It really depends on the the device you are using and what you are using it for. If you're streaming 4K video onto your phone, you're seriously wasting bandwidth.
You can't guarantee unbiased research when money and politics are involved. The anti-Monsanto crowd will fund potentially flawed research to destroy Monsanto. Monsanto has to fund research to defend themselves against politically-motivated smear campaigns. Both sides are going to accuse each other of bias and they are both neither correct nor incorrect on those accusations.
So, the only way to make this work is for the researchers themselves to be part of a double-blind study. They can't be allowed to know whether the samples they are testing are real or fake until the studies are completed. Then and only then will you know if the results are bogus.
Okay, but nobody wants to spend more than about $2k for a UAV no matter what the application and there really isn't much justification for five-figure prices. Some of the fancy photogrammetry stuff reminds me of the early 90s when everybody wanted to be able to do rigid-body dynamics in computer animation and the early developers were able to charge a fortune for it. Gradually, the algorithms leaked out to the masses and open-source community and now everybody can do that kind of thing. The DIY/open-source community has really disrupted the early UAV market like the Draganflyer that started out at $25k.
IMHO, the real problem is not the software but the lack of a polished soup-to-nuts hardware platform that's still totally open-source. I'm talking not just an air frame but a ground station too with tightly integrated RF links and none of this mickey-mouse voodoo antenna stuff. No wires hanging out all over the place. But no custom sealed batteries with connectors that can only be had if you want to buy 5000 of them. 3DR was headed in this direction with the exception of the battery and charger. The flight computer in the Solo is a nice design and it could be repurposed in a heavy-lift vehicle. Using a GoPro was a smart choice. Why waste development resources on yet another camera?
What I want to know is how DJI is able to crank out products left and right and companies like Lily and 3DR get borked? I find this very concerning that to all intents and purposes DJI owns this market now and that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want regardless of what the customers want e.g. borking your expensive machine because they think you shouldn't be flying where you want or more importantly need to fly.
I'm less interested in these MacGyver UAV platforms with all kinds of loosely integrated stuff hanging all over them than I am with a clean yet totally open-source design. 3DR was headed in the right direction but DJI ate stole their lunch money.
I think this has less to do with people paying for and watching streaming services than it does at the ever-increasing fees for DirecTV. I can't remember the last time my bill was $50 a month. Get ready for ISPs to regularly increase their rates once they have a dominant position in the market.
I think the intent is to stop forcing the military i.e. the government i.e. the taxpayers who are ultimately footing the bill, from having to pay for things like gender reassignment surgery and related treatments.
Yup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I'm convinced that the writers of Galaxy Quest had this in mind when Guy says, "Did you guys ever WATCH the show?"
Actually, you're making my point. These guys get a better deal that the average consumer. Hell, Amazon gets a big break on shipping with the US Postal Service. https://www.wsj.com/articles/w... That means that they are using the infrastructure but not paying the same for it as everyone else. Net Neutrality isn't going to change that. And that's only half of the equation. The high usage consumers aren't paying their fair share either in most cases because data rate caps are high enough that most people in big cities never hit them.
But they are the heaviest user of it and they expect to pay the same amount as anybody else. Not only that but their customers are the ones using all the bandwidth and they expect to get the bandwidth for nothing. The implication is that somehow "the government" or some other public tax-payer funded entity is who built and owns the infrastructure. That's not the case. And it's not the same as an electric, water, or natural gas utility because the customers have no choice in the provider. There is only one therefore it should be regulated.
But if you insist on net neutrality, don't be surprised if they pass on the costs to the individual in the form of regulatory taxes and fees. Take a close look at all the line items on any of your utility bills. You'll find a lot of stuff on there that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual commodity you're using. The worst ones are cleverly named like "metering surcharge" so you have no clue what it's really for and even if you call up and ask, they try hard not to explain it. Most people pay no attention to stuff like this which is why so many Americans have no savings. Make no mistake, somebody is going to pay for the infrastructure and it isn't going to be Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. Either the costs will be passed on to high-bandwidth users or it will be distributed to every customer no matter how much bandwidth they use even if it's zero because they are on vacation.
Amazon, Google, and Netflix want to use the infrastructure as much as they want without having to compensate the people who paid to build it and maintain it. I wonder what Elizabeth Warren would say about this. "You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for."
There is really no competition in the ISP space. Two providers is not competition. Two is essentially sanctioned price-fixing. The consumer hasn't liked the way TV is distributed for a while now which has resulted in Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and many others. But they still all need to use the infrastructure that's owned by the cable and phone companies. If they can't charge high-bandwidth users more, they're just not going to upgrade it and you can't force them to either.
You're quoting Gizmodo? A Gawker site that posts one useful, non-partisan story for every ten anti-Trump stories? "Gizmodo reporter draws conclusion before thoughtfully attempting to deflect criticism of his obvious bias." FTFY
Slashdot Mirror
It really depends on the the device you are using and what you are using it for. If you're streaming 4K video onto your phone, you're seriously wasting bandwidth.
Sadly, there is no limit to bullshit.
That could power three Deloreans!
You can't guarantee unbiased research when money and politics are involved. The anti-Monsanto crowd will fund potentially flawed research to destroy Monsanto. Monsanto has to fund research to defend themselves against politically-motivated smear campaigns. Both sides are going to accuse each other of bias and they are both neither correct nor incorrect on those accusations.
So, the only way to make this work is for the researchers themselves to be part of a double-blind study. They can't be allowed to know whether the samples they are testing are real or fake until the studies are completed. Then and only then will you know if the results are bogus.
They're serving "special" Kool-aid at the university garden patio. You know, for the good of the planet.
How are they planning to handle the occasional earthquake that might cause a permanent shift along a fault line?
Wake me when these can play American football and then we can quit hearing about concussions. Oh, wait, are these robots represented by PETR?
Yeah, um, create two other companies, one hugely successful and one that gets acquired by Uber, and then we'll talk.
Okay, but nobody wants to spend more than about $2k for a UAV no matter what the application and there really isn't much justification for five-figure prices. Some of the fancy photogrammetry stuff reminds me of the early 90s when everybody wanted to be able to do rigid-body dynamics in computer animation and the early developers were able to charge a fortune for it. Gradually, the algorithms leaked out to the masses and open-source community and now everybody can do that kind of thing. The DIY/open-source community has really disrupted the early UAV market like the Draganflyer that started out at $25k.
IMHO, the real problem is not the software but the lack of a polished soup-to-nuts hardware platform that's still totally open-source. I'm talking not just an air frame but a ground station too with tightly integrated RF links and none of this mickey-mouse voodoo antenna stuff. No wires hanging out all over the place. But no custom sealed batteries with connectors that can only be had if you want to buy 5000 of them. 3DR was headed in this direction with the exception of the battery and charger. The flight computer in the Solo is a nice design and it could be repurposed in a heavy-lift vehicle. Using a GoPro was a smart choice. Why waste development resources on yet another camera?
What I want to know is how DJI is able to crank out products left and right and companies like Lily and 3DR get borked? I find this very concerning that to all intents and purposes DJI owns this market now and that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want regardless of what the customers want e.g. borking your expensive machine because they think you shouldn't be flying where you want or more importantly need to fly.
I'm less interested in these MacGyver UAV platforms with all kinds of loosely integrated stuff hanging all over them than I am with a clean yet totally open-source design. 3DR was headed in the right direction but DJI ate stole their lunch money.
Among that supposed smoking-gun treasure trove of information you want, you might find things that you didn't want to know about.
The military shouldn't be paying for that either. Wanna get laid? Wanna get laid without consequences? Do it on your own dime.
I think this has less to do with people paying for and watching streaming services than it does at the ever-increasing fees for DirecTV. I can't remember the last time my bill was $50 a month. Get ready for ISPs to regularly increase their rates once they have a dominant position in the market.
I think the intent is to stop forcing the military i.e. the government i.e. the taxpayers who are ultimately footing the bill, from having to pay for things like gender reassignment surgery and related treatments.
Nothing that shutting off the grid wouldn't fix. Or a nice little EMP device.
All you need to do is wait until the batteries run out.
Anyone who has ever bought a Nordic Track that turned into a clothes rack would have seen wearable brow-beating health monitors as a fad.
Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm convinced that the writers of Galaxy Quest had this in mind when Guy says, "Did you guys ever WATCH the show?"
Dragon's Domain. That is all.
Actually, you're making my point. These guys get a better deal that the average consumer. Hell, Amazon gets a big break on shipping with the US Postal Service. https://www.wsj.com/articles/w...
That means that they are using the infrastructure but not paying the same for it as everyone else. Net Neutrality isn't going to change that. And that's only half of the equation. The high usage consumers aren't paying their fair share either in most cases because data rate caps are high enough that most people in big cities never hit them.
But they are the heaviest user of it and they expect to pay the same amount as anybody else. Not only that but their customers are the ones using all the bandwidth and they expect to get the bandwidth for nothing. The implication is that somehow "the government" or some other public tax-payer funded entity is who built and owns the infrastructure. That's not the case. And it's not the same as an electric, water, or natural gas utility because the customers have no choice in the provider. There is only one therefore it should be regulated.
But if you insist on net neutrality, don't be surprised if they pass on the costs to the individual in the form of regulatory taxes and fees. Take a close look at all the line items on any of your utility bills. You'll find a lot of stuff on there that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual commodity you're using. The worst ones are cleverly named like "metering surcharge" so you have no clue what it's really for and even if you call up and ask, they try hard not to explain it. Most people pay no attention to stuff like this which is why so many Americans have no savings. Make no mistake, somebody is going to pay for the infrastructure and it isn't going to be Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. Either the costs will be passed on to high-bandwidth users or it will be distributed to every customer no matter how much bandwidth they use even if it's zero because they are on vacation.
Amazon, Google, and Netflix want to use the infrastructure as much as they want without having to compensate the people who paid to build it and maintain it. I wonder what Elizabeth Warren would say about this. "You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for."
There is really no competition in the ISP space. Two providers is not competition. Two is essentially sanctioned price-fixing. The consumer hasn't liked the way TV is distributed for a while now which has resulted in Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and many others. But they still all need to use the infrastructure that's owned by the cable and phone companies. If they can't charge high-bandwidth users more, they're just not going to upgrade it and you can't force them to either.
You're quoting Gizmodo? A Gawker site that posts one useful, non-partisan story for every ten anti-Trump stories? "Gizmodo reporter draws conclusion before thoughtfully attempting to deflect criticism of his obvious bias." FTFY
Meh. I think they're secretly trying to create another bubble so they can short the market.