Not just symmetry, but proportion, too. There was a doco on the BBC a while back about beauty where someone had developed a kind of computerised wire-frame mask (with no set dimensions) using the golden ratio in some of the proportions. They found that pretty much anyone who was considered beautiful by society, such as some actors and models etc., had proportions that matched the mask, even across a wide varity of ethnicities and general differences in facial strcuture.
I know. I should have been clearer. But the same thing still applies. I don't mind buying software and not having the source code or having certain licensing restrictions applied to it. Licensing restrictions are something I weight up among many other things. If I find the restrictions acceptable for my use, I have no problem agreeing to follow them. Perhaps it's because I'm a bit of a realist, and although I support the idea of OSS, I also don't have a problem with reasonable use of current IP laws. Of course, what is reasonable and what is not is a highly subjective area.
Software freedom does not keep people from profiting.
I agree, and it comes down to different business models. There is room for different business models, and in Apple's case, they have choose one business model over another. Perhaps they could make it work by being more like IBM, or perhaps for the kind of products that Apple wants to sell, their business model works better for them. And why shouldn't they have that choice?
The moral objection comes from stripping people of their software freedom.
But that assumes that the product would otherwise have been made using another business model. It also assumes that putting one's own interests above others is immoral. Uncompassionate or selfish, perhaps.
People who do this pretend that it's the only way for them to make money but it's clearly about means of extortion now.
Really? everyone who charges for software pretends that it's the only way? Perhaps for some, it actually is, and for some, it's simply a choice. And I'm sure there are some who pretend that, too. I'd hardly call it extortion in most cases.
Non free software is bad for you, even if it does one or two things you like. It's owners think they have a right to tell you what you can and can not do. If you give them that they will simply take more from you.
How is it bad for me? If Apple didn't follow their business model, they may have simply chosen not to do it at all. Then I wouldn't even have the choice to buy it. Your argument hinges on a false premise and makes assumptions about what I value.
Yeah, they are actually. They want to protect the user experience so that people don't end up with flat batteries in 30mins and stop using 3rd party apps or stop using their iPhone altogether. Those that really want to can always jailbreak their iPhone and manage the whole thing themselves. Or buy another product. Is this really so "evil"? Apple's decision is just a sound business decision, because that's what they are. No need to read any more into it than that....unless you're a conspiracy theorist.
Pretend to be more customer friendly than they really are? From some of the anti-Apple stuff I've read on here, it seems that Apple is, in fact, more customer friendly than they appear to be. After all, if this was Microsoft or many other companies, I'm sure DMCA letters would have been sent out by now. I think it just goes to show that Apple are generally only as restricting as they need to be.
Not all of us mind paying for software, you know. That's one thing I have never understood about the OSS movement -- that some people think that everything should be free and that anyone who tries to make a profit from software is somehow "bad". The two worlds can co-exist together.
I hate to point this out, but a government isn't a person (although, I'm sure you already knew that). I think that the way some people seem to think about them as such things contributes a lot to them feeling alienated by their government. IMHO.
Because typing the first 2 or 3 letters of a domain name is the fastest and easiest way for me? I don't want my own homepage with links because that is another thing I have to manage, and that's exactly what I don't want to have to do.
All I really want is for the address bar to include sites I've visited many times, but just have never typed in the actual URL before. It's a real pain to start typing only to find that the address isn't coming up in the suggestions and resorting back to the bookmarks menu. Anything more complex than that is a pain for me -- I want less typing, not more.
Apple just wants to lock down the platform as much as possible, that's all there is to it.
Yeah, just like they did with iTunes? Where they offered DRM-free versions even though sales were high and they had no reason to from a business perspective? Even though when the iPhone first came out, there was no SDK at all, and now there is one?
Perhaps Apple just likes to make sure thing get done properly rather than rush everything out the door at once?
I mean, why on earth would they want to lock down the platform as much as possible?
So? That's what makes the whole system work well and play nicely, isn't it? I'd rather just pay for extra RAM and have a nice, consistent experience (talking about Mac OS X here, but I guess it's a similar situation).
Sorry, when I talked about the radio jammer, I was meaning that if people started to fly RC aircraft into the police drones or became a problem in general, I'm sure law enforcement would make sure they had jammers available, rather than people using jammers against the police drones. I think you are right in that it would be hard for normal people to jam a spread spectrum system, but the US military seems to have lots of toys and money, and I'm guessing they'd be able to help out in that area.
As for the comparison to speed cameras, I think that's a bit unfair, as I get the impression that a ground team will always be close by with the drones. Otherwise, it would be a different story.
All this talk reminds me of a video where some guy bolted a shotgun to his RC heli. I'm sure it's on YouTube somewhere. Perhaps it might turn out to be a problem after all.;)
I just don't think it's a real problem. I doubt these things would ever be intended to be so numerous that they'll be able to track anyone, anytime, like a CCTV setup. It would probably be too impractical (for the moment, at least).
Modern piezoelectric gyros make it much easier to fly RC helis -- not having to worry about the tail makes a difference. Adding them to a camera platform helps keep it smooth. Add in auto-pilot systems, and you can hover hands-free while you operate the camera.
I'm not sure what you mean about the take-down side of things. Perhaps I'm getting confused with another thread? I'm just talking about surveillance in this case.
I don't know of any reliable IR systems. As for the drone, it depends on the design of it. Also, I'm not sure it's impossible to jam spread spectrum if you have the right stuff. Any links saying otherwise?
Either way, I highly doubt that people taking these things out is going to be a big problem.
How about you just use a gyro-stabilised platform, like all the RC photography and video guys do? There are all sorts of computer-controlled stabilisation systems for RC aircraft out there. Unless this drone has some super-high-tech avionics, I'm pretty sure a hobby-grade RC heli with a few add-ons would be able to match those capabilities.
Of course, I agree with you in general. This drone has be designed for a purpose and probably does the job better than a tradition RC heli setup.
When your drone can be fully automated and you have high-tech military RF toys to play with, RC things aren't too much of a problem, I would have thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just symmetry, but proportion, too. There was a doco on the BBC a while back about beauty where someone had developed a kind of computerised wire-frame mask (with no set dimensions) using the golden ratio in some of the proportions. They found that pretty much anyone who was considered beautiful by society, such as some actors and models etc., had proportions that matched the mask, even across a wide varity of ethnicities and general differences in facial strcuture.
Siberians?
:)
Sorry, try again
Posted by CmdrTaco on 01:40 AM -- Tuesday April 01 2008
Not for me.
Yeah, sorry, see my reply to the previous poster.
I know. I should have been clearer. But the same thing still applies. I don't mind buying software and not having the source code or having certain licensing restrictions applied to it. Licensing restrictions are something I weight up among many other things. If I find the restrictions acceptable for my use, I have no problem agreeing to follow them. Perhaps it's because I'm a bit of a realist, and although I support the idea of OSS, I also don't have a problem with reasonable use of current IP laws. Of course, what is reasonable and what is not is a highly subjective area.
Software freedom does not keep people from profiting.
I agree, and it comes down to different business models. There is room for different business models, and in Apple's case, they have choose one business model over another. Perhaps they could make it work by being more like IBM, or perhaps for the kind of products that Apple wants to sell, their business model works better for them. And why shouldn't they have that choice?
The moral objection comes from stripping people of their software freedom.
But that assumes that the product would otherwise have been made using another business model. It also assumes that putting one's own interests above others is immoral. Uncompassionate or selfish, perhaps.
People who do this pretend that it's the only way for them to make money but it's clearly about means of extortion now.
Really? everyone who charges for software pretends that it's the only way? Perhaps for some, it actually is, and for some, it's simply a choice. And I'm sure there are some who pretend that, too. I'd hardly call it extortion in most cases.
Non free software is bad for you, even if it does one or two things you like. It's owners think they have a right to tell you what you can and can not do. If you give them that they will simply take more from you.
How is it bad for me? If Apple didn't follow their business model, they may have simply chosen not to do it at all. Then I wouldn't even have the choice to buy it. Your argument hinges on a false premise and makes assumptions about what I value.
Yeah, they are actually. They want to protect the user experience so that people don't end up with flat batteries in 30mins and stop using 3rd party apps or stop using their iPhone altogether. Those that really want to can always jailbreak their iPhone and manage the whole thing themselves. Or buy another product. Is this really so "evil"? Apple's decision is just a sound business decision, because that's what they are. No need to read any more into it than that....unless you're a conspiracy theorist.
Pretend to be more customer friendly than they really are? From some of the anti-Apple stuff I've read on here, it seems that Apple is, in fact, more customer friendly than they appear to be. After all, if this was Microsoft or many other companies, I'm sure DMCA letters would have been sent out by now. I think it just goes to show that Apple are generally only as restricting as they need to be.
Not all of us mind paying for software, you know. That's one thing I have never understood about the OSS movement -- that some people think that everything should be free and that anyone who tries to make a profit from software is somehow "bad". The two worlds can co-exist together.
All intelligence is directly genetically inherited from parents?
I hate to point this out, but a government isn't a person (although, I'm sure you already knew that). I think that the way some people seem to think about them as such things contributes a lot to them feeling alienated by their government. IMHO.
Ah. Thanks. I'm on 2 at the moment. How stable is 3?
Why would you actually type in the bar any more?
Because typing the first 2 or 3 letters of a domain name is the fastest and easiest way for me? I don't want my own homepage with links because that is another thing I have to manage, and that's exactly what I don't want to have to do.
All I really want is for the address bar to include sites I've visited many times, but just have never typed in the actual URL before. It's a real pain to start typing only to find that the address isn't coming up in the suggestions and resorting back to the bookmarks menu. Anything more complex than that is a pain for me -- I want less typing, not more.
Apple just wants to lock down the platform as much as possible, that's all there is to it.
Yeah, just like they did with iTunes? Where they offered DRM-free versions even though sales were high and they had no reason to from a business perspective? Even though when the iPhone first came out, there was no SDK at all, and now there is one?
Perhaps Apple just likes to make sure thing get done properly rather than rush everything out the door at once?
I mean, why on earth would they want to lock down the platform as much as possible?
So? That's what makes the whole system work well and play nicely, isn't it? I'd rather just pay for extra RAM and have a nice, consistent experience (talking about Mac OS X here, but I guess it's a similar situation).
Sorry, when I talked about the radio jammer, I was meaning that if people started to fly RC aircraft into the police drones or became a problem in general, I'm sure law enforcement would make sure they had jammers available, rather than people using jammers against the police drones. I think you are right in that it would be hard for normal people to jam a spread spectrum system, but the US military seems to have lots of toys and money, and I'm guessing they'd be able to help out in that area.
;)
As for the comparison to speed cameras, I think that's a bit unfair, as I get the impression that a ground team will always be close by with the drones. Otherwise, it would be a different story.
All this talk reminds me of a video where some guy bolted a shotgun to his RC heli. I'm sure it's on YouTube somewhere. Perhaps it might turn out to be a problem after all.
With the exception of a rushed Leopard release, and perhaps a couple of Safari issues, Mac OS X seems to get better each time, not worse.
I just don't think it's a real problem. I doubt these things would ever be intended to be so numerous that they'll be able to track anyone, anytime, like a CCTV setup. It would probably be too impractical (for the moment, at least).
Modern piezoelectric gyros make it much easier to fly RC helis -- not having to worry about the tail makes a difference. Adding them to a camera platform helps keep it smooth. Add in auto-pilot systems, and you can hover hands-free while you operate the camera.
I'm not sure what you mean about the take-down side of things. Perhaps I'm getting confused with another thread? I'm just talking about surveillance in this case.
I don't know of any reliable IR systems. As for the drone, it depends on the design of it. Also, I'm not sure it's impossible to jam spread spectrum if you have the right stuff. Any links saying otherwise?
Either way, I highly doubt that people taking these things out is going to be a big problem.
Perhaps you should check out YouTube sometime.
But how does that work as an alternative to police helicopters? Or are you just as paranoid about them?
How about you just use a gyro-stabilised platform, like all the RC photography and video guys do? There are all sorts of computer-controlled stabilisation systems for RC aircraft out there. Unless this drone has some super-high-tech avionics, I'm pretty sure a hobby-grade RC heli with a few add-ons would be able to match those capabilities.
Of course, I agree with you in general. This drone has be designed for a purpose and probably does the job better than a tradition RC heli setup.
Two words: Radio jammer.
When your drone can be fully automated and you have high-tech military RF toys to play with, RC things aren't too much of a problem, I would have thought.
Yeah, because it's always obvious where the shooter is, right?