This is true, right up until you get autonomous hobby aircraft that can malfunction and fly significant distances into controlled airspace, potentially interfering with commercial or military traffic. An RC hobby plane tends to crash fairly promptly after going out of sight so it's not an issue there. However, if even a very small plane collides with or spooks a crewed aircraft it could have fatal consequences.
Absolutely. I know several groups who have had great difficulty getting helicopter UAVs working (including my own!), and these were major government-funded research organisations. If building a UAV is on the cards do yourself a favour and start with a fixed-wing vehicle. You can use cheap sensors without worrying excessively about more advanced topics like state estimation and gyro bias calibration and drift. WYIAAARSIH (Why Yes, I Am An Aero-Roboticist Specialising In Helicopters).
Well... what is the law? The law regarding robot aircraft operation in controlled airspace is not yet something that has been extensively tested in case law. Many aero-roboticists see this as an area of great importance in the future. There certainly isn't any global consensus, and many countries haven't even begun to think about the implications of UAVs flying amongst piloted vehicles. It's a potential litigation/traffic control nightmare, but at least people are talking about it rather than just saying "You can't fly because we said so."
Also expect FAA regulation, enforced by the police. Model RC planes have enough trouble getting room to fly free of interfering bureaucrats.
As you rightfully point out, though, once people appreciate that the difference between RC planes and a cruise missile is a smattering of electronics and a hand grenade, I think they'll tighten the screws. It might start with parts, but the stuff you need to make a UAV/missile is very similar to what goes into many many other things (eg. gyroscopes, accelerometers)
Trillions of dollars in previous investment and commercial interests will see that doesn't happen for a long time, if ever. I, for one, continue to pay due obeisance and tribute to our vile oil-powered overlords.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_video_games#The_Terminator_.28DOS.29
This game rocked my world. You could buy/steal guns, rob stores/banks, buy chemicals and build bombs (without a given recipe - you just had to try stuff to find out what worked), steal cars, break into army bases to get powerful weapons, heal at hospitals. Seriously, this was sandbox-style gameplay on a dos PC, programmed in assembly!
It's a game I recall with great fondness, never mind how few colours it had.
Well... you've got to look beyond the individual here, I think. Yes, I might have to wait 8 years for the treatment to be tested; I might die in the interim. If my prognosis is poor, I'd probably sign up for experimental treatments that haven't been cleared yet.
However, if we rush out and start administering these treatments to people because they work great in the lab and it turns out that there is a complication that wasn't foreseen, then people who may have been saved by other treatments may end up dying as a result.
While stem cells used to treat me are unique, the process used to turn them into a viable treatment is what is being tested, not the individual product itself (although I expect some sort of QA/validation/whatnot). Even if I don't survive to see the treatment come into use, people coming after me will benefit from a fully tested regimen.
No, it doesn't have to come from a proprietary developer, but presumably if you want to interoperate with existing proprietary infrastructure (eg. cad files) then you're fighting an uphill battle.
It might be the point of view of one man, but it's not a crazy position to take. I for one would want any medical treatment fully tested and certified, irrespective of if it's made out of 'modified' bits of me. Cancers, if you recall, are actually a part of you gone wrong. If I'm dying of cancer, sure, I'll try damn near/anything/ in my last days. However, if it's something that will be offered as a routine treatment to non-critical patients then it needs to run the full gamut of testing, like every other contender.
If the permit merely required you to inform people before you did something then there'd be no problem - this is commonly the case with any large outdoor event. There's a reason why something is called a 'permit' and not a 'prior notify' - if you must obtain permission, then that permission can be denied.
Why do I have to 'get over' myself - why the ad hominem? And no, I didn't have to take a civics class in 4th grade; the closest we got was a general studies course in year 12 that explains the system of government, basics of politics and urges us to discuss why voting is compulsory as compared to other systems.
I'll wager my experience with protests is deeply different from yours - I've seen my share of protests and activist marches. Not once in all my years have I seen anyone get injured or even tense; the worst I've seen was occasional hurled insults.
I dunno where you're from, but maybe you guys are doing something wrong if you keep needing ambulances all the time?
Uh, what do the Americans have to do with this? And certainly, when it comes to binge drinking I think the Aussies (and most of Europe) will beat them hands down.;)
Otherwise, I agree, there is probably a reason why true connoisseurs are prepared to pay serious money for certain bottles. But how many people actually crack open a $10,000+ bottle and consume its contents?
I looked it up in the skeptics bible, all ready to say "But aha! See here on verse such-and-such it clearly says 'great gnashing'!". To my chagrin, nowhere in the bible does it say 'great gnashing', although it does included "great wailing and gnashing", "weeping and gnashing" and others.
I bow to your superior quoting of both Rowan Atkinson and, incidentally, the bible itself.
An excellent question! I think that's a great idea. However, developers of expensive proprietary software tend to target systems with the greatest area of buy-in. An excellent example of this was the trouble people used to have getting games for Mac back in the day (fortunately, things have improved on that front).
In my case, many developers of engineering apps (my requisite programs) do now produce Linux-flavoured versions. However, if a developer chooses/not/ to produce a linux version and that program happens to be something you simply can't do without (eg. because it's tied to a specific piece of hardware you're using, like a mill) then you're SOoL.
I wish it was the way you say and maybe, like Apple, increasing user buy-in of Linux systems will lead to all the programs people really care about being available.
To answer your question, prepubescent dragons are not bearded but rather wedgied - although only the uncool ones.
I think the clearcut question here is whether or not program substitution works; that is, can FOSS program X beat proprietary program Y. In some cases that's a resounding YES. In some cases, that seems to be a very likely no.
The obvious examples that spring to my mind are things like specific engineering applications which do not have a linux port. Admittedly, that number is shrinking, and I look forward to the day when my 'productivity' machine can be a linux box, but for now there is no easy choice for me.
For many people, 3D games are the killer app and I, for one, am sick of listening to my linux-using friends bitch and moan about how tedious it is to boot into Windows just to play them. Arguably, they should quit being whiny bitches, but also they shouldn't -have- to reboot just to run a specific program.
I agree that doing most basic stuff well is a clear first step. However, until Linux can leverage the wealth of software working for Windows, it's always going to be a distant second.
Likewise, lest anyone think me a Windows fanboi, I run all my robots and software dev systems on Debian, but I'm stuck using Windows for CAD, circuit design and certain embedded systems programming. Appropriately, I use either my linux dev box or my windows box to surf and read mail from - ironically, using exactly the same prorgams.
There are laws for dealing with obstruction of traffic and disturbing the peace; but that's something to be done/after/ they begin to cause a problem. Prior restraint is tantamount to censorship, and requiring 'permission' to speak your mind is exactly that. Not all protests turn ugly - and I, for one, don't care to ask any man's permission before I say my piece.
Perhaps there is a tradeoff between liberty and safety, but I choose liberty every time.
And what, pray tell, obliges any government to grant you this right to protest? Safety is a separate issue from speech - police can be on hand to keep things civil without necessarily preventing people from getting their message across.
The role of police is to protect the peace, not stifle political expression. When and if anarchists start lobbing molotovs then they are dutybound to step in - until such a time, they have no business interfering with a demonstration.
Remember that whole thing about innocent until proven guilty? That includes not being arrested until there is reasonable suspicion until you've committed a crime. Sorry, no, a "Stop the violence" poster is not sufficient.
I agree with the parent entirely, but I'd go one further. I would say that if Ubuntu (and Linux distros at large) are to thrive and gain greater market share they need to beat Windows at its own game by running Windows apps out of the box.
Wine is getting there, but it's not there yet. Emulation might work, but then it needs to be seamless. Until Ubuntu can beard the dragon in its own lair, it will be fighting the overwhelming advantage of incumbent software Windows has rather than making it work for it.
A permit for protesting? That's as egregious as a 'free speech zone'. The mere idea of free speech somehow being limitable to a certain geographic locale is in itself a conceptual tyranny.
Depends on what you've achieved since then. I'll wager most geeks have a decent job and are doing well for themselves. My 10 year reunion was an absolute blast.
I went along with my transgendered friend who got the op just after leaving - most people had/heard/ but very very few had ever/seen/ - she was my date for the evening. We'd both done well for ourselves in live: she'd run her own company and now conducted research on plant tobacco mosaic virus, and I'd just completed my PhD in aerial robotics. We'd found ourselves and were far happier than the awkward outcast kids who were persecuted at school.
Everyone else? Boring jobs, boring lives, one or two divorcees, one or two successes. The bullies who gave us a hard time were all losers. But us? We were happy, and everyone there knew that in the game of life, we'd come up winners.
And don't ask me how many times I was asked if we were actually a 'couple'...
If you don't think you want to see the suckers who gave you shit at school, reconsider - you're probably doing much better than they are.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true, right up until you get autonomous hobby aircraft that can malfunction and fly significant distances into controlled airspace, potentially interfering with commercial or military traffic. An RC hobby plane tends to crash fairly promptly after going out of sight so it's not an issue there. However, if even a very small plane collides with or spooks a crewed aircraft it could have fatal consequences.
Absolutely. I know several groups who have had great difficulty getting helicopter UAVs working (including my own!), and these were major government-funded research organisations. If building a UAV is on the cards do yourself a favour and start with a fixed-wing vehicle. You can use cheap sensors without worrying excessively about more advanced topics like state estimation and gyro bias calibration and drift. WYIAAARSIH (Why Yes, I Am An Aero-Roboticist Specialising In Helicopters).
Well... what is the law? The law regarding robot aircraft operation in controlled airspace is not yet something that has been extensively tested in case law. Many aero-roboticists see this as an area of great importance in the future. There certainly isn't any global consensus, and many countries haven't even begun to think about the implications of UAVs flying amongst piloted vehicles. It's a potential litigation/traffic control nightmare, but at least people are talking about it rather than just saying "You can't fly because we said so."
As you rightfully point out, though, once people appreciate that the difference between RC planes and a cruise missile is a smattering of electronics and a hand grenade, I think they'll tighten the screws. It might start with parts, but the stuff you need to make a UAV/missile is very similar to what goes into many many other things (eg. gyroscopes, accelerometers)
Trillions of dollars in previous investment and commercial interests will see that doesn't happen for a long time, if ever. I, for one, continue to pay due obeisance and tribute to our vile oil-powered overlords.
Interestingly, Apple sells laptops, not classrooms.
It's a game I recall with great fondness, never mind how few colours it had.
I walk to work - my expenses run to $70 a year for a new pair of walking shoes.
However, if we rush out and start administering these treatments to people because they work great in the lab and it turns out that there is a complication that wasn't foreseen, then people who may have been saved by other treatments may end up dying as a result.
While stem cells used to treat me are unique, the process used to turn them into a viable treatment is what is being tested, not the individual product itself (although I expect some sort of QA/validation/whatnot). Even if I don't survive to see the treatment come into use, people coming after me will benefit from a fully tested regimen.
No, it doesn't have to come from a proprietary developer, but presumably if you want to interoperate with existing proprietary infrastructure (eg. cad files) then you're fighting an uphill battle.
It might be the point of view of one man, but it's not a crazy position to take. I for one would want any medical treatment fully tested and certified, irrespective of if it's made out of 'modified' bits of me. Cancers, if you recall, are actually a part of you gone wrong. If I'm dying of cancer, sure, I'll try damn near /anything/ in my last days. However, if it's something that will be offered as a routine treatment to non-critical patients then it needs to run the full gamut of testing, like every other contender.
Why do I have to 'get over' myself - why the ad hominem? And no, I didn't have to take a civics class in 4th grade; the closest we got was a general studies course in year 12 that explains the system of government, basics of politics and urges us to discuss why voting is compulsory as compared to other systems.
I'll wager my experience with protests is deeply different from yours - I've seen my share of protests and activist marches. Not once in all my years have I seen anyone get injured or even tense; the worst I've seen was occasional hurled insults.
I dunno where you're from, but maybe you guys are doing something wrong if you keep needing ambulances all the time?
Otherwise, I agree, there is probably a reason why true connoisseurs are prepared to pay serious money for certain bottles. But how many people actually crack open a $10,000+ bottle and consume its contents?
Zing!
I bow to your superior quoting of both Rowan Atkinson and, incidentally, the bible itself.
In my case, many developers of engineering apps (my requisite programs) do now produce Linux-flavoured versions. However, if a developer chooses /not/ to produce a linux version and that program happens to be something you simply can't do without (eg. because it's tied to a specific piece of hardware you're using, like a mill) then you're SOoL.
I wish it was the way you say and maybe, like Apple, increasing user buy-in of Linux systems will lead to all the programs people really care about being available.
In my case, engineering apps (specific CAD, CAM, circuit design and embedded programming stuff).
I think the clearcut question here is whether or not program substitution works; that is, can FOSS program X beat proprietary program Y. In some cases that's a resounding YES. In some cases, that seems to be a very likely no.
The obvious examples that spring to my mind are things like specific engineering applications which do not have a linux port. Admittedly, that number is shrinking, and I look forward to the day when my 'productivity' machine can be a linux box, but for now there is no easy choice for me.
For many people, 3D games are the killer app and I, for one, am sick of listening to my linux-using friends bitch and moan about how tedious it is to boot into Windows just to play them. Arguably, they should quit being whiny bitches, but also they shouldn't -have- to reboot just to run a specific program.
I agree that doing most basic stuff well is a clear first step. However, until Linux can leverage the wealth of software working for Windows, it's always going to be a distant second.
Likewise, lest anyone think me a Windows fanboi, I run all my robots and software dev systems on Debian, but I'm stuck using Windows for CAD, circuit design and certain embedded systems programming. Appropriately, I use either my linux dev box or my windows box to surf and read mail from - ironically, using exactly the same prorgams.
Perhaps there is a tradeoff between liberty and safety, but I choose liberty every time.
The role of police is to protect the peace, not stifle political expression. When and if anarchists start lobbing molotovs then they are dutybound to step in - until such a time, they have no business interfering with a demonstration.
Remember that whole thing about innocent until proven guilty? That includes not being arrested until there is reasonable suspicion until you've committed a crime. Sorry, no, a "Stop the violence" poster is not sufficient.
Wine is getting there, but it's not there yet. Emulation might work, but then it needs to be seamless. Until Ubuntu can beard the dragon in its own lair, it will be fighting the overwhelming advantage of incumbent software Windows has rather than making it work for it.
A permit for protesting? That's as egregious as a 'free speech zone'. The mere idea of free speech somehow being limitable to a certain geographic locale is in itself a conceptual tyranny.
...and there was a great gnashing of teeth.
'cus, you know, nobody buys wine for how it tastes... just for how impressive it looks in your liquor cabinet.
I went along with my transgendered friend who got the op just after leaving - most people had /heard/ but very very few had ever /seen/ - she was my date for the evening. We'd both done well for ourselves in live: she'd run her own company and now conducted research on plant tobacco mosaic virus, and I'd just completed my PhD in aerial robotics. We'd found ourselves and were far happier than the awkward outcast kids who were persecuted at school.
Everyone else? Boring jobs, boring lives, one or two divorcees, one or two successes. The bullies who gave us a hard time were all losers. But us? We were happy, and everyone there knew that in the game of life, we'd come up winners.
And don't ask me how many times I was asked if we were actually a 'couple'...
If you don't think you want to see the suckers who gave you shit at school, reconsider - you're probably doing much better than they are.