It's probably true, most of the time....until it hits a prop blade just right and causes a few thousand dollars of damage to the firefighting aircraft. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it that they could never damage the larger craft, though.
I live in an apartment block. Facing me is another apartment block and between the two buildings there's a busy footpath, then a busy road, and another busy footpath. Nothing else. If someone loses control of an RC, there's an unacceptable chance of injury and could include causing a car crash.
If someone's flying there, they deserve to have their equipment confiscated by the police and to be charged with a crime with "endangerment" or "negligence" in its name. I agree that it makes sense to restrict allowed flight areas to places that don't have heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic, the same way that I think it makes sense to have posted "no parking" signs. "No hobby aircraft here" makes more sense to me than "No hobby aircraft, period".
Drone[s] are used by only a small group, so we're talking about restricting a small group to safeguard the safety and privacy of the many.
We're talking about restricting a small group (RC aircraft pilots) for the bad behavior of a much, much smaller group (negligent/irresponsible/criminal RC aircraft pilots). The behavior is what I'm opposed to, not the technology...so why would I want a blanket ban on the technology, rather than the behavior?
In terms of convicting someone of illegal drone use, you're right that anti-harassment could be tried. Problem is that they might or mightn't work, you might have a hard time proving it, and the case could take years. If you want to prevent the incident, it's better to have a clear law "No drones here".
In a perfect world, all crimes would be both simple and easy to prove, and criminals would get what they deserve. I don't believe in outright banning something because a small fraction of its users abuse it. I feel that on the balance, the loss due to the reduced freedom of action of the responsible users is greater than the gain of preventing an already rare occurrence.
"Windows 10 allows you to easily rollback to your previous version of Windows, if you do so within one month" is a very different proposition than saying "Windows 10 allows you to easily rollback to your previous version of Windows.".
Sure they do. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean they don't. I suppose you think they have no business reason to offer ISO downloads of various older versions of Windows, but they do.
Sure; ISO downloads are useful for developers supporting software on older versions of their OS, and some of them are available with an appropriate level of MSDN subscription. That doesn't mean that MS would have a reason to let Joe Blow User roll back 2 months after installing Win10. Reducing use of legacy software means less back-version stuff for them to support, fewer users crapping things up for everyone else by using unsupported software with unpatched vulnerabilities, a less fragmented userbase, and so on.
Android K uses a different runtime (Dalvik) than L does (Android RunTime, ART). I updated my phone, and some applications stopped working. Apparently, the same thing is the case with these games. So, Nvidia could have always left the games on, in a broken and non-functional state, but what would the point of that be? Nvidia should've found a way to explain the situation and give their customers an informed choice. It sucks that they didn't.
I updated my phone from K to L. Some of my games stopped working with the switch to the new runtime, and they didn't start working again until the developers issued updates to their games.
That's odd. In the U.S., I can buy isopropyl alcohol by the liter at a 70% concentration for a couple dollars, and the cashier won't blink. Out of curiosity, what is the justification for making it difficult to obtain?
If the things I propose banning (such as peeping, tracking, stalking, harassing)
Don't most places already have laws against those things? Do we really need to pass new laws that include the text of the old ones with the phrase "using a drone" tacked on the end?
then why do you oppose the banning those things?
Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the freedoms of the many.
I can't see the point of getting worked up over them in a less-invasive situation than that.
...Of course, that's the privacy side of things. The idiots that compromise other people's safety (like the ones flying above fires) deserve to have their devices confiscated and possibly to see some fines or jail time.
I live in southern California. I know a few fields where people fly all sorts of RC aircraft. My neighbor flies a couple of small ones around my condo complex. A coworker uses one to film events at work. I've seen them at the beach, and I've seen a couple at a comic convention. They're out there. I'd be upset if someone was looking in my windows with one, but I can't see the point of getting worked up over them in a less-invasive situation than that.
I'd be interested in seeing some evidence of that. Microsoft has no business reason to allow people to roll back, and all the reasons in the world to force their users forward. It makes sense to support that during the "technical previews" (since users will have to go back and forth for testing purposes), but not when the final version of the OS is released.
Ditto. Most people don't care about controlling their system, and 99% of the time, updates will fix some security flaw. The other 1%, I'll get a call from my parents saying that something changed that they don't like, and they'll accept the answer that Microsoft pushed the change to their machine, and there's nothing I can do. Maybe they'll grouse a bit, but they'll shrug and adapt.
For my own part, I install the 99% that address security issues and put the 1% of crap I don't want into the "ignored updates" list. I like having the option of making a choice like that. I don't really want to see Windows going down the road of the Xbox 360 (which has mandatory updates). Mandatory UI updates turned the system into a product that I never would have bought by choice.
It's a 1-way street; you're basically trading your Windows 7 license for a Windows 10 one, so after you've installed 10, you're no longer licensed for 7.
Windows 8 changed more than the UI; there are some under the hood improvements that don't have anything to do with the tiles crap. Personally, I'm not sure if it's worth it to switch because I imagine it'll kill my dual-boot and I'll have to spend a few hours wrestling with OSes (not to mention reconfiguring 10 into a UI mode that I like). You may be of a similar opinion, for that reason or a different one. What I've seen seems like an improvement over Windows 8, at least.
10ft UI works differently from mobile UI works differently from desktop/laptop UI. Microsoft making a mistake in their desktop/laptop UI doesn't mean that the same thing wasn't a mistake in their 10ft UI, as well. It's my opinion that the current look of the dashboard is vastly inferior to the blade UI that the system had when I bought it, and the functionality went down the crapper with it. It was easier to find things that I wanted before, and there weren't multiple ads on every single screen of the damned thing. Then again, the blade UI would've been terrible for the desktop as well, but it was perfect for a game console with a known set of easily-categorizable features.
Searchable tiles work fine on a phone OS. Tab-like pages ("blades") work well on a system with known functions, like a game console. Tree-structure menus, possibly complemented by a feature to perform a search work, and with a screen that commonly-used programs or files can be placed on work nicely on a desktop system, which may have many diverse functions. Switch those around, and you start getting sub-optimal UIs (in my opinion).
No, asking end-user to optimize their own software is the silliest thing I have ever heard. And people wonder why Apple is such a success and ${insert_random_OSS_company/software} isn't.
The best of both worlds is somewhere in between. The vendor should provide optimizations for whatever they can, given time and budget, but they should also provide a mechanism for the user to tweak settings for non-vendor-optimized software. It's my perception that this is what both Nvidia and AMD do, through their respective control panels.
The vendor that doesn't try to optimize anything on their own isn't going to look good enough in benchmarks to make any sales, but the vendor that doesn't allow the end-user to experiment with their own settings won't do well in the PC gaming market, where a lot of users like being able to experiment with settings to find the ones that they're happy with.
If the open source projects were not available, then a business needing that functionality would have to employ resources in house to do it or contract the work to some other business.
Well, yes, either we'd have spent the time to write something in-house or gotten it from other businesses that have those components as their products. We'd either lose the extra dev time or the extra money; either way, the business would function less efficiently, we'd have fewer resources to build the "real" functionality of the product, and we'd have a less-capable product. I see that as a net detriment.
but it is certainly not infinite
Someday, perhaps we'll have to come to the time where all necessary software has been written. We're a ways off from that. Just within the products that I'm involved in, we've got plans for thousands of people-years of development.
I think a more comparable situation would be another company paying a bunch of foreign coders from a cheap (but not free) labor market to write a clone of the product and sell it for cheaper than my employer does (due to flouting some kind of legal requirement). And in that situation, I'd probably feel about how the taxi drivers do right now.
Just wait until McDonald's replaces you with a robot and then you'll understand the problem.
It'll be just one more step toward, "People don't need to work, because everything that's necessary for human survival can be done by something that isn't a person". I think that we'll end up getting to that point eventually, whether or not we want it. It'll either be an opportunity for a post-scarcity economy or for the ultimate artificial-scarcity economy.
It's not clear to me how that would be a "no true Scotsman" argument. You made a statement that says (paraphrased) "the U.S. economy flourished under regulation". TheMightyYar stated (again, paraphrased) "Yes, but in spite of the reason that you stated, not because of it". You would be right if they said something more like "That's not real flourishing, [example] is real flourishing!"
If coders contribute code in their free time to an open source project is that bad because it takes that opportunity away from corporate coders who make their living off that kind of work?
In theory, those coders are increasing overall efficiency of software development (including commercial sw dev) by reducing duplication of effort among different companies. They do work on their pet project, and that work can benefit whoever wants to use it (barring difficulties with the code license). It's not clear to me that there's a comparable benefit in the situation with cab drivers. Pulling work from the pool of available clients decreases the amount of work that needs to be done at a given time. As far as I can tell in software, the pool of work that needs to be done is nearly infinite.
If public transportation could fill my needs as well as a car on a day-to-day basis, then of course I would. It would be reasonable to rent a car a couple times a year for longer family trips, where we might want to go further off the beaten path, or something.
The problem I see: Where I live is spread out. The nearest grocery store is several miles away, other major stores and restaurants are a similar distance (or more), and family and friends are located in a half-dozen similarly-spread cities nearby ("nearby" being 30 minutes to 2 hours by car). I like my current lifestyle. Whatever theoretical mode of transport I'd be using needs to accommodate itself to how I want to live; that's the great benefit to me of using a car. I'd accept up to a 15 minute wait time, but require that the transit time would be less than or equal to what I can currently do in a car. The only technology I know of that could provide that would be a fleet of auto-driving cars that act as a kind of automated Uber service.
Why do you need a $35 full Android device if you can already buy a $15 full Android device? The Chromecast does things for me that my other Android devices don't, and that has value for me. Just another Android stick? Meh, I don't need it. If I want something like that, I'll hook my old phone up to TV with MHL and control it over VNC from my newer phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Bird strikes frequently cause various levels of damage, sometimes resulting in fatalities. Quadcopters are made of considerably harder materials than birds generally, and something like a DJI Phantom 3 has a comparable mass to a Western Gull, which is a fairly good-sized bird.
It's probably true, most of the time....until it hits a prop blade just right and causes a few thousand dollars of damage to the firefighting aircraft. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it that they could never damage the larger craft, though.
I live in an apartment block. Facing me is another apartment block and between the two buildings there's a busy footpath, then a busy road, and another busy footpath. Nothing else. If someone loses control of an RC, there's an unacceptable chance of injury and could include causing a car crash.
If someone's flying there, they deserve to have their equipment confiscated by the police and to be charged with a crime with "endangerment" or "negligence" in its name. I agree that it makes sense to restrict allowed flight areas to places that don't have heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic, the same way that I think it makes sense to have posted "no parking" signs. "No hobby aircraft here" makes more sense to me than "No hobby aircraft, period".
Drone[s] are used by only a small group, so we're talking about restricting a small group to safeguard the safety and privacy of the many.
We're talking about restricting a small group (RC aircraft pilots) for the bad behavior of a much, much smaller group (negligent/irresponsible/criminal RC aircraft pilots). The behavior is what I'm opposed to, not the technology...so why would I want a blanket ban on the technology, rather than the behavior?
In terms of convicting someone of illegal drone use, you're right that anti-harassment could be tried. Problem is that they might or mightn't work, you might have a hard time proving it, and the case could take years. If you want to prevent the incident, it's better to have a clear law "No drones here".
In a perfect world, all crimes would be both simple and easy to prove, and criminals would get what they deserve. I don't believe in outright banning something because a small fraction of its users abuse it. I feel that on the balance, the loss due to the reduced freedom of action of the responsible users is greater than the gain of preventing an already rare occurrence.
Sure they do. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean they don't. I suppose you think they have no business reason to offer ISO downloads of various older versions of Windows, but they do.
Sure; ISO downloads are useful for developers supporting software on older versions of their OS, and some of them are available with an appropriate level of MSDN subscription. That doesn't mean that MS would have a reason to let Joe Blow User roll back 2 months after installing Win10. Reducing use of legacy software means less back-version stuff for them to support, fewer users crapping things up for everyone else by using unsupported software with unpatched vulnerabilities, a less fragmented userbase, and so on.
Android K uses a different runtime (Dalvik) than L does (Android RunTime, ART). I updated my phone, and some applications stopped working. Apparently, the same thing is the case with these games. So, Nvidia could have always left the games on, in a broken and non-functional state, but what would the point of that be? Nvidia should've found a way to explain the situation and give their customers an informed choice. It sucks that they didn't.
I updated my phone from K to L. Some of my games stopped working with the switch to the new runtime, and they didn't start working again until the developers issued updates to their games.
That's odd. In the U.S., I can buy isopropyl alcohol by the liter at a 70% concentration for a couple dollars, and the cashier won't blink. Out of curiosity, what is the justification for making it difficult to obtain?
If the things I propose banning (such as peeping, tracking, stalking, harassing)
Don't most places already have laws against those things? Do we really need to pass new laws that include the text of the old ones with the phrase "using a drone" tacked on the end?
then why do you oppose the banning those things?
Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the freedoms of the many.
I can't see the point of getting worked up over them in a less-invasive situation than that.
...Of course, that's the privacy side of things. The idiots that compromise other people's safety (like the ones flying above fires) deserve to have their devices confiscated and possibly to see some fines or jail time.
I live in southern California. I know a few fields where people fly all sorts of RC aircraft. My neighbor flies a couple of small ones around my condo complex. A coworker uses one to film events at work. I've seen them at the beach, and I've seen a couple at a comic convention. They're out there. I'd be upset if someone was looking in my windows with one, but I can't see the point of getting worked up over them in a less-invasive situation than that.
I'd be interested in seeing some evidence of that. Microsoft has no business reason to allow people to roll back, and all the reasons in the world to force their users forward. It makes sense to support that during the "technical previews" (since users will have to go back and forth for testing purposes), but not when the final version of the OS is released.
Ditto. Most people don't care about controlling their system, and 99% of the time, updates will fix some security flaw. The other 1%, I'll get a call from my parents saying that something changed that they don't like, and they'll accept the answer that Microsoft pushed the change to their machine, and there's nothing I can do. Maybe they'll grouse a bit, but they'll shrug and adapt.
For my own part, I install the 99% that address security issues and put the 1% of crap I don't want into the "ignored updates" list. I like having the option of making a choice like that. I don't really want to see Windows going down the road of the Xbox 360 (which has mandatory updates). Mandatory UI updates turned the system into a product that I never would have bought by choice.
It's a 1-way street; you're basically trading your Windows 7 license for a Windows 10 one, so after you've installed 10, you're no longer licensed for 7.
Windows 8 changed more than the UI; there are some under the hood improvements that don't have anything to do with the tiles crap. Personally, I'm not sure if it's worth it to switch because I imagine it'll kill my dual-boot and I'll have to spend a few hours wrestling with OSes (not to mention reconfiguring 10 into a UI mode that I like). You may be of a similar opinion, for that reason or a different one. What I've seen seems like an improvement over Windows 8, at least.
10ft UI works differently from mobile UI works differently from desktop/laptop UI. Microsoft making a mistake in their desktop/laptop UI doesn't mean that the same thing wasn't a mistake in their 10ft UI, as well. It's my opinion that the current look of the dashboard is vastly inferior to the blade UI that the system had when I bought it, and the functionality went down the crapper with it. It was easier to find things that I wanted before, and there weren't multiple ads on every single screen of the damned thing. Then again, the blade UI would've been terrible for the desktop as well, but it was perfect for a game console with a known set of easily-categorizable features.
Searchable tiles work fine on a phone OS. Tab-like pages ("blades") work well on a system with known functions, like a game console. Tree-structure menus, possibly complemented by a feature to perform a search work, and with a screen that commonly-used programs or files can be placed on work nicely on a desktop system, which may have many diverse functions. Switch those around, and you start getting sub-optimal UIs (in my opinion).
No, asking end-user to optimize their own software is the silliest thing I have ever heard. And people wonder why Apple is such a success and ${insert_random_OSS_company/software} isn't.
The best of both worlds is somewhere in between. The vendor should provide optimizations for whatever they can, given time and budget, but they should also provide a mechanism for the user to tweak settings for non-vendor-optimized software. It's my perception that this is what both Nvidia and AMD do, through their respective control panels.
The vendor that doesn't try to optimize anything on their own isn't going to look good enough in benchmarks to make any sales, but the vendor that doesn't allow the end-user to experiment with their own settings won't do well in the PC gaming market, where a lot of users like being able to experiment with settings to find the ones that they're happy with.
If the open source projects were not available, then a business needing that functionality would have to employ resources in house to do it or contract the work to some other business.
Well, yes, either we'd have spent the time to write something in-house or gotten it from other businesses that have those components as their products. We'd either lose the extra dev time or the extra money; either way, the business would function less efficiently, we'd have fewer resources to build the "real" functionality of the product, and we'd have a less-capable product. I see that as a net detriment.
but it is certainly not infinite
Someday, perhaps we'll have to come to the time where all necessary software has been written. We're a ways off from that. Just within the products that I'm involved in, we've got plans for thousands of people-years of development.
I think a more comparable situation would be another company paying a bunch of foreign coders from a cheap (but not free) labor market to write a clone of the product and sell it for cheaper than my employer does (due to flouting some kind of legal requirement). And in that situation, I'd probably feel about how the taxi drivers do right now.
No. Front pocket = front pocket on a pair of pants/trousers (as opposed to the back pocket, where many people would keep their wallet).
Just wait until McDonald's replaces you with a robot and then you'll understand the problem.
It'll be just one more step toward, "People don't need to work, because everything that's necessary for human survival can be done by something that isn't a person". I think that we'll end up getting to that point eventually, whether or not we want it. It'll either be an opportunity for a post-scarcity economy or for the ultimate artificial-scarcity economy.
It's not clear to me how that would be a "no true Scotsman" argument. You made a statement that says (paraphrased) "the U.S. economy flourished under regulation". TheMightyYar stated (again, paraphrased) "Yes, but in spite of the reason that you stated, not because of it". You would be right if they said something more like "That's not real flourishing, [example] is real flourishing!"
If coders contribute code in their free time to an open source project is that bad because it takes that opportunity away from corporate coders who make their living off that kind of work?
In theory, those coders are increasing overall efficiency of software development (including commercial sw dev) by reducing duplication of effort among different companies. They do work on their pet project, and that work can benefit whoever wants to use it (barring difficulties with the code license). It's not clear to me that there's a comparable benefit in the situation with cab drivers. Pulling work from the pool of available clients decreases the amount of work that needs to be done at a given time. As far as I can tell in software, the pool of work that needs to be done is nearly infinite.
No, I work for $0 an hour on projects that interest me, but which don't seem to have potential as money-making products.
If public transportation could fill my needs as well as a car on a day-to-day basis, then of course I would. It would be reasonable to rent a car a couple times a year for longer family trips, where we might want to go further off the beaten path, or something.
The problem I see: Where I live is spread out. The nearest grocery store is several miles away, other major stores and restaurants are a similar distance (or more), and family and friends are located in a half-dozen similarly-spread cities nearby ("nearby" being 30 minutes to 2 hours by car). I like my current lifestyle. Whatever theoretical mode of transport I'd be using needs to accommodate itself to how I want to live; that's the great benefit to me of using a car. I'd accept up to a 15 minute wait time, but require that the transit time would be less than or equal to what I can currently do in a car. The only technology I know of that could provide that would be a fleet of auto-driving cars that act as a kind of automated Uber service.
Why do you need a $35 full Android device if you can already buy a $15 full Android device? The Chromecast does things for me that my other Android devices don't, and that has value for me. Just another Android stick? Meh, I don't need it. If I want something like that, I'll hook my old phone up to TV with MHL and control it over VNC from my newer phone.
Apple notebooks also don't have separate buttons. They click, but they're also integrated into the touchpad. Other than that, they're very nice.