The Segway is already being used to great effect by filmmakers working in close quarters. A handheld active gimbal like the DJI Ronin (and its cheaper, lighter, new brother, the "M" version), rigged on a Segway, and you've got the ability to do some very cool tracking shots. All without having to do a lot of the elaborate staging that might otherwise have been needed, and without needing a as large a crew transporting, deploying, and operating more traditional equipment.
Looks like about 20k per job. Probably 100k paying jobs...
Really? How do you figure $100k paying jobs? You're assuming that every company that uproots and moves to NY, or which launches there, is going to be paying their lobby receptionist, clerical help, etc., six figures? What if they manufacture something. Is every assembly line worker going to be making six figures?
Sure, get some water now, and create waste that lasts for 100,000 years
Or not, if you use technology that isn't 50 years old. What's your agenda, that you're objecting based on completely out-dated information? You can't be ignorant of current options, so that means you're hoping that other people are when you spout deliberate misinformation like that. Really - who are you hoping to fool? What's your purpose?
Nuclear being safe power is a myth.
See above.
I really think that conservatives think... there is no hope for the future, so who cares about the lives of future generations... write people off as "sinners" and dismiss them as real people
Wow, you've really got some hang-ups, don't you?
It is a pessimistic, myopic viewpoint driven by a false glorification of the past
This, from someone who appears to be reliving a "No Nukes" rally from the 1970's? Did you get some bad mushrooms or something at one of those events, and haven't been able to shake it off since?
a true hatred of the now that they're afraid that they are not a part of
Again, this from someone who is clearly stuck (or wants to be) in a decades old complaint, and who's using a cartoon villain fantasy version of "conservatives" as his main take on those who think contemporary nuclear technology, including reprocessing and new fail-to-safe designs, is a useful tool? The person with the fixation on the past and delusions about the "now" and the future, here, is you. Hyping those delusions here is fairly harmless, since people here understand that what you're complaining about is just nonsense. But please don't do things like vote, OK? The future thanks you.
But today seems like the French had a brain while the Americans were flying their flag singing patriotism under the scope of insane nationalism and didn't even realize they were manipulated.
So what you're saying is that you couldn't bother yourself to read the summary or the article, right?
This seems like a perfect project to power with solar energy
Solar isn't nearly efficient enough to do that without pretty much paving over the entire southwest with solar facilities, further enraging the environmentalists and bird lovers.
Since you're going to piss off the environmentalists no matter what you do, shy of simply having a massive human die-off (and please do that in an environmentally thoughtful way, people!), we might as well piss them off by using a technology that can actually do an adequate job of large-scale desalination: nuclear power.
Now you are getting it. War should be costly, difficult, and sap your resources.
Exactly. And we use all of the tools at our disposal - especially the most efficient ones we can when they make sense, things like drones - to make it costly and more difficult for groups like ISIS and Al Queda to do what they're trying to do.
Otherwise you make mass killing far too easy.
That's the whole point. Tools like drones are designed to help stop mass killers like ISIS without having to use less-precise, larger-scale weapons. You do get that, right?
Cars that parallel park themselves in live traffic. Airbag systems that use sensors to decide whether or not to deploy. Devices embedded in people's bodies, deciding when and how to stimulate their heart muscles.
For starters, the US (and other countries) should stop using drones to kill people.
Yes, it makes much more sense to go back to using manned aircraft in those situations, because that way the aircraft can be louder, bigger, and burn more jet fuel. As a bonus, the planes can perform a lot more dangerous in-flight refueling maneuvers, or make make many more trips to the same region, require larger localized airbases and far more on-the-ground support people and a bigger supply chain.
Or are you really saying you'd prefer that we use a massive ground force to attempt to achieve the same goals?
Oh, I get it. You're speaking code. When you say you don't want drones to be used, what you really mean is you don't want people like ISIS to be counter-attacked, or for it to be risky for groups like Boko Harom or AQAP to move their leadership and people around between attacks on infidel schools, that sort of thing. Can you expand on why you think that's a good thing?
catch them or help those countries to catch them and give them a fair trail.
Oh, I get it, now, You DO want a huge new ground invasion into places like Syria and a giant new force back on the ground in Iraq, so that we can surround and capture thousands of heavily armed militants in what would be a sustained series of big battles and firefights... which the jihaddis would make absolutely sure occurred in and around innocent civilians, which they've shown repeatedly they're more than happy to see die in order to score propaganda points. Why you prefer prolonged gun battles in populated areas in order to capture people who post videos of themselves torturing people to death in the name of their religion (rather than simply removing them from the battlefield when we catch them out on the road in a vehicle or small convoy) is beyond me. You seem to have no problem with huge numbers of casualties in the interests of trying to capture for trial people who would see a ground force coming for them weeks in advance. Strange priorities you have.
Alternatively, we could say to Ukrainians, NATO, EU and Russia to stop the bloody stupidity taking place in Ukraine
I see. So we should tell Russia to stop attacking Ukrainian military positions, and that will cause Putin to stop doing so? Do you pay no attention at all to what's going on? The Russians have already been "told" to stop invading Ukraine, and they agreed to do so. But of course they're still doing it, and shelling Ukrainian positions every day. What, specifically, do you think should be said to Putin, differently, that would have him change his mind about lying, the way he's doing right now? What words would you use? Be specific.
No, I do not trust the Russians.
Then why are you even saying what you're saying?
However, the West violated with that missile shield the post cold war treaty.
"The west" has violated no such thing. The Soviet Union no longer exists, though it sounds like you'd prefer that it does.
What makes him dangerous is filling his head with dangerous thoughts.
No. You are exposed to the same "dangerous thoughts" as every self-radicalized would-be jihaddi killer. The difference? Their message of medieval theocratic dominance and death-to-the-infidels is repugnant to you, but appeals strongly to them. This is a world view issue. If embracing that twisted vision for the future of humanity is your definition of mental illness, then what you're saying is that untold millions of Muslims are mentally ill.
We could have a separate discussion about religiosity in general, and what it means to go through life clinging to a plainly irrational system of magical thinking. But not all contemporary religious people let their magical thinking instruct them to put the infidels to sword (or car bomb, as the case may be).
Sure, just like countless other objects. But if the FAA was worried about safety, they'd be expecting the recreational users of them to also be subject to the regulations they're putting on commercial operators using exactly the same 3-pound plastic quadcopter in exactly the same way. A guy checking out his own roof gutters with a consumer-grade quad, and a roofing contractor using exactly the same device in exactly the same way present exactly the same safety risks... but the FAA only considers one of those two people to be subject to a $10,000 fine. How do you reconcile that?
I could build and fly around a device that meets or exceeds the size and danger presented by something Amazon might be testing, but if I do it for fun, I'm not hit with the same rules or penalties. Are you suggesting that I, as some newbie who's just figuring out how to build and fly such a thing, am inherently safer than a crew of professionals working for an engineering project? Explain!
There are amateurs who fly heavy, large-scale ducted fan model aircraft that push 200mph. The FAA isn't worried about that, from a safety perspective. But the roofing contractor with the 3-pound plastic quad copter... scary, right? Or is the roofing guy only evil and dangerous, from your point of view, if he (gasp!) incorporates his one-man business. Eeeevil corporate drone user, using drones to deliver his service faster, by not needing to put up a tall ladder on the side of your house! Eeeeevil!
Yup, just like in the real world, if you want to fly airplanes for fun, you get a Private Pilot certificate, and you are subject to numerous restrictions.
You're confused. If you want to fly RC aircraft for fun, the FAA requires no such thing. No pilot's license, private, commercial or otherwise.
There's also a reason that the FAA doesn't give out airworthiness certificates with your breakfast cereal. They don't want you to die.
Let's look at how it actually is. If you, right now, want to stand in your back yard and fly a 3-pound quadcopter to test out a new flight controller for fun and personal research/interest, you have the FAA's blessings. If an engineer from Amazon stands in exactly the same place, and hovers the exact same piece of $200 hardware exactly the same 10 feet off the ground that you do, and does it on the clock... and he's not licensed pilot, with two assistants, with that device being certified, and him having filed a flight plan... he's up for a $10,000 fine. If he punches out, and does exactly the same thing with exactly the same equipment following exactly the same safety protocols, none of that matters. This isn't about safety. If it was, hundreds of thousands of people flying RC for fun would be facing the same restrictions that Amazon is going to Canada to escape.
weren't you a dick at times in your teens as well?
Yes. And at no point was it someone else's fault.
So, you're saying he was only under 99% mind control, and only 1% of his own mind was in a position to try to stop himself from signing into a teacher's computer to deface it?
Are you REALLY saying that their weak password is WHY he did what he did?
You do realize... not because they intend to stay the way they are
Not true. Other countries (like Canada) settled this stuff years ago. Well established standards, annoying but mostly sensible levels of regulation, etc.
Canada isn't being friendly to Amazon for the short-term economic benefit of having some Amazon engineers spending their beer money in Canada. Canada is friendly to UAS technology because businesses there showed lots of compelling reasons for Canada to be friendly to it: film making, pipeline inspection, forestry, wildlife observation, search and rescue, surveying - all sorts of things.
So which part of anything you've read here tells you that Amazon won't be doing as much or more testing than you are talking about? Please be specific.
No, they can test that one piece of equipment in the US, with a licensed pilot, a stand-by pilot, and a spotter all keeping it entirely in line of site. If they crash that particular unique machine, or wish to modify it, they get to start all over again, applying for a new permit.
There's a reason they just sent a bunch of people and equipment to Canada to do their real testing. Because the administration in the US is entirely hostile to this sort of research in practical terms.
I was at a park at an event last week. There was a guy with a camera drone buzzing overhead... I don't know that people will be accepting
I was at a park at an event last week. There was a guy with a couple of screaming kids on one side, and some idiot playing some loud music from his parked car, and someone else with three terriers on leashes, barking non-stop.
I don't think people will be accepting of these loud, distracting things.
As a sysadmin this brings me to tears of anger because this isnt the kids fault
It's true. Weak passwords cause the chips in the computer to emit a special kind of electromagnetic radiation which, by sheer coincidence, perfectly stimulates exactly the right combination of untold millions of synapses in a kid's brain (just one kid - it's too focused to impact the others in the classroom), and that pattern happens to exactly manifest itself as an uncontrollable urge to form a plan and take an extended combination of actions that include the very complex process of walking to the computer, logging in, and dealing with the steps involved in fetching a file and updating the desktop. It's an amazing chain of events, especially since in culminates in a level of direct mind control that no scientist could, by any other means, actually reproduce if they tried.
Definitely not the kid's fault. He had no ability to use his arms, legs, and fingers to pursue any other action except the logging in and defacement of the teacher's desktop. Complete, 100% compulsion through mind control due to weak password EM radiation. Amazing!
Or, the kid's a bit of a dick who, despite no doubt being told - along with all of his classmates - that improper use of the school's computer equipment, let alone trying to hack into systems used by and for the teachers and staff is a seriously bad thing... thought he was too cool to get caught, and too entitled to experience any consequences.
Yeah, it's one of those two things. Either a kid being a dick, or mind control from the weak password. Probably the password thing.
If they weren't so expensive I'd love to have one for my own use for that purpose.
DJI just announced, and will shortly be shipping v3 of their very popular Phantom platform. There are going to be a LOT of people itchy to move to that unit for one reason or another. You should be able to get hold of a gently used v2 for very little by this summer. Cheapie cheap cheap.
Yes, being seen planting a bomb on the sidewalk next to children has a way of stacking the cards against oneself.
It was purely a political show, and therefore, an insult to justice.
So you'd have preferred a scenario where the same evidence wasn't brought forth, to make the trial more challenging? Or forcing his defense attorney to hold off a while making the admission of guilt he made, to add some more temporary drama for the one or two dim-witted jurors you might be able to dig up who never watch the news?
A country's legal system doesn't have to lower itself to the level of the criminals it is punishing.
Exactly. Which is why his punishment doesn't involve the blowing of his family's legs off and the shredding of the children of his relatives by surprise when they're gathered during a public celebration in their home town.
Slashdot Mirror
The Segway is already being used to great effect by filmmakers working in close quarters. A handheld active gimbal like the DJI Ronin (and its cheaper, lighter, new brother, the "M" version), rigged on a Segway, and you've got the ability to do some very cool tracking shots. All without having to do a lot of the elaborate staging that might otherwise have been needed, and without needing a as large a crew transporting, deploying, and operating more traditional equipment.
Looks like about 20k per job. Probably 100k paying jobs...
Really? How do you figure $100k paying jobs? You're assuming that every company that uproots and moves to NY, or which launches there, is going to be paying their lobby receptionist, clerical help, etc., six figures? What if they manufacture something. Is every assembly line worker going to be making six figures?
Sure, but something like that doesn't HAVE to, in order to still be a significant (and possibly lethal) PITA.
you can bring your USB drive into the secure area, but it can't be removed ... I still don't have anything useful
Stuxnet wasn't all about "getting anything out," either.
Sure, get some water now, and create waste that lasts for 100,000 years
Or not, if you use technology that isn't 50 years old. What's your agenda, that you're objecting based on completely out-dated information? You can't be ignorant of current options, so that means you're hoping that other people are when you spout deliberate misinformation like that. Really - who are you hoping to fool? What's your purpose?
Nuclear being safe power is a myth.
See above.
I really think that conservatives think ... there is no hope for the future, so who cares about the lives of future generations ... write people off as "sinners" and dismiss them as real people
Wow, you've really got some hang-ups, don't you?
It is a pessimistic, myopic viewpoint driven by a false glorification of the past
This, from someone who appears to be reliving a "No Nukes" rally from the 1970's? Did you get some bad mushrooms or something at one of those events, and haven't been able to shake it off since?
a true hatred of the now that they're afraid that they are not a part of
Again, this from someone who is clearly stuck (or wants to be) in a decades old complaint, and who's using a cartoon villain fantasy version of "conservatives" as his main take on those who think contemporary nuclear technology, including reprocessing and new fail-to-safe designs, is a useful tool? The person with the fixation on the past and delusions about the "now" and the future, here, is you. Hyping those delusions here is fairly harmless, since people here understand that what you're complaining about is just nonsense. But please don't do things like vote, OK? The future thanks you.
But today seems like the French had a brain while the Americans were flying their flag singing patriotism under the scope of insane nationalism and didn't even realize they were manipulated.
So what you're saying is that you couldn't bother yourself to read the summary or the article, right?
Right. And it's the environmentalists that are screaming about the Ivanpah facility killing birds.
This seems like a perfect project to power with solar energy
Solar isn't nearly efficient enough to do that without pretty much paving over the entire southwest with solar facilities, further enraging the environmentalists and bird lovers.
Since you're going to piss off the environmentalists no matter what you do, shy of simply having a massive human die-off (and please do that in an environmentally thoughtful way, people!), we might as well piss them off by using a technology that can actually do an adequate job of large-scale desalination: nuclear power.
Now you are getting it. War should be costly, difficult, and sap your resources.
Exactly. And we use all of the tools at our disposal - especially the most efficient ones we can when they make sense, things like drones - to make it costly and more difficult for groups like ISIS and Al Queda to do what they're trying to do.
Otherwise you make mass killing far too easy.
That's the whole point. Tools like drones are designed to help stop mass killers like ISIS without having to use less-precise, larger-scale weapons. You do get that, right?
Cars that parallel park themselves in live traffic. Airbag systems that use sensors to decide whether or not to deploy. Devices embedded in people's bodies, deciding when and how to stimulate their heart muscles.
For starters, the US (and other countries) should stop using drones to kill people.
Yes, it makes much more sense to go back to using manned aircraft in those situations, because that way the aircraft can be louder, bigger, and burn more jet fuel. As a bonus, the planes can perform a lot more dangerous in-flight refueling maneuvers, or make make many more trips to the same region, require larger localized airbases and far more on-the-ground support people and a bigger supply chain.
Or are you really saying you'd prefer that we use a massive ground force to attempt to achieve the same goals?
Oh, I get it. You're speaking code. When you say you don't want drones to be used, what you really mean is you don't want people like ISIS to be counter-attacked, or for it to be risky for groups like Boko Harom or AQAP to move their leadership and people around between attacks on infidel schools, that sort of thing. Can you expand on why you think that's a good thing?
catch them or help those countries to catch them and give them a fair trail.
Oh, I get it, now, You DO want a huge new ground invasion into places like Syria and a giant new force back on the ground in Iraq, so that we can surround and capture thousands of heavily armed militants in what would be a sustained series of big battles and firefights ... which the jihaddis would make absolutely sure occurred in and around innocent civilians, which they've shown repeatedly they're more than happy to see die in order to score propaganda points. Why you prefer prolonged gun battles in populated areas in order to capture people who post videos of themselves torturing people to death in the name of their religion (rather than simply removing them from the battlefield when we catch them out on the road in a vehicle or small convoy) is beyond me. You seem to have no problem with huge numbers of casualties in the interests of trying to capture for trial people who would see a ground force coming for them weeks in advance. Strange priorities you have.
Alternatively, we could say to Ukrainians, NATO, EU and Russia to stop the bloody stupidity taking place in Ukraine
I see. So we should tell Russia to stop attacking Ukrainian military positions, and that will cause Putin to stop doing so? Do you pay no attention at all to what's going on? The Russians have already been "told" to stop invading Ukraine, and they agreed to do so. But of course they're still doing it, and shelling Ukrainian positions every day. What, specifically, do you think should be said to Putin, differently, that would have him change his mind about lying, the way he's doing right now? What words would you use? Be specific.
No, I do not trust the Russians.
Then why are you even saying what you're saying?
However, the West violated with that missile shield the post cold war treaty.
"The west" has violated no such thing. The Soviet Union no longer exists, though it sounds like you'd prefer that it does.
What makes him dangerous is filling his head with dangerous thoughts.
No. You are exposed to the same "dangerous thoughts" as every self-radicalized would-be jihaddi killer. The difference? Their message of medieval theocratic dominance and death-to-the-infidels is repugnant to you, but appeals strongly to them. This is a world view issue. If embracing that twisted vision for the future of humanity is your definition of mental illness, then what you're saying is that untold millions of Muslims are mentally ill.
We could have a separate discussion about religiosity in general, and what it means to go through life clinging to a plainly irrational system of magical thinking. But not all contemporary religious people let their magical thinking instruct them to put the infidels to sword (or car bomb, as the case may be).
'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt.
You're missing the point.
Quadcopters are dangerous
Sure, just like countless other objects. But if the FAA was worried about safety, they'd be expecting the recreational users of them to also be subject to the regulations they're putting on commercial operators using exactly the same 3-pound plastic quadcopter in exactly the same way. A guy checking out his own roof gutters with a consumer-grade quad, and a roofing contractor using exactly the same device in exactly the same way present exactly the same safety risks ... but the FAA only considers one of those two people to be subject to a $10,000 fine. How do you reconcile that?
... scary, right? Or is the roofing guy only evil and dangerous, from your point of view, if he (gasp!) incorporates his one-man business. Eeeevil corporate drone user, using drones to deliver his service faster, by not needing to put up a tall ladder on the side of your house! Eeeeevil!
I could build and fly around a device that meets or exceeds the size and danger presented by something Amazon might be testing, but if I do it for fun, I'm not hit with the same rules or penalties. Are you suggesting that I, as some newbie who's just figuring out how to build and fly such a thing, am inherently safer than a crew of professionals working for an engineering project? Explain!
There are amateurs who fly heavy, large-scale ducted fan model aircraft that push 200mph. The FAA isn't worried about that, from a safety perspective. But the roofing contractor with the 3-pound plastic quad copter
Yup, just like in the real world, if you want to fly airplanes for fun, you get a Private Pilot certificate, and you are subject to numerous restrictions.
You're confused. If you want to fly RC aircraft for fun, the FAA requires no such thing. No pilot's license, private, commercial or otherwise.
There's also a reason that the FAA doesn't give out airworthiness certificates with your breakfast cereal. They don't want you to die.
Let's look at how it actually is. If you, right now, want to stand in your back yard and fly a 3-pound quadcopter to test out a new flight controller for fun and personal research/interest, you have the FAA's blessings. If an engineer from Amazon stands in exactly the same place, and hovers the exact same piece of $200 hardware exactly the same 10 feet off the ground that you do, and does it on the clock ... and he's not licensed pilot, with two assistants, with that device being certified, and him having filed a flight plan ... he's up for a $10,000 fine. If he punches out, and does exactly the same thing with exactly the same equipment following exactly the same safety protocols, none of that matters. This isn't about safety. If it was, hundreds of thousands of people flying RC for fun would be facing the same restrictions that Amazon is going to Canada to escape.
weren't you a dick at times in your teens as well?
Yes. And at no point was it someone else's fault.
So, you're saying he was only under 99% mind control, and only 1% of his own mind was in a position to try to stop himself from signing into a teacher's computer to deface it?
Are you REALLY saying that their weak password is WHY he did what he did?
You do realize ... not because they intend to stay the way they are
Not true. Other countries (like Canada) settled this stuff years ago. Well established standards, annoying but mostly sensible levels of regulation, etc.
Canada isn't being friendly to Amazon for the short-term economic benefit of having some Amazon engineers spending their beer money in Canada. Canada is friendly to UAS technology because businesses there showed lots of compelling reasons for Canada to be friendly to it: film making, pipeline inspection, forestry, wildlife observation, search and rescue, surveying - all sorts of things.
So which part of anything you've read here tells you that Amazon won't be doing as much or more testing than you are talking about? Please be specific.
Not really; they can test in US
No, they can test that one piece of equipment in the US, with a licensed pilot, a stand-by pilot, and a spotter all keeping it entirely in line of site. If they crash that particular unique machine, or wish to modify it, they get to start all over again, applying for a new permit.
There's a reason they just sent a bunch of people and equipment to Canada to do their real testing. Because the administration in the US is entirely hostile to this sort of research in practical terms.
I was at a park at an event last week. There was a guy with a camera drone buzzing overhead ... I don't know that people will be accepting
I was at a park at an event last week. There was a guy with a couple of screaming kids on one side, and some idiot playing some loud music from his parked car, and someone else with three terriers on leashes, barking non-stop.
I don't think people will be accepting of these loud, distracting things.
As a sysadmin this brings me to tears of anger because this isnt the kids fault
It's true. Weak passwords cause the chips in the computer to emit a special kind of electromagnetic radiation which, by sheer coincidence, perfectly stimulates exactly the right combination of untold millions of synapses in a kid's brain (just one kid - it's too focused to impact the others in the classroom), and that pattern happens to exactly manifest itself as an uncontrollable urge to form a plan and take an extended combination of actions that include the very complex process of walking to the computer, logging in, and dealing with the steps involved in fetching a file and updating the desktop. It's an amazing chain of events, especially since in culminates in a level of direct mind control that no scientist could, by any other means, actually reproduce if they tried.
... thought he was too cool to get caught, and too entitled to experience any consequences.
Definitely not the kid's fault. He had no ability to use his arms, legs, and fingers to pursue any other action except the logging in and defacement of the teacher's desktop. Complete, 100% compulsion through mind control due to weak password EM radiation. Amazing!
Or, the kid's a bit of a dick who, despite no doubt being told - along with all of his classmates - that improper use of the school's computer equipment, let alone trying to hack into systems used by and for the teachers and staff is a seriously bad thing
Yeah, it's one of those two things. Either a kid being a dick, or mind control from the weak password. Probably the password thing.
If they weren't so expensive I'd love to have one for my own use for that purpose.
DJI just announced, and will shortly be shipping v3 of their very popular Phantom platform. There are going to be a LOT of people itchy to move to that unit for one reason or another. You should be able to get hold of a gently used v2 for very little by this summer. Cheapie cheap cheap.
the cards were still stacked against him
Yes, being seen planting a bomb on the sidewalk next to children has a way of stacking the cards against oneself.
It was purely a political show, and therefore, an insult to justice.
So you'd have preferred a scenario where the same evidence wasn't brought forth, to make the trial more challenging? Or forcing his defense attorney to hold off a while making the admission of guilt he made, to add some more temporary drama for the one or two dim-witted jurors you might be able to dig up who never watch the news?
No, you're wrong. Speeding is a criminal offense.
Where do you live?
A country's legal system doesn't have to lower itself to the level of the criminals it is punishing.
Exactly. Which is why his punishment doesn't involve the blowing of his family's legs off and the shredding of the children of his relatives by surprise when they're gathered during a public celebration in their home town.