I'm by no means a Linux fan, its a mess. I prefer a clean OS like FreeBSD if possible, but... this laptop is an OSX machine (obviously I'm an apple fanboy) with a bootcamp partition for Windows 7, a couple Windows 8 VMs, and I run about 30 different MS VMs on a vmware cluster for doing various testing as my primary job is... writing Windows software.
If you need a citation, you've been living under a rock for the last 30 years.
How many 'standards organizations' do they have to buy before you figure it out? How many times do governments have to spank them?
Seriously, if you need a citation about Microsofts behavior, theres no way anyone anywhere is going to make you see the light.
Well, he was a shrewd business man so maybe it was part of his plan.
Of course, the reason I know is because I get interested in learning more about why people are assholes... And in this particular case, I found out that he wasn't nearly as bad as the haters want to make it out.
The organization his wife created... Many of its employees don't know that she created it nor that she donates massive amounts to it... Because it was designed from the start to hide her contributes.
That could be a money laundering scheme of course, but considering the scrutiny you get as a member of the Job family, that would be surprising.
It's more likely that this is just an extension of the fact that they are very private people.
Exactly, and that's why it's displacing GCC, and why RMS loses his shit about LLVM. People are moving to LLVM BECAUSE OF GPLv3.
Same reason some are moving away from Samba.
The list is rather long. Every time a project coverts to GPLv3, the lose people, they never gain people because of it as the GPL fans are already there. The more restrictive they get, the more people leave.
No, I didn't mean to imply Microsoft has any influence on the ASF, though in hindsight it's clear that it will be read that way. I should have written that differently; my mistake.
What I meant was that MS didn't do it for the same reason a Google does it. Microsoft will do this for a while then try to exert pressure in various ways to get their way. Due to the structure of ASF, it's probably hard for them to get anywhere because there are so many different projects lead by so many different people. They will most certainly try however.
Google doesn't contribute to (insert some random pet project of mine) but apple does.
Microsoft ONLY does it to gain control, the fact that you mention them hurts your point more than helps it.
You have selection bias, there isn't actually anything to see here, Apple contributes to just about every OSS project they themselves use themselves in the form of code contributions.
Just because they aren't buying favors doesn't mean they don't contribute.
This post will be followed by many people throwing out long lists of Apple products that are OSS and the contributions back to those projects from other posts so I feel no need to bother reposting the various pages that show their contributions but... LLVM would be a really good place for you to start.
Thing is, and the biggest problem with any new console, is the devs have to literally remake an OS each time. They don't get the luxury of having an OS manage things for them. They get some hardware calls, specs and told to get on with it.
That hasn't been true for the last 2 console generations, in some cases, the last 3 console generations.
Shouldn't that be prefaced with 'Former' as I'm sure Microsoft has seen to it that this person isn't involved in any more Xbox development for knocking their 'OMG turn it up to 12! rehash of D3D?
At one point, engineers designed and considered what they were doing. Forward compatibility was baked in from the start. Standard that don't suck ass take a little bit of time to create.
What this person wants is to call things like twitters website a standard. No planning, no design, just throw it together and keep changing it until its useful for her purpose. Where as I prefer something like SMTP, which while it evolves, it can do so in a way that doesn't require breaking changes because they put just a LITTLE bit of thought into it from the start. Okay, SMTP is a bad example for this case, maybe HTTP is better.
That leads to shit, always has, always will.
Technology doesn't change THAT fast. It really doesn't. If she actually bothered to put real thought and planning into standards, there wouldn't be a need for them to rapidly evolve. The rapid evolution of standards is because you didn't do your homework to start with and just threw some shit out there that fit what you wanted right at that exact instance. Then tomorrow... you realize that you have a great kitchen sink, but fuck if it has a drain attached to it because you didn't bother to think about that, just that you wanted a sink.
She wants 'Agile' for standards. She can go fuck herself right in the ear. That sort of non-sense is for people who don't want to do actual standards making.
I want standards that are actual standards and aren't already 'out of date' by the time anyone knows they are a standard. Changing technology is not something exclusive to the computer age even if these people don't have any idea that technology has been changing fairly rapidly for the last 150,000 years or so.
The court ruled that you can't classify RC aircraft as UAVs just because they are being used for commercial purposes. Otherwise a balsa glider you buy at the gas station and paper airplanes as well as a pop fly in a baseball game would ALSO could be considered UAVs and banned. Judges words, not mine.
Actually read the damn article if you're going to talk about it like you know what it says.
The FAA has control of the airway. Full stop. 0 to infinite above US soil. Wherever you found this 700 feet number, someone made it up.
I once held a private pilots license and leased a cessna... I don't think it would MAKE IT to 10k feet, I certainly would NEVER want to be there since my cessna would do just under 100kts or so in fast cruise and 10k feet and above is reserved for 250kts or more on IFR rules. I typically flew at a 2-5k, and my aircraft wasn't ALLOWED to be there as it didn't have the right equipment.
In my case, one of my drones IS a sailplane with a camera and gimbal mounted so I can pan and tilt to take photos of the ground while in level flight.
In any case, the problem is that the FAA lets me fly these aircraft legally... taking pictures to post on my blog... and its legal... but if I even GIVE the picture to someone who uses it commercially (with my knowledge)... THAT is illegal.
The rules are otherwise the same. Both must remain in line of sight, and both MUST remain under 400 feet AGL, as well as many other little rules related to how close it can be to an active airport/helipad and buildings or people.
It has nothing to do with safety. Its just retarded.
I'm fully aware of the rules, I've been doing this for 20 years, and I do it commercially, and have since long before the FAA decided to classify it as illegal for me to do so in 2007. I don't need a autopilot to fly around and take some pictures with a fixed wing aircraft or heli, only quads/hexas/octos REQUIRE stabilization to stay in the air. I've even got 3 million in liability coverage if anything goes wrong.
And no, amazon, netflix and red box will never be delivering with drones, if you knew anything about the range and payload, you'd understand why the whole Amazon drone commercial was a retarded joke.
Please don't try to tell me about this, I've forgotten more since starting this message than you know about it.
ALL of my 'UAV's are normal models. I have 1 quad, 3 helis, and one seaplane. The quad needs computer stability control from the start since you can't fly a quad without automatic stabilization and augmentation. The quad started out with an ArduPilot, all my other aircraft have since had them added. They have GPS, compass, barometer, fully automous capabilities, 1 radio for direct digital proportional control, and one telemetry radio that can be used as a backup control those its very course and I'd hate to land the seaplane with it. You can buy any of these aircraft from tower hobbies or heliproz. The autopilot is open source and pre made (what I buy) versions are available from HobbyKing for dirt, though I buy mine from 3d robotics since they actually pay for the development.
They ALL have cameras on them, usually its a Sony ActionCam AS-15 for video, sometimes its an iPhone or other still image camera.
The difference between me being legal and me being illegal... are the photos for commercial use? If you answer yes, its illegal, if you answer no, I'm legal.
Thats it.
If you were to try and force my RC aircraft to use TCAS... that requires me to ALSO carry an active radar system... thanks, you just tripled the cost, added at least an order of magnitude more mass, and 2 orders of magnitude more power requirements, added so much more surface area to the frontal profile that its probably an order of magnitude larger if not 2 orders... and thats JUST for the radar, that doesn't include the ADS/TCAS transmitters and computers. And fine me a radar system for less than $1k USD. Example: I have this on my boat: http://www.amazon.com/Lowrance... $1200 and its several years old, dome is about twice the diameter of my head and a little higher... and thats COMPACT!
My Quad (and my 3 helis and 1 seaplane) all weigh less than the birds these aircraft are designed to deal with.
A goose is far more dangerous than what this guy flies. I doubt you could actually fly one of his 'flying wing's into a helicopter fuselage because the down draft from the main rotor would most likely force it under the heli even if they came at each other head on at full speed.
No, they don't Quads (and hexas' and octos) are the most inefficient models in existence. They are only popular because they are mechanically simple WITH MODERN ELECTRONICS. You can not fly a quad without computer augmentation.
I have 1 quad, 3 helicopters, and one Fixed wing sea plane. The quad is the lightest of them all, flies about 15 minutes with, range of 5km, with 8200mah of batteries. Thats 5k out and back, at full speed, no hover, and thats pushing it. More battery will actually reduce the flight time. I've pushed it as far as this particular model is going to go.
My seaplane has about an hour of time on a 2100mah battery at 60 knots. I haven't bothered to carry more battery with it, though its entirely possible that more battery might lower the flight time. That includes a rise-off-water takeoff, which is only second in energy use to the seaplane taking off from wet grass. Its a seaplane, but a highly efficient design of my own thats much more like a sailplane than a standard powered fixed wing aircraft.
The helis I use for aerobatics mostly, but they fall somewhere in between with the 4200mah battery, I've never bothered to push them as I've got them setup for 3D (inverted, tic-toks, ect) so they aren't exactly in an 'efficient' configuration, just hi performance.
ALL of them carry a Sony AS-15 ActionCam with its water poof holder, and all but the quad carry the cameras on gimbals, the gimbal and camera are completely exposed. The quad doesn't have a gimbal yet.
There is no reason that they need to be incompatible. Just require that all aircraft have a functioning ADS-B transceiver and TCAS, both manned and drones. Require drones to obey resolution advisories. That will eliminate most of the midair collision that exists today, manned or unmanned.
You just destroyed the entire R/C aircraft industry in one instant.
I'd LOVE for them to do this.
The problem is that I can go out and fly my turbine powered 100 pound F16 at several hundred miles an hour for crowds of spectators with an old 72mhz radio that has pretty much zero interference rejection... but I can't fly my 2 pound quad and take a pictures with it for commercial use even though my quad will never exceed 10mph and uses a DSSS based radio that will reject any signal that doesn't have the right GUIDs and checksums... and is never used for in front of crowds, nor does it carry a half gallon of kerosene for fuel, and the quad has an auto pilot that will land it if it gets a low battery, over current, loss of control radio, loss of telemetry radio, or simply flying outside of the geo-fenced area.
Its fucking retarded. Its okay as long as no one can possibly profit from it, but if there is profit, fuck it, the EXACT same thing is illegal, and there is NO WAY I can make it legal without treating the UAV as if it were an aircraft capable of carrying passengers for hire!
Considering the only court case on the issue did not go in the FAA's favor... and the judge basically said you have no right to ban this operation completely, case dismissed... The FAA does NOT get to rule the land, duck or platypus.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm by no means a Linux fan, its a mess. I prefer a clean OS like FreeBSD if possible, but ... this laptop is an OSX machine (obviously I'm an apple fanboy) with a bootcamp partition for Windows 7, a couple Windows 8 VMs, and I run about 30 different MS VMs on a vmware cluster for doing various testing as my primary job is ... writing Windows software.
If you need a citation, you've been living under a rock for the last 30 years.
How many 'standards organizations' do they have to buy before you figure it out? How many times do governments have to spank them?
Seriously, if you need a citation about Microsofts behavior, theres no way anyone anywhere is going to make you see the light.
Well, he was a shrewd business man so maybe it was part of his plan.
Of course, the reason I know is because I get interested in learning more about why people are assholes ... And in this particular case, I found out that he wasn't nearly as bad as the haters want to make it out.
The organization his wife created ... Many of its employees don't know that she created it nor that she donates massive amounts to it ... Because it was designed from the start to hide her contributes.
That could be a money laundering scheme of course, but considering the scrutiny you get as a member of the Job family, that would be surprising.
It's more likely that this is just an extension of the fact that they are very private people.
Their crap is generally better than whatever crap you think is awesome?
Their record on releasing quality products is why I support them, sorry they do t suck RMS's dick, but most of the world aren't GPL. Fanboys like you.
Change IS to WAS in your sig for a perfect score.
Exactly, and that's why it's displacing GCC, and why RMS loses his shit about LLVM. People are moving to LLVM BECAUSE OF GPLv3.
Same reason some are moving away from Samba.
The list is rather long. Every time a project coverts to GPLv3, the lose people, they never gain people because of it as the GPL fans are already there. The more restrictive they get, the more people leave.
I'm not really sure why you can't understand it?
Read the link in the post above mine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
No, I didn't mean to imply Microsoft has any influence on the ASF, though in hindsight it's clear that it will be read that way. I should have written that differently; my mistake.
What I meant was that MS didn't do it for the same reason a Google does it. Microsoft will do this for a while then try to exert pressure in various ways to get their way. Due to the structure of ASF, it's probably hard for them to get anywhere because there are so many different projects lead by so many different people. They will most certainly try however.
LLVM
It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
Your understanding is incorrect.
He didn't like telling everyone about his donations.
He didn't like doing it to show off or for politics, he preferred to donate to the actual cause, not so other people would think he was a good person.
He didn't donate so you liked him, he donated to accomplish things.
Google doesn't contribute to (insert some random pet project of mine) but apple does.
Microsoft ONLY does it to gain control, the fact that you mention them hurts your point more than helps it.
You have selection bias, there isn't actually anything to see here, Apple contributes to just about every OSS project they themselves use themselves in the form of code contributions.
Just because they aren't buying favors doesn't mean they don't contribute.
This post will be followed by many people throwing out long lists of Apple products that are OSS and the contributions back to those projects from other posts so I feel no need to bother reposting the various pages that show their contributions but ... LLVM would be a really good place for you to start.
Selection bias doesn't make your point valid.
Thing is, and the biggest problem with any new console, is the devs have to literally remake an OS each time. They don't get the luxury of having an OS manage things for them. They get some hardware calls, specs and told to get on with it.
That hasn't been true for the last 2 console generations, in some cases, the last 3 console generations.
Shouldn't that be prefaced with 'Former' as I'm sure Microsoft has seen to it that this person isn't involved in any more Xbox development for knocking their 'OMG turn it up to 12! rehash of D3D?
At one point, engineers designed and considered what they were doing. Forward compatibility was baked in from the start. Standard that don't suck ass take a little bit of time to create.
What this person wants is to call things like twitters website a standard. No planning, no design, just throw it together and keep changing it until its useful for her purpose. Where as I prefer something like SMTP, which while it evolves, it can do so in a way that doesn't require breaking changes because they put just a LITTLE bit of thought into it from the start. Okay, SMTP is a bad example for this case, maybe HTTP is better.
That leads to shit, always has, always will.
Technology doesn't change THAT fast. It really doesn't. If she actually bothered to put real thought and planning into standards, there wouldn't be a need for them to rapidly evolve. The rapid evolution of standards is because you didn't do your homework to start with and just threw some shit out there that fit what you wanted right at that exact instance. Then tomorrow ... you realize that you have a great kitchen sink, but fuck if it has a drain attached to it because you didn't bother to think about that, just that you wanted a sink.
She wants 'Agile' for standards. She can go fuck herself right in the ear. That sort of non-sense is for people who don't want to do actual standards making.
I want standards that are actual standards and aren't already 'out of date' by the time anyone knows they are a standard. Changing technology is not something exclusive to the computer age even if these people don't have any idea that technology has been changing fairly rapidly for the last 150,000 years or so.
... The Civ 5 AI was pathetic, calling it a single player is dishonest.
Non-profit does not mean non-commercial in the legal sense, and the FAA regulations specifically state non-commercial vs commercial.
No, the court made no such ruling.
The court ruled that you can't classify RC aircraft as UAVs just because they are being used for commercial purposes. Otherwise a balsa glider you buy at the gas station and paper airplanes as well as a pop fly in a baseball game would ALSO could be considered UAVs and banned. Judges words, not mine.
Actually read the damn article if you're going to talk about it like you know what it says.
The FAA has control of the airway. Full stop. 0 to infinite above US soil. Wherever you found this 700 feet number, someone made it up.
I once held a private pilots license and leased a cessna ... I don't think it would MAKE IT to 10k feet, I certainly would NEVER want to be there since my cessna would do just under 100kts or so in fast cruise and 10k feet and above is reserved for 250kts or more on IFR rules. I typically flew at a 2-5k, and my aircraft wasn't ALLOWED to be there as it didn't have the right equipment.
Please stop talking out your ass, it stinks.
In my case, one of my drones IS a sailplane with a camera and gimbal mounted so I can pan and tilt to take photos of the ground while in level flight.
In any case, the problem is that the FAA lets me fly these aircraft legally ... taking pictures to post on my blog ... and its legal ... but if I even GIVE the picture to someone who uses it commercially (with my knowledge) ... THAT is illegal.
The rules are otherwise the same. Both must remain in line of sight, and both MUST remain under 400 feet AGL, as well as many other little rules related to how close it can be to an active airport/helipad and buildings or people.
It has nothing to do with safety. Its just retarded.
I'm fully aware of the rules, I've been doing this for 20 years, and I do it commercially, and have since long before the FAA decided to classify it as illegal for me to do so in 2007. I don't need a autopilot to fly around and take some pictures with a fixed wing aircraft or heli, only quads/hexas/octos REQUIRE stabilization to stay in the air. I've even got 3 million in liability coverage if anything goes wrong.
And no, amazon, netflix and red box will never be delivering with drones, if you knew anything about the range and payload, you'd understand why the whole Amazon drone commercial was a retarded joke.
Please don't try to tell me about this, I've forgotten more since starting this message than you know about it.
As I said, you just killed the RC industry.
ALL of my 'UAV's are normal models. I have 1 quad, 3 helis, and one seaplane. The quad needs computer stability control from the start since you can't fly a quad without automatic stabilization and augmentation. The quad started out with an ArduPilot, all my other aircraft have since had them added. They have GPS, compass, barometer, fully automous capabilities, 1 radio for direct digital proportional control, and one telemetry radio that can be used as a backup control those its very course and I'd hate to land the seaplane with it. You can buy any of these aircraft from tower hobbies or heliproz. The autopilot is open source and pre made (what I buy) versions are available from HobbyKing for dirt, though I buy mine from 3d robotics since they actually pay for the development.
They ALL have cameras on them, usually its a Sony ActionCam AS-15 for video, sometimes its an iPhone or other still image camera.
The difference between me being legal and me being illegal ... are the photos for commercial use? If you answer yes, its illegal, if you answer no, I'm legal.
Thats it.
If you were to try and force my RC aircraft to use TCAS ... that requires me to ALSO carry an active radar system ... thanks, you just tripled the cost, added at least an order of magnitude more mass, and 2 orders of magnitude more power requirements, added so much more surface area to the frontal profile that its probably an order of magnitude larger if not 2 orders ... and thats JUST for the radar, that doesn't include the ADS/TCAS transmitters and computers. And fine me a radar system for less than $1k USD. Example: I have this on my boat: http://www.amazon.com/Lowrance... $1200 and its several years old, dome is about twice the diameter of my head and a little higher ... and thats COMPACT!
My Quad (and my 3 helis and 1 seaplane) all weigh less than the birds these aircraft are designed to deal with.
A goose is far more dangerous than what this guy flies. I doubt you could actually fly one of his 'flying wing's into a helicopter fuselage because the down draft from the main rotor would most likely force it under the heli even if they came at each other head on at full speed.
No, they don't Quads (and hexas' and octos) are the most inefficient models in existence. They are only popular because they are mechanically simple WITH MODERN ELECTRONICS. You can not fly a quad without computer augmentation.
I have 1 quad, 3 helicopters, and one Fixed wing sea plane. The quad is the lightest of them all, flies about 15 minutes with, range of 5km, with 8200mah of batteries. Thats 5k out and back, at full speed, no hover, and thats pushing it. More battery will actually reduce the flight time. I've pushed it as far as this particular model is going to go.
My seaplane has about an hour of time on a 2100mah battery at 60 knots. I haven't bothered to carry more battery with it, though its entirely possible that more battery might lower the flight time. That includes a rise-off-water takeoff, which is only second in energy use to the seaplane taking off from wet grass. Its a seaplane, but a highly efficient design of my own thats much more like a sailplane than a standard powered fixed wing aircraft.
The helis I use for aerobatics mostly, but they fall somewhere in between with the 4200mah battery, I've never bothered to push them as I've got them setup for 3D (inverted, tic-toks, ect) so they aren't exactly in an 'efficient' configuration, just hi performance.
ALL of them carry a Sony AS-15 ActionCam with its water poof holder, and all but the quad carry the cameras on gimbals, the gimbal and camera are completely exposed. The quad doesn't have a gimbal yet.
Then why is my UAV legal when I use it for taking pictures of my city for a blog, but illegal if I take a picture for a real estate agent?
Thats the difference. Nothing else changes but who gets the picture, and the legality is completely different suddenly.
There is no reason that they need to be incompatible. Just require that all aircraft have a functioning ADS-B transceiver and TCAS, both manned and drones. Require drones to obey resolution advisories. That will eliminate most of the midair collision that exists today, manned or unmanned.
You just destroyed the entire R/C aircraft industry in one instant.
I'd LOVE for them to do this.
The problem is that I can go out and fly my turbine powered 100 pound F16 at several hundred miles an hour for crowds of spectators with an old 72mhz radio that has pretty much zero interference rejection ... but I can't fly my 2 pound quad and take a pictures with it for commercial use even though my quad will never exceed 10mph and uses a DSSS based radio that will reject any signal that doesn't have the right GUIDs and checksums ... and is never used for in front of crowds, nor does it carry a half gallon of kerosene for fuel, and the quad has an auto pilot that will land it if it gets a low battery, over current, loss of control radio, loss of telemetry radio, or simply flying outside of the geo-fenced area.
Its fucking retarded. Its okay as long as no one can possibly profit from it, but if there is profit, fuck it, the EXACT same thing is illegal, and there is NO WAY I can make it legal without treating the UAV as if it were an aircraft capable of carrying passengers for hire!
Considering the only court case on the issue did not go in the FAA's favor ... and the judge basically said you have no right to ban this operation completely, case dismissed ... The FAA does NOT get to rule the land, duck or platypus.