Why is it when talk of flying cars comes up, people always assume that the idiots on the ground would instantly qualify to become idiots in the air? There is an existing system of air traffic rules and regulations. Even if they became much more accessible, only a fraction of the people who currently drive would qualify to operate a flying car. Which basically means, by in large, the people who safely operate vehicles today would be the ones safely operating flying cars tomorrow. And as a benefit, traffic on the ground would be reduced accordingly. It would literally be a win-win for everyone.
And as for the desire for idiots in the air, that's why so much research is underway for pilotless navigation. Which is to say, it takes the idiots out of the equation.
My best guess is that perhaps 20%-30% of the current drivers would be able to transition to flying cars which do not have pilotless navigation systems. Likely, expense would only allow for another 10% to be added unless we're talking about public transportation, such as flying buses and whatnot.
Not to worry - only for less than a year (if even that)
Likely a lot less. These Android hardware specs were announced several months ago for up coming models. They are clearly running in parallel time tables. By the time the NGP is available, competing hardware with equal or superior specs will already be out for Android.
Only Apple is likely to be caught behind by this, but likely only one generational cycle at worst. So in the grand scheme, this is a complete non-news story.
Oh and I can't help noticing the description about D&D is reminiscent of ANY organization. A Master ordering people what to do? Sounds like the President of my country or the CEO of my company.
Or a coach and his players. For really, any form of hierarchical system of management or governance.
Please make sure you child never participates in any activity because, according to the legal system, its really training them to be gang members.
Actually its not incorrect once you place it back into the original context. If you can not stow your weapon within your vehicle while at work, how do you believe you're "protected in transit", when it becomes impossible to carry or access your weapon. The problem with the laws is that you are right so long as you remain on public property. Once you enter private property, which is what most places of employment are, the employer is granted the ability to strip you of your Constitution right. As such, people who work, are largely unable to legally protect themselves while in transit to and fro work. Made worse is that there is even some precedence which says you must be granted permission to bring your weapon on private property each and every time. I'm not sure that's been tested in the high courts, but its there nonetheless.
If you have easy access to explosives, you probably SHOULD be inspected more closely, don't you think?
With that logic, gun owners should be inspected more closely. Or those of a religious affiliation we don't like. Or how about those with an physics or chemistry background sense they are far more likely to have the knowledge to build explosives.
Besides the fact remains, there are tons of explosives which can be made trivially with ingredients from your local hardware and grocery stores.
And if you want to apply a little statistics, I'm sure you'll find that those who DON'T have legal access to explosives are more likely to commit terrorist acts. Oddly enough, most crimes are not committed by law abiding citizens who purchase their weapons legally; which is why background checks on weapon purchases statistically never prevent crime. Here's a hint, if you're going to commit a crime, its a good idea not to have a direct link between you and a crime.
Sorry, but you've fallen pretty far down the wrong rabbit hole there.
Unless the employment contract includes a non-disclosure agreement (1st amendment)
Bad example and not protected by the Constitution.
drug test (4th amendment)
Doesn't appear to mean what you think it means. Though you might have an argument with the fifth.
at-will firing (5th amendment)
Again, I believe you are mistaken. Besides, the Constitution does not guarantee your right to force your employment on others - so likely a red herring.
Again, simply employing someone does not strip their right to bear arms. Period. Now if you want to argue the rights are property, I'll fully support you, when that gun leaves one's property and enters another's. The simple fact is, its widely recognized that so long as the weapon remains within a vehicle, hidden from view, its not on your property. Most castle doctrines in most states support this notion. Which makes sense because it means BOTH parties rights are protected.
The problem with a gun locked in a vehicle is that it is no longer under your control.
This is true for any weapon which is not "under your control." This is a red herring argument.
They will find it and a few minutes with a torch will get the gun.
This assumes they know the vehicle has a weapon. This assumes they know where the vehicle is at. This assumes the vehicle is readily accessible. This assumes the vehicle is unobserved for extended periods of time. This assumes criminals have torches and a desire to break into vehicles and steal firearms. This assumes use of the torch does not ignite the vehicle before it can be cut free (which is iffy at best). And then, it assumes that after all that, the weapon will immediately be used for nefarious deeds against those in the immediate area. This is basically a cluster fuck of a red herring debate. There's not one notion in your post which withstands reasonable scrutiny.
By the way, the right is to bear arms not leave guns unattended in vehicles.
And by preventing that, you are preventing the "right to bear arms."
the opportunity for the kind of surveillance now undertaken by piloted helicopters at a fraction of the price.
And an exponential increase in risk to everyone in the air. The simple fact is, these aircraft can not comply with FAA regulations and therefore transfer 50% of the "see and avoid" burden to every other pilot in the air. Its simply not fair. Especially when you consider the hugely increased burden of attempting to visually detect such a small aircraft in what is likely to be busy airspace.
The Houston version had an 8 foot wingspan, and was tossed aloft to launch.
A single, small bird, can easily create an emergency or even death for airplanes. An aircraft this large is extremely likely to create catastrophic results should it impact another aircraft.
Got to be cheaper to operate and own than the $4+ million per for the most
Justifying huge air safety risks because of extremely poor budget practices is simply a bad idea. The reality is, for the operational cost of one turbine helicopter, two to four piston helicopters can be operated. And for the price tag of that same turbine helicopter, those two to four piston helicopters can be purchased. The simple fact is, any attempt to guise this as "tax savings" efforts is political speak for bullshit. And this completely ignores the fact that for many missions, fixed wing can typically satisfy most missions for a faction of both cost and operational expense. If they are flying turbine aircraft and speak of budget concerns, you know without any doubt, they are completely full of shit.
why would you expect the right to bring a gun onto that property?
Because the right to work does not terminate one's constitutional rights. I agree if you don't want weapons carried around on your property, you have every right to say so. But the right to destroy other's constitution rights just because you are an employer or business owner simply does not exist.
Yeah but, in Texas and Florida for that matter, you have one of the freest gun ownership laws in the Union - that makes you freer than the rest of us!
Actually Texas has some of the worst gun ownership laws. Many are unconstitutional according to both the US Constitution and the state's constitution. Only recently have they been expanded to allow allow for proper legal protection for gun owners. In fact, the right to safely stow a weapon (hidden and under lock and key) in your own vehicle, when at work, even with a concealed license, was just recently struck down. Which means, even with a concealed handgun license, the laws prevent most people from being able to protect themselves while in transit. Furthermore, Texas is one of the few states which does not allow open carry in some form or fashion.
People like to think Texas is a throw back to the wild west. In reality, only a couple of years back, Texas was ranked toward the bottom for gun owner rights. Now, Texas is somewhere in the bottom, top third.
Regardless of what you may think, Texas is absolutely NOT, "one of the [states with the] freest gun ownership laws in the Union". There are many, many states which are in front of Texas in this regard.
Which is only true if you take "Muslims are dishonest"
Now, it doesn't mean that at all. They are the Fox News of the arab world. Plus, they are more than happy to not only editorialize completely lies and bullshit like Fox, but also go out of their way to push hate speech and propaganda. Basically, they are what Fox News would be if TV standards didn't prevent.
To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying Fox is awesome. I'm saying Fox News thus far, seems to have a line which Al-jazeera willingly went passed many, many years ago. Heck, actually for as long as I've known about them they've always been the garbage of the Arab world.
He didn't say Al-jazeera stood alone. What he's trying to convey is that they make Fox News looks like men of honor. Now ponder that...seriously...who says you can't have a good laugh from the Internet.
I didn't say the cockpit should be behind, though, I said underneath.
Right, which is exactly what I answered. Seeing the ground that is below you is ground that is behind you. It serves no purpose. Furthermore, jets climb fast and typically descend slowly. That means they need better visibility above the aircraft.
As I originally said, seeing what is behind you doesn't do anyone any good - especially when it comes with so many additional negatives, as I previously explained.
It seems that the article's author leaps to the conclusion that a lack of engineers and scientists in politics is a bad thing for innovation. I would like to see evidence of that.
Then you've not bothered to look at corporate America. Nor have you bothered to look at modern politics or the state of the global economy. The former of the two have have become, "What's mine", and "Fuck the rest of you."
In fact, one can argue the opposite: that engineers and scientists focused on engineering and science, rather than politics, is a better way to insure innovation.
Only so long as one can independently operate of the other. But they can't. Which means science is under foot of politics. Which means any time science is in conflict with, "What's mine", or, "Fuck the rest of you", politics wins and science loses. Oddly enough, that's exactly what we see everywhere.
Lastly, the current state of the economy and global markets is exactly what you get when greed becomes your mantra and literal sociopaths becomes the ideal corporate heads. Unless things change, such as what the article suggests, it can only lead to one end game; the destruction of America. Hardly surprising the world recently got a glance at what's just over the horizon.
Simple. It matters what's in front of you and not so much what's below you. In other words, its more important to see where you're going rather than where you've been. Being up high also provides for better visibility when on the ground. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the reasons you put forward. The cockpit is located where it is purely for reasons of practicality of design and safe operation.
are there any android devices to date that aren't rootable? yes maybe there are, but saying the device is rootable doesn't make it especially unique or suited for development.
The Droid has built in facilities to allow for rooting and loading of custom ROMS. No exploits are required. There is a difference between requiring an exploit and leveraging a built-in facility.
As for the answer to your question, yes, there are some Android devices which are not rootable.
As for unlocked, I didn't mean carrier locked. I mean hardware locked - as in, it doesn't have one.
I'm gonna throw my Droid in the toilet. Wait, I don't own a Droid =P
That's too bad because the Droid isn't locked. The Droid was actually pushed out by Google to Android developers. So if you were to throw a Droid down the toilet you wasted a perfectly good, unlocked, fully rootable, Android device.
But generally not at the levels being discussed here, which is generally less than 10%.
To be clear, I'm not saying keep and take your medication indefinitely. I'm saying that most medications remain safe and effectively potent until roughly twice the labeled expiration period. Medication doesn't literally become unsafe one day past its labeled expiration.
Much of the world's medication is MANUFACTURED to such specifications. They can make up for it with slightly larger doses and/or more frequent doses, when and where it matters. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this medication other than its potency is slightly reduced. And more many types of medication, especially in first world countries, you're typically, slightly over prescribed anyways. So typical use has no down side.
Do you have an analogy that's even remotely accurate or are you just being a complete idiot, going out of your way to troll?
Taking medication which has slightly reduced potency is not MORE harmful to your body. Gas with water is destructive to the engine and fuel system. To be more accurate than your absolutely worth analogy would be to say, the octane rating slowly decreases over time. Running your car on 93 octane versus 90 octane is not going to damage your vehicle; especially given that most vehicles are perfectly good with 89 octane.
I have. It doesn't connect to multiple cell towers - it doesn't connect at all, even when you're over a fairly large city.
You're confused.
Just because your phone is unable to negotiate and reserve a connection on a tower does in no way mean the tower is not seeing, and in doing so, attempting to negotiate with the cell. Furthermore, once you fly lower and slower, your phone absolutely is able to communicate back.
I am a pilot. I have used a phone in the air. So has my co-pilot, which is actually very common.
Phone use in the air has always been about resource utilization while in the air plus up charges on scarce resource utilization. Period.
You are correct. The problem with this is that 90% potency is still potent enough its commonly used in second and third world countries. Which means, despite still being an effective medication, many people have been convinced to throw it out and replace it with new stock. Which means, in the US, LOTS of perfectly good medication is being wasted.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it when talk of flying cars comes up, people always assume that the idiots on the ground would instantly qualify to become idiots in the air? There is an existing system of air traffic rules and regulations. Even if they became much more accessible, only a fraction of the people who currently drive would qualify to operate a flying car. Which basically means, by in large, the people who safely operate vehicles today would be the ones safely operating flying cars tomorrow. And as a benefit, traffic on the ground would be reduced accordingly. It would literally be a win-win for everyone.
And as for the desire for idiots in the air, that's why so much research is underway for pilotless navigation. Which is to say, it takes the idiots out of the equation.
My best guess is that perhaps 20%-30% of the current drivers would be able to transition to flying cars which do not have pilotless navigation systems. Likely, expense would only allow for another 10% to be added unless we're talking about public transportation, such as flying buses and whatnot.
Not to worry - only for less than a year (if even that)
Likely a lot less. These Android hardware specs were announced several months ago for up coming models. They are clearly running in parallel time tables. By the time the NGP is available, competing hardware with equal or superior specs will already be out for Android.
Only Apple is likely to be caught behind by this, but likely only one generational cycle at worst. So in the grand scheme, this is a complete non-news story.
Most games are more like this. The judge probably got pissed that someone kept drinking his Mountain Dew.
Oh and I can't help noticing the description about D&D is reminiscent of ANY organization. A Master ordering people what to do? Sounds like the President of my country or the CEO of my company.
Or a coach and his players. For really, any form of hierarchical system of management or governance.
Please make sure you child never participates in any activity because, according to the legal system, its really training them to be gang members.
This is incorrect
Actually its not incorrect once you place it back into the original context. If you can not stow your weapon within your vehicle while at work, how do you believe you're "protected in transit", when it becomes impossible to carry or access your weapon. The problem with the laws is that you are right so long as you remain on public property. Once you enter private property, which is what most places of employment are, the employer is granted the ability to strip you of your Constitution right. As such, people who work, are largely unable to legally protect themselves while in transit to and fro work. Made worse is that there is even some precedence which says you must be granted permission to bring your weapon on private property each and every time. I'm not sure that's been tested in the high courts, but its there nonetheless.
If you have easy access to explosives, you probably SHOULD be inspected more closely, don't you think?
With that logic, gun owners should be inspected more closely. Or those of a religious affiliation we don't like. Or how about those with an physics or chemistry background sense they are far more likely to have the knowledge to build explosives.
Besides the fact remains, there are tons of explosives which can be made trivially with ingredients from your local hardware and grocery stores.
And if you want to apply a little statistics, I'm sure you'll find that those who DON'T have legal access to explosives are more likely to commit terrorist acts. Oddly enough, most crimes are not committed by law abiding citizens who purchase their weapons legally; which is why background checks on weapon purchases statistically never prevent crime. Here's a hint, if you're going to commit a crime, its a good idea not to have a direct link between you and a crime.
Sorry, but you've fallen pretty far down the wrong rabbit hole there.
So now Constitution rights depend on if a weapon can be stolen. Again, red herring. That's entirely the point - you don't have one.
Unless the employment contract includes a non-disclosure agreement (1st amendment)
Bad example and not protected by the Constitution.
drug test (4th amendment)
Doesn't appear to mean what you think it means. Though you might have an argument with the fifth.
at-will firing (5th amendment)
Again, I believe you are mistaken. Besides, the Constitution does not guarantee your right to force your employment on others - so likely a red herring.
Again, simply employing someone does not strip their right to bear arms. Period. Now if you want to argue the rights are property, I'll fully support you, when that gun leaves one's property and enters another's. The simple fact is, its widely recognized that so long as the weapon remains within a vehicle, hidden from view, its not on your property. Most castle doctrines in most states support this notion. Which makes sense because it means BOTH parties rights are protected.
The problem with a gun locked in a vehicle is that it is no longer under your control.
This is true for any weapon which is not "under your control." This is a red herring argument.
They will find it and a few minutes with a torch will get the gun.
This assumes they know the vehicle has a weapon. This assumes they know where the vehicle is at. This assumes the vehicle is readily accessible. This assumes the vehicle is unobserved for extended periods of time. This assumes criminals have torches and a desire to break into vehicles and steal firearms. This assumes use of the torch does not ignite the vehicle before it can be cut free (which is iffy at best). And then, it assumes that after all that, the weapon will immediately be used for nefarious deeds against those in the immediate area. This is basically a cluster fuck of a red herring debate. There's not one notion in your post which withstands reasonable scrutiny.
By the way, the right is to bear arms not leave guns unattended in vehicles.
And by preventing that, you are preventing the "right to bear arms."
the opportunity for the kind of surveillance now undertaken by piloted helicopters at a fraction of the price.
And an exponential increase in risk to everyone in the air. The simple fact is, these aircraft can not comply with FAA regulations and therefore transfer 50% of the "see and avoid" burden to every other pilot in the air. Its simply not fair. Especially when you consider the hugely increased burden of attempting to visually detect such a small aircraft in what is likely to be busy airspace.
The Houston version had an 8 foot wingspan, and was tossed aloft to launch.
A single, small bird, can easily create an emergency or even death for airplanes. An aircraft this large is extremely likely to create catastrophic results should it impact another aircraft.
Got to be cheaper to operate and own than the $4+ million per for the most
Justifying huge air safety risks because of extremely poor budget practices is simply a bad idea. The reality is, for the operational cost of one turbine helicopter, two to four piston helicopters can be operated. And for the price tag of that same turbine helicopter, those two to four piston helicopters can be purchased. The simple fact is, any attempt to guise this as "tax savings" efforts is political speak for bullshit. And this completely ignores the fact that for many missions, fixed wing can typically satisfy most missions for a faction of both cost and operational expense. If they are flying turbine aircraft and speak of budget concerns, you know without any doubt, they are completely full of shit.
why would you expect the right to bring a gun onto that property?
Because the right to work does not terminate one's constitutional rights. I agree if you don't want weapons carried around on your property, you have every right to say so. But the right to destroy other's constitution rights just because you are an employer or business owner simply does not exist.
What do the drones do that is different that police helicopters? Aside from being cheaper?
Potentially impact other aircraft which DO have people and/or passengers aboard. Or create legal problems for pilots for "pop up" airspace changes.
Yeah but, in Texas and Florida for that matter, you have one of the freest gun ownership laws in the Union - that makes you freer than the rest of us!
Actually Texas has some of the worst gun ownership laws. Many are unconstitutional according to both the US Constitution and the state's constitution. Only recently have they been expanded to allow allow for proper legal protection for gun owners. In fact, the right to safely stow a weapon (hidden and under lock and key) in your own vehicle, when at work, even with a concealed license, was just recently struck down. Which means, even with a concealed handgun license, the laws prevent most people from being able to protect themselves while in transit. Furthermore, Texas is one of the few states which does not allow open carry in some form or fashion.
People like to think Texas is a throw back to the wild west. In reality, only a couple of years back, Texas was ranked toward the bottom for gun owner rights. Now, Texas is somewhere in the bottom, top third.
Regardless of what you may think, Texas is absolutely NOT, "one of the [states with the] freest gun ownership laws in the Union". There are many, many states which are in front of Texas in this regard.
Which is only true if you take "Muslims are dishonest"
Now, it doesn't mean that at all. They are the Fox News of the arab world. Plus, they are more than happy to not only editorialize completely lies and bullshit like Fox, but also go out of their way to push hate speech and propaganda. Basically, they are what Fox News would be if TV standards didn't prevent.
To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying Fox is awesome. I'm saying Fox News thus far, seems to have a line which Al-jazeera willingly went passed many, many years ago. Heck, actually for as long as I've known about them they've always been the garbage of the Arab world.
He didn't say Al-jazeera stood alone. What he's trying to convey is that they make Fox News looks like men of honor. Now ponder that...seriously...who says you can't have a good laugh from the Internet.
I didn't say the cockpit should be behind, though, I said underneath.
Right, which is exactly what I answered. Seeing the ground that is below you is ground that is behind you. It serves no purpose. Furthermore, jets climb fast and typically descend slowly. That means they need better visibility above the aircraft.
As I originally said, seeing what is behind you doesn't do anyone any good - especially when it comes with so many additional negatives, as I previously explained.
It seems that the article's author leaps to the conclusion that a lack of engineers and scientists in politics is a bad thing for innovation. I would like to see evidence of that.
Then you've not bothered to look at corporate America. Nor have you bothered to look at modern politics or the state of the global economy. The former of the two have have become, "What's mine", and "Fuck the rest of you."
In fact, one can argue the opposite: that engineers and scientists focused on engineering and science, rather than politics, is a better way to insure innovation.
Only so long as one can independently operate of the other. But they can't. Which means science is under foot of politics. Which means any time science is in conflict with, "What's mine", or, "Fuck the rest of you", politics wins and science loses. Oddly enough, that's exactly what we see everywhere.
Lastly, the current state of the economy and global markets is exactly what you get when greed becomes your mantra and literal sociopaths becomes the ideal corporate heads. Unless things change, such as what the article suggests, it can only lead to one end game; the destruction of America. Hardly surprising the world recently got a glance at what's just over the horizon.
Simple. It matters what's in front of you and not so much what's below you. In other words, its more important to see where you're going rather than where you've been. Being up high also provides for better visibility when on the ground. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the reasons you put forward. The cockpit is located where it is purely for reasons of practicality of design and safe operation.
are there any android devices to date that aren't rootable? yes maybe there are, but saying the device is rootable doesn't make it especially unique or suited for development.
The Droid has built in facilities to allow for rooting and loading of custom ROMS. No exploits are required. There is a difference between requiring an exploit and leveraging a built-in facility.
As for the answer to your question, yes, there are some Android devices which are not rootable.
As for unlocked, I didn't mean carrier locked. I mean hardware locked - as in, it doesn't have one.
I'm gonna throw my Droid in the toilet. Wait, I don't own a Droid =P
That's too bad because the Droid isn't locked. The Droid was actually pushed out by Google to Android developers. So if you were to throw a Droid down the toilet you wasted a perfectly good, unlocked, fully rootable, Android device.
Actually, it can be.
But generally not at the levels being discussed here, which is generally less than 10%.
To be clear, I'm not saying keep and take your medication indefinitely. I'm saying that most medications remain safe and effectively potent until roughly twice the labeled expiration period. Medication doesn't literally become unsafe one day past its labeled expiration.
Much of the world's medication is MANUFACTURED to such specifications. They can make up for it with slightly larger doses and/or more frequent doses, when and where it matters. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this medication other than its potency is slightly reduced. And more many types of medication, especially in first world countries, you're typically, slightly over prescribed anyways. So typical use has no down side.
Do you have an analogy that's even remotely accurate or are you just being a complete idiot, going out of your way to troll?
Taking medication which has slightly reduced potency is not MORE harmful to your body. Gas with water is destructive to the engine and fuel system. To be more accurate than your absolutely worth analogy would be to say, the octane rating slowly decreases over time. Running your car on 93 octane versus 90 octane is not going to damage your vehicle; especially given that most vehicles are perfectly good with 89 octane.
I have. It doesn't connect to multiple cell towers - it doesn't connect at all, even when you're over a fairly large city.
You're confused.
Just because your phone is unable to negotiate and reserve a connection on a tower does in no way mean the tower is not seeing, and in doing so, attempting to negotiate with the cell. Furthermore, once you fly lower and slower, your phone absolutely is able to communicate back.
I am a pilot. I have used a phone in the air. So has my co-pilot, which is actually very common.
Phone use in the air has always been about resource utilization while in the air plus up charges on scarce resource utilization. Period.
You are correct. The problem with this is that 90% potency is still potent enough its commonly used in second and third world countries. Which means, despite still being an effective medication, many people have been convinced to throw it out and replace it with new stock. Which means, in the US, LOTS of perfectly good medication is being wasted.