Or in actual terms by the FAA, that "the civilian user" shall follow guidelines set by a specificed industry authority, aka the AMA, which sets AGL to 400 feet.
Putting real laws in place has been in discussion with Congress for the last year (main decisions where in June of '11), but has been put off 2 times already. It keeps getting delayed.
What I see is likely restriction of autonomous flight (with the right to shoot down), and the status quo for controlled flight. Not much will change aside from full autonomous modes.
We don't have an obligation to solve America's problems.
Considering Apple pays taxes (at least on record), and uses their 'right' as a citizen (since corporations are people), I find that comment somewhat elitist and a bit condescending. Since corps are people, they are the same as let's say a rich celebrity or wealthy oil man--which only care about themselves.
There are some wealthy folks that do think the opposite (Bill Gates, George Soros, Warrent Buffett, Richard Branson for example), but that's the exception. With a comment for that, Apple just exposes how out of touch rich "people" are and their lacking respect for the system--it's $h*ty corporate governance and stewardship.
Ar.Drone example.
1A@11.8V (3 cell lipo), 10C rating == 10A*11.8 == 118Watts continuous max discharge.... a 100+W solar panel is $$$ and weigh over 8lbs.
The Ar.Drone cannot fight headwinds period. You'll need way more powerful motors, like any of the open source UAVs. Basically a few lbs. Most of the DIY UAVs can fight a Beaufort 4 wind, but not reliably.
IR? No thanks.
Laser? No thanks (unless you want to shoot something down).
Military uses microwaves, but their UAVs can carry 100lbs, and are not micro... and cost a lot...
We're still about 6-8yrs away from a "Golden Eye".
OP makes a valid point. The technology is NOT "bad", the usage is NOT "bad", and guess what? The people are not "bad".
In some ways, it's just pure jealously of those that don't the tech or choose not to use it, and those that do (accessibility is not a problem, just look at the millions of home owners, and shop owners buying up CCTV systems).
In other ways, it's just a true validation that information IS "power". And we all know humans crave "power". All UAV's offer (aside from the ones the military uses as weapons) is more "information" (video/audio/hyperspectral)
Now those that want to restrict who can use UAVs and who can't--now those people are "bad" and the ones we should be worried about.
The MS stuff, though I admit is well integrated, has limited functionality--MS is not a GIS company. Yes it will help you today, but 2 yrs from now (if you are not planning a redesign/refactor), you'll be hating it. Been there done that.
Look into NASA Worldwind. The interface is ArcView like *and* GoogleEarth/Maps like. And you get real GIS guys that can help you out from the GIS community (from NASA nonetheless) maintaining it.
It would be interesting if they listed in a column the last update for the specific language. Cause development cycles do exist.
According to wikipedia....
Java (2011, version 7) C (1999, C99) C# (2010,.Net4) C++ (2007, really 2005, version TR1) Obj-C (2007, Xcode) PHP (2004, PHP5)
Really in the end, C is an exception since most OSes and their hardware drivers are written in C. Once you get an OS and device drivers written in a higher level language like C# or Java, you will see C drop off a cliff.
Fair enough... Having been in the mobile environment as well, you'll like being a lead architect. It's likely less programming--the challenges shift from coding to scalability issues, system design and such. Also what comes with being a good architect is excellent systems engineering skills. IMO, currently, Systems Engineering is the most underrated role in the tech field, period. One thing I've noticed is that critical people in big systems development are architects that know system/software engineering (not s/w programming), the position gets abused (e.g. average pay), but I think in the future it will rise to the top since most architects/sys/software engineers are great integrators, which will be needed in the future.
If you like distributed and scale challenges, an architect will be good experience to have--if you try an architect position in mobile it will open doors for cloud systems, databases, social networking, even robotics and such (trust me). Otherwise, messaging systems will be a good crossover to other fields (with a mobile background) if you want to just stay in programming/development.
It depends on what field you're QA-ing in. Most game devs (which I noticed are representative of the replies so far), say QA sucks... a game can pass QA@75% and still be shippable. In that world it's all about shipping and user base (e.g. I shipped 5million units of that game).
" I was lead developer for a platform that shipped tens of millions of units"
Sounds like you're already in the game industry... A ERP dev would have said "I developed a framework to process million tracations a day". A CRM person would have said "I developed software that mines 1TB of data every minute". A mobile app dev would say "I made apps for every mobile platform, Apple, Android, and WP7". A social networking dev would say, "I have a web system that supported 1 million users". Context is important.
QA in the gaming is at the low end of the respect-pole. It makes sense cause gaming is near the top of the software food chain: hardware, s/w frameworks, messaging, graphics, networking... all of those critical things need to be done before a game is developed.. and usually developed and QA-ed in a non-gaming company. The game environment exploits near all tech, it's the "AI" and design that interests people. Now if you look at other industries, automotive, aerospace, medical, other forms of entertainment (movies & physical SFXs), robotics, military, and such, QA is extremely critical and can be quite exciting. For example QA on rockets, or military weapons can be 100x exciting and challenging than game design.
Basically the point is choose your interest in industry, then cultivate your skillset, I guarantee you'll be happy and will find a way to make cash that is good enough for you. It sounds like you're in the mood to try a new industry....
Then why not just call it change? I mean from the principle of maximum laziness (an "inside" Physics definition of Newton's laws), change is one sylabble and ev-uh-loo-shuhn is 4, just too much for a person to say....
My point is evolution has a specific interpretation, not a word used to generalize a process... Otherwise, you'll have me saying this year: "vote for hope and evolution"...
Huge turning point already that people like Gates, Branson, etc... are looking to push innovation and technology in China and India.. Could it be because the lack of skillsets? More likely the lack of regulations and guts for glory (to take some real innovation risks) over there compared to here.
FYI, not all frameworks are created equal. Successful frameworks use standardized interfaces, so one can either build out-of or build around it.
Where as all wall-gardens are naturally "created equal"--they supply the same rules, same features and you cannot build out or around them. No matter what standard they advertise, the only way around a wall-garden is "no way": you build into them, basically your app needs to be in the wall garden.
Obviously Pfizer ran out of ideas with evolving lipitor.
Typically a company that invents also has the domain knowledge to separate themselves from the copy-cats, whether it's better optimized, easier to use, or more effective. That's competition. There should be value in the last 10yrs of knowledge they've gained on their drug, or did they?
With Pfizer worrying and mounting a large fight, it appears they've sat on their laurels with this drug.
Slashdot Mirror
Or in actual terms by the FAA, that "the civilian user" shall follow guidelines set by a specificed industry authority, aka the AMA, which sets AGL to 400 feet.
Putting real laws in place has been in discussion with Congress for the last year (main decisions where in June of '11), but has been put off 2 times already. It keeps getting delayed.
What I see is likely restriction of autonomous flight (with the right to shoot down), and the status quo for controlled flight. Not much will change aside from full autonomous modes.
We don't have an obligation to solve America's problems.
Considering Apple pays taxes (at least on record), and uses their 'right' as a citizen (since corporations are people), I find that comment somewhat elitist and a bit condescending. Since corps are people, they are the same as let's say a rich celebrity or wealthy oil man--which only care about themselves.
There are some wealthy folks that do think the opposite (Bill Gates, George Soros, Warrent Buffett, Richard Branson for example), but that's the exception. With a comment for that, Apple just exposes how out of touch rich "people" are and their lacking respect for the system--it's $h*ty corporate governance and stewardship.
Ar.Drone example.
1A@11.8V (3 cell lipo), 10C rating == 10A*11.8 == 118Watts continuous max discharge.... a 100+W solar panel is $$$ and weigh over 8lbs.
The Ar.Drone cannot fight headwinds period. You'll need way more powerful motors, like any of the open source UAVs. Basically a few lbs. Most of the DIY UAVs can fight a Beaufort 4 wind, but not reliably.
IR? No thanks.
Laser? No thanks (unless you want to shoot something down).
Military uses microwaves, but their UAVs can carry 100lbs, and are not micro... and cost a lot...
We're still about 6-8yrs away from a "Golden Eye".
And maybe closer to Benjamin Franklin's (cash). I hear Nome's a big gold mining town...
OP makes a valid point.
The technology is NOT "bad", the usage is NOT "bad", and guess what? The people are not "bad".
In some ways, it's just pure jealously of those that don't the tech or choose not to use it, and those that do (accessibility is not a problem, just look at the millions of home owners, and shop owners buying up CCTV systems).
In other ways, it's just a true validation that information IS "power". And we all know humans crave "power". All UAV's offer (aside from the ones the military uses as weapons) is more "information" (video/audio/hyperspectral)
Now those that want to restrict who can use UAVs and who can't--now those people are "bad" and the ones we should be worried about.
The MS stuff, though I admit is well integrated, has limited functionality--MS is not a GIS company. Yes it will help you today, but 2 yrs from now (if you are not planning a redesign/refactor), you'll be hating it. Been there done that.
Look into NASA Worldwind. The interface is ArcView like *and* GoogleEarth/Maps like. And you get real GIS guys that can help you out from the GIS community (from NASA nonetheless) maintaining it.
It would be interesting if they listed in a column the last update for the specific language. Cause development cycles do exist.
According to wikipedia....
Java (2011, version 7) .Net4)
C (1999, C99)
C# (2010,
C++ (2007, really 2005, version TR1)
Obj-C (2007, Xcode)
PHP (2004, PHP5)
Really in the end, C is an exception since most OSes and their hardware drivers are written in C. Once you get an OS and device drivers written in a higher level language like C# or Java, you will see C drop off a cliff.
C set to overtake Java?
Must be Friday... the 13th
Fair enough...
Having been in the mobile environment as well, you'll like being a lead architect. It's likely less programming--the challenges shift from coding to scalability issues, system design and such. Also what comes with being a good architect is excellent systems engineering skills. IMO, currently, Systems Engineering is the most underrated role in the tech field, period. One thing I've noticed is that critical people in big systems development are architects that know system/software engineering (not s/w programming), the position gets abused (e.g. average pay), but I think in the future it will rise to the top since most architects/sys/software engineers are great integrators, which will be needed in the future.
If you like distributed and scale challenges, an architect will be good experience to have--if you try an architect position in mobile it will open doors for cloud systems, databases, social networking, even robotics and such (trust me). Otherwise, messaging systems will be a good crossover to other fields (with a mobile background) if you want to just stay in programming/development.
That's my 0.02...
Good Luck on your decision.
It depends on what field you're QA-ing in. Most game devs (which I noticed are representative of the replies so far), say QA sucks... a game can pass QA@75% and still be shippable. In that world it's all about shipping and user base (e.g. I shipped 5million units of that game).
" I was lead developer for a platform that shipped tens of millions of units"
Sounds like you're already in the game industry... A ERP dev would have said "I developed a framework to process million tracations a day". A CRM person would have said "I developed software that mines 1TB of data every minute". A mobile app dev would say "I made apps for every mobile platform, Apple, Android, and WP7". A social networking dev would say, "I have a web system that supported 1 million users". Context is important.
QA in the gaming is at the low end of the respect-pole. It makes sense cause gaming is near the top of the software food chain: hardware, s/w frameworks, messaging, graphics, networking... all of those critical things need to be done before a game is developed.. and usually developed and QA-ed in a non-gaming company. The game environment exploits near all tech, it's the "AI" and design that interests people. Now if you look at other industries, automotive, aerospace, medical, other forms of entertainment (movies & physical SFXs), robotics, military, and such, QA is extremely critical and can be quite exciting. For example QA on rockets, or military weapons can be 100x exciting and challenging than game design.
Basically the point is choose your interest in industry, then cultivate your skillset, I guarantee you'll be happy and will find a way to make cash that is good enough for you. It sounds like you're in the mood to try a new industry....
Then why not just call it change? I mean from the principle of maximum laziness (an "inside" Physics definition of Newton's laws), change is one sylabble and ev-uh-loo-shuhn is 4, just too much for a person to say....
My point is evolution has a specific interpretation, not a word used to generalize a process... Otherwise, you'll have me saying this year: "vote for hope and evolution"...
that the generation of the i<Marketing Name Here> product is over.
Long live the smart<Marketing Name Here> product naming to come....
I'm suprised the e<Marketing Name Here> product naming convention hasn't come back.
Why not just hype up the bitcoin space, make some quick cash and buy out Iridium. I hear they're looking for some owners.
If they want bleeding edge, they should talk to these guys.
The F22 is more like bleeding edge for making money.
Wouldn't it be easier to just use the wayback machine
I guess is controlled SSDs. You can still get around flash drive security.
Huge turning point already that people like Gates, Branson, etc... are looking to push innovation and technology in China and India.. Could it be because the lack of skillsets? More likely the lack of regulations and guts for glory (to take some real innovation risks) over there compared to here.
FYI, not all frameworks are created equal. Successful frameworks use standardized interfaces, so one can either build out-of or build around it.
Where as all wall-gardens are naturally "created equal"--they supply the same rules, same features and you cannot build out or around them. No matter what standard they advertise, the only way around a wall-garden is "no way": you build into them, basically your app needs to be in the wall garden.
Yeah, but the licensing will likely kill them. So many licensing hurdles to jump when building a cellular device.
Of course, as I look at my GTA02 Freerunner sitting on my desk, if the drivers don't work and runs only 3G, this effort will be another wasted effort.
Obviously Pfizer ran out of ideas with evolving lipitor.
Typically a company that invents also has the domain knowledge to separate themselves from the copy-cats, whether it's better optimized, easier to use, or more effective. That's competition. There should be value in the last 10yrs of knowledge they've gained on their drug, or did they?
With Pfizer worrying and mounting a large fight, it appears they've sat on their laurels with this drug.
New rubber, inflatable robot... needs 2nd robot to follow it and provide air lines for power source.
Still--this has real applications....
I concur.
But if you want personal insight (and associated ego with a PhD), I believe Computational Physics (@Columbia?) is your destination.
Crashes will happen,
There's a logic reason for humans to call it an 'accident'.... cause accidents happen.
That's in a idea world.
ase:
And we don't live in that world. We live in a world of cronism, favorism, racism, etc...
Talent is something that is judged, which is social and subjective. Otherwise, I would refer to the phrase: "if a tree falls in a forest....".
Then again, there is LUCK, which is due to timing and being at the right place/time. Just ask Steve Jobs.
So, what takes 10secs to startup in JavaScript will take 10mins in the Java version under the Javascript engine.