Nonsense. Quads are ideal for turning one person into a center of a decent radius search at a rate much higher than can be done alone. Duration is as long as you have a pocket full of batteries and a vehicle (anything... a 4x4 or a dirt bike will do) available to charge them, which could be days at a time. My quad can hit just under a hundred, so it's way faster than it needs to be for any sensible perception of what you (or it) is looking at. You have no idea what you're talking about. I've been out on hunts for people many times here in Montana, and I can tell you if I'd had the quad then, I'd have a much better idea of what was around me, a lot sooner. Many searches are of relatively small areas, and often by small groups. Anything that helps... helps!
Would you really, though? You want to lose your home, your job, perhaps your family, your freedom, your ability to be further employed, have your credit rating destroyed, end up on various lists like no fly, felon, etc... do you really?
It's pretty easy to be upset about this, but the reality of putting your head into the gears of legal process -- even when you demonstrably and obviously on the side of sanity and righteousness -- is that your head gets squashed and the gears are only further lubricated by your juices. I speak from experience.
If you'd really sacrifice pretty much everything on such matters of principle, my hat is off to you. Truly. But when people go in all bright eyed and bushy tailed to do battle with the abject moron we collectively call the justice system, they invariably come out much sadder, wiser, poorer, lower class, jobless, and without having accomplished a damn thing WRT their original intent. So you might want to give that another serious think. You can do more good out here, with resources intact, than you can speaking to a lawyer through bars and learning that your "way out" is, at best, a plea bargain that compromises you for the rest of your life. Even if they promise you it won't.
Because it's fucking stupid. And harmful. And inflexible. And consequently puts people at risk. Because it looks exactly like rules for the wrong reason, inability to deal with what the world actually is, entrenched reasoning for circumstances no longer extant...
You don't want an rc plane anyway. You want an rc quadcopter or hexcopter. Able to hover perfectly stable at any assigned altitude, able to carry cameras and sensors that aren't streamlined without seriously affecting the flight profile, still have decent OTG speeds for this kind of application, able to go down *between* trees if there's just a little room and it has a decent camera system, good complement of nav/running lamps, etc.
The *last* thing I'd want to go hunting for something would be an rc plane or unstabilized heli.
...habits have you found effective for system administration?
I like to shut all the ports in the firewall. The sense of calm that descends on the servers is downright pleasant. Of course, then the phone begins to ring...
all forms of Unix and Unix-like systems have built-in mechanisms that can be used for secure IPC (where the less-trusted component can be verified securely).
Huh. I was looking for a fast IPC mechanism under linux, also OSX, and all I found was TCP/UDP sockets. Secure IPC not required for my application. What did I miss?
Under AmigaDOS, a program would open a named port and that was the basis for some awesome very high speed IPC magic, typically facilitated by intermediate Rexx scripts. I sure miss that capability. Applescript is a raging horror of limitations.
Good news: Just because it is depressingly true that the left side of the gaussian watches reality TV and believes the tripe fox news presents, that is in no way an indicator that scientists do so.
Science doesn't work like economics. More to the point, science actually works, quite unlike economics beyond the utterly simplistic. So as it turns out, past performance is an indicator of future performance in the case of science.
On slashdot, the vast majority of mods are of the form "agree / disagree." "Insightful" usually means "that's exactly what I think, too." There's very little correlation between up moderation and quality, primarily because moderation is unaccountable, but also because the moderators are selected without regard for skill or ability in the area of, you guessed it, moderation.
Strong AI is possible, guaranteed. You're one example of it. The word "artificial" is utterly misleading. All it really says is "we know it exists in animals, and we choose to call any other example artificial, even if we're emulating the biological example."
There's nothing magical about the brain or brainops, superstition notwithstanding. It's just physics like everything else. Technology will get there, it's as inevitable as any other technology already invented, only more so, due to the immense potential for advancement on every front.
Presuming, of course, that we don't destroy ourselves before we get there. Sigh.
The existence of the LHC, as well as the type of discoveries made due to the LHC, in no way preclude discoveries elsewhere.
And as they would be discoveries, there's no saying if some are, or aren't, going to occur.
Inasmuch as cosmological theory is in complete disarray at this time -- "dark this" and "dark that", no certain knowledge of how the universe started -- added to which the fact that we can't yet see other worlds (but the tech to do that is approachable, given the appropriate industrial base), I think it's more than a bit premature to declare things like the LHC the last bastion of physics discoveries.
Customer: “Now, I'm going to ask you that question once more. And if you say no, I'm going to shoot you through the head. Now, do you have any cheese at all?”
Just off the top of my head, we can reasonably expect (meaning, we're still short of) fundamental discoveries and/or basic technological developments in) artificial intelligence, mind download/upload to any degree, human augmentation (bio, mechanical, information processing, communications), animal augmentation, medicine of all kinds (in the areas of "how we work" and "how to keep us working" almost *everything* remains to be discovered), life extension, genetics, space drives, fusion technology, 3D printing / assemblers, nanotechnology, energy storage (ultracaps etc.), long baseline observing tech, canned learning, synthetic meats, holography, gravity...
And that's just a few of the areas we know about. No one knows what new things may be discovered by further exploration of space and the solar system, the sea floor, the earth beneath us, the various and sundry signals and noises that we can detect from elsewhere, and the ideas that spring solely from thinking about what we already know or suspect...
From my POV, both fundamental and technological development has usually seemed to manifest in a pyramidal fashion; one develops at least part of one level before you get to work on the next. With that in mind, I'd venture that we won't slow down either discovery or invention of things new until we cease discovery and invention among things known. And I don't think that's anywhere in sight.
But... then there are all those ideas in the SF lexicon, at least some of which are no doubt going to show up, either in the manner imagined or via some other mechanism. Frederick Pohl's "Joymaker" basically predicted the modern smartphone (except his device did some extra things we can't duplicate yet... like keep your up-to-date mind on file elsewhere as a backup); Arthur Clark nailed the whole geostationary communications satellite thing, William Gibson gave us a vision of networks that we still haven't even come close to (and I sure wish we would); Robert Heinlein came up with the waldo. There are plenty of ideas that seem like they *ought* to be possible, too, but don't appear to be so as imagined -- but that doesn't mean there isn't another way to get to those goals. Transporters, effectively FTL transport, levitation, etc.
In an imaginary humorous conversation, someone asked "Isn't there a clerk who can examine patents?" The reply was "Quite unnecessary, Sir. Everything that can be invented has been invented.*"
...and it's still a joke.
* incorrectly attributed to Charles H. Duell, commissioner of US patent office in 1899
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. Quads are ideal for turning one person into a center of a decent radius search at a rate much higher than can be done alone. Duration is as long as you have a pocket full of batteries and a vehicle (anything... a 4x4 or a dirt bike will do) available to charge them, which could be days at a time. My quad can hit just under a hundred, so it's way faster than it needs to be for any sensible perception of what you (or it) is looking at. You have no idea what you're talking about. I've been out on hunts for people many times here in Montana, and I can tell you if I'd had the quad then, I'd have a much better idea of what was around me, a lot sooner. Many searches are of relatively small areas, and often by small groups. Anything that helps... helps!
Would you really, though? You want to lose your home, your job, perhaps your family, your freedom, your ability to be further employed, have your credit rating destroyed, end up on various lists like no fly, felon, etc... do you really?
It's pretty easy to be upset about this, but the reality of putting your head into the gears of legal process -- even when you demonstrably and obviously on the side of sanity and righteousness -- is that your head gets squashed and the gears are only further lubricated by your juices. I speak from experience.
If you'd really sacrifice pretty much everything on such matters of principle, my hat is off to you. Truly. But when people go in all bright eyed and bushy tailed to do battle with the abject moron we collectively call the justice system, they invariably come out much sadder, wiser, poorer, lower class, jobless, and without having accomplished a damn thing WRT their original intent. So you might want to give that another serious think. You can do more good out here, with resources intact, than you can speaking to a lawyer through bars and learning that your "way out" is, at best, a plea bargain that compromises you for the rest of your life. Even if they promise you it won't.
curious: where is "over here"?
Because it's fucking stupid. And harmful. And inflexible. And consequently puts people at risk. Because it looks exactly like rules for the wrong reason, inability to deal with what the world actually is, entrenched reasoning for circumstances no longer extant...
You know, things like that. Stupid shite.
o We only made X categories because we're imagination-free government drones
o We can't imagine dealing with anything not in our predefined categories
o Yet your application doesn't fit a predefined category, so we put it where it doesn't fit
o So you can't fly
o And little Mary Jane will die of exposure.
o Now, about next year: We'd like a budget increase for our yearly Vegas party, yeah?
Well, with respect to r/c search flyers, one of 'em is "gravity." :)
You don't want an rc plane anyway. You want an rc quadcopter or hexcopter. Able to hover perfectly stable at any assigned altitude, able to carry cameras and sensors that aren't streamlined without seriously affecting the flight profile, still have decent OTG speeds for this kind of application, able to go down *between* trees if there's just a little room and it has a decent camera system, good complement of nav/running lamps, etc.
The *last* thing I'd want to go hunting for something would be an rc plane or unstabilized heli.
Everything *we* see is put on our retina upside down and with a hole in it, and gets really crappy at the edges. Brainz. No wonder zombies like 'em. :)
I like to shut all the ports in the firewall. The sense of calm that descends on the servers is downright pleasant. Of course, then the phone begins to ring...
...is that something with the brain the size of a fruit fly can discriminate between a predator and a non-predator, and react defensively.
We really need to figure out how brains work, lol.
The point is specious. The LHC does not preclude inexpensive work, no matter how you look at it. It's just one tool.
Huh. I was looking for a fast IPC mechanism under linux, also OSX, and all I found was TCP/UDP sockets. Secure IPC not required for my application. What did I miss?
Under AmigaDOS, a program would open a named port and that was the basis for some awesome very high speed IPC magic, typically facilitated by intermediate Rexx scripts. I sure miss that capability. Applescript is a raging horror of limitations.
also, aliens. And the illuminati. cuz, PANIC!
Corporate Oligarchy.
Good news: Just because it is depressingly true that the left side of the gaussian watches reality TV and believes the tripe fox news presents, that is in no way an indicator that scientists do so.
Science doesn't work like economics. More to the point, science actually works, quite unlike economics beyond the utterly simplistic. So as it turns out, past performance is an indicator of future performance in the case of science.
Socks were invented in the stone age, and the rest is hosiery.
On slashdot, the vast majority of mods are of the form "agree / disagree." "Insightful" usually means "that's exactly what I think, too." There's very little correlation between up moderation and quality, primarily because moderation is unaccountable, but also because the moderators are selected without regard for skill or ability in the area of, you guessed it, moderation.
FTFY
All of them. :)
Strong AI is possible, guaranteed. You're one example of it. The word "artificial" is utterly misleading. All it really says is "we know it exists in animals, and we choose to call any other example artificial, even if we're emulating the biological example."
There's nothing magical about the brain or brainops, superstition notwithstanding. It's just physics like everything else. Technology will get there, it's as inevitable as any other technology already invented, only more so, due to the immense potential for advancement on every front.
Presuming, of course, that we don't destroy ourselves before we get there. Sigh.
The existence of the LHC, as well as the type of discoveries made due to the LHC, in no way preclude discoveries elsewhere.
And as they would be discoveries, there's no saying if some are, or aren't, going to occur.
Inasmuch as cosmological theory is in complete disarray at this time -- "dark this" and "dark that", no certain knowledge of how the universe started -- added to which the fact that we can't yet see other worlds (but the tech to do that is approachable, given the appropriate industrial base), I think it's more than a bit premature to declare things like the LHC the last bastion of physics discoveries.
Just off the top of my head, we can reasonably expect (meaning, we're still short of) fundamental discoveries and/or basic technological developments in) artificial intelligence, mind download/upload to any degree, human augmentation (bio, mechanical, information processing, communications), animal augmentation, medicine of all kinds (in the areas of "how we work" and "how to keep us working" almost *everything* remains to be discovered), life extension, genetics, space drives, fusion technology, 3D printing / assemblers, nanotechnology, energy storage (ultracaps etc.), long baseline observing tech, canned learning, synthetic meats, holography, gravity...
And that's just a few of the areas we know about. No one knows what new things may be discovered by further exploration of space and the solar system, the sea floor, the earth beneath us, the various and sundry signals and noises that we can detect from elsewhere, and the ideas that spring solely from thinking about what we already know or suspect...
From my POV, both fundamental and technological development has usually seemed to manifest in a pyramidal fashion; one develops at least part of one level before you get to work on the next. With that in mind, I'd venture that we won't slow down either discovery or invention of things new until we cease discovery and invention among things known. And I don't think that's anywhere in sight.
But... then there are all those ideas in the SF lexicon, at least some of which are no doubt going to show up, either in the manner imagined or via some other mechanism. Frederick Pohl's "Joymaker" basically predicted the modern smartphone (except his device did some extra things we can't duplicate yet... like keep your up-to-date mind on file elsewhere as a backup); Arthur Clark nailed the whole geostationary communications satellite thing, William Gibson gave us a vision of networks that we still haven't even come close to (and I sure wish we would); Robert Heinlein came up with the waldo. There are plenty of ideas that seem like they *ought* to be possible, too, but don't appear to be so as imagined -- but that doesn't mean there isn't another way to get to those goals. Transporters, effectively FTL transport, levitation, etc.
It was a joke then....
* incorrectly attributed to Charles H. Duell, commissioner of US patent office in 1899