should take their own medicine and not breed, thereby vastly increasing the iq of the population. that's some good eugenics to improvie the "race"
besides, most african americans aren't really african: too many of them were raped. analyze any of their genetics and chances are you find german, irish, english, etc heritage
so, by the "logic" of how racists think, the real race problem is that all europeans are rapists. i don't believe that. i'm just demonstrating how fucking ignorant and low iq racist "thinking" is
what's crazier than lame algorithms is trolls and racists having so much time and energy to devote to mental vomit generation
when attempting to understand something pathetic and useless, do not think "it has to be a machine," you give humanity too much credit. never underestimate how much of a depraved loser someone can become
exactly, thank you for the demonstration
no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
words drift in meaning all the time. nobody owns a language. what a word means is pretty much what people use it for. that's the only rule
as RC aircraft, especially quadcopters, have exploded in popularity, the term drone has come into common use to refer to this burgeoning sector
therefore, drone is a perfectly acceptable term now for this new generation of RC aircraft definition. no other authority needed, because there is no authority at all
neither you nor anyone else can say otherwise
people "misuse" the term hacker too. and certain mentally fragile and rigid, socially maladaptive folk get really upset about the semantic change for some reason. it's alternatively confusing and funny, that people get so upset at the simple and common notion that words change in meaning
don't be bad at adapting to change in your world. the word's new meaning continues on without you, your protestations mean nothing and simply marginalize you
languages are living things, get used to it
show me where and when rights granted to religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities is as good or was better in as large an area for as large a time, in any previous time period or location
it never was. not even remotely close
oh yes, there were fleeting utopian fragile experiments in tiny areas, or fragile decrees by enlightened rulers that the status quo thugs quickly erased
but what we have now is a large amount of dominant powers in the world and large areas of the world granting a robust spectrum of rights, and have been doing so for some time now, extending them every year
the rights we grant people today was never extended to so many, over as wide an area, for as great a time. never. not even remotely as close and not even remotely as robust as the rights we have now
not that our rights aren't threatened today. our rights are always threatened and always will be. rights require maintenance. we don't live in a utopia, and we can certainly do better
but we are definitely doing better than any other time period in any other location, by a long shot
learn your history, don't subscribe to ignorant mythologizing