However, I, as a member of a company that wants to make money, have to make sure that when the 95% of people who use Google try to find [X], they can find me.
No, you're under no more of an obligation to do that than you are to run print ads in the local newspaper. If you like what Google has to offer, use it. If you find using them so distasteful, use the many other options.
If your position is that business owners are compelled by the very nature of Google's usefulness to take advantage of what they're offering, and they have no choice in the matter because they're slaves to the usefulness of it, being foolish if they don't make money... then why aren't you cutting Google the same slack for following their own noses when they see a way to make their product more attractive to use? Or do you only sympathize with less successful people?
How about sense-and-avoid in combination with ADS-B? This article [gcn.com] suggests that people are working in that direction.
Perhaps for long-haul, larger UAS platforms (like freight haulers, or long-mission mapping systems and whatnot). But do you really think that a contractor who uses a 3-pound plastic quadcopter to checkout the top of a residential chimney for 90 seconds a couple of times a week needs an ADS-B enabled platform? It's just craziness.
They weren't allowed, that's why there was an anti-trust probe.
Please cite the court documents that found Google to be a monopoly, and which defines their obligations to write their search engine routines against their own interests as the owners and operators of that service. Be specific, so that we don't have to guess where you got the court order and related documents.
Like PETA, the Sierra Club, and the Corporation For Public Broadcasting?
it's pretty clear they did abuse their search power
No, it's pretty clear only that you're asserting that, and don't consider it appropriate for people to start a company, write their own software, offer it to you to use at no charge to you in the way they see fit. How awful! Let me guess, you just came from a post graduate seminar on "triggering," and having a company sort their search results as they please brought back a traumatic memory of not understanding the Dewey Decimal System as a little kid, and thinking that the hot, but kind of stern librarian was really out to shame you, personally. Gah! Three more triggers in there at least! You probably should sue Slashdot for allowing someone to type those things without shielding you from them.
G is a monopoly. You know it. I know it.
Other than the part where they have competition, you are in no way obliged to use them, they aren't restraining anybody from going elsewhere for search, mail, apps, etc., all also available for free from other providers. So no, I don't know it, and you're just saying it because you are simply incensed by the notion of someone succeeding, and talking about it is yet another Trigger (!!!) that brings back that guy in elementary school who could always beat you at chess and whose mom sent him to school with a more attractive and healthy looking lunch every day.
People rallied against Microsoft for less.
Yes, they did, and that was BS, too. But times were different, and not as many other OS solutions were available, and that muddied the waters. Still, they got hosed.
We now see how inconsequential a browser is to any OS experience, and G quickly overcame IE and FF simply by producing the best webkit experience.
And despite that fit of time-traveling perspective on your part, you can't wrap your head around the fact that another search engine could be hatched out at any time by anyone, and quickly eclipse Bing, Google, et al, in exactly the same way.
So we have one choice here. Find and use a new preferred search engine.
But we can't! Google has a monopoly!
most other search engines suck for everything
Oh, so that's your actual complaint. You hate Google because they're competent. Oh no, another traumatic Triggering!
You're confusing business licensing with safety licensing.
a commercial drone operator is not going to need a regular pilot's license in the future
But he will be required to pay for a permit for each aircraft, even though the hobbiest standing right next to him flying exact the same piece of equipment in the same airspace under exactly the same conditions will not. And he will be required to pass a permitting exam, and pay regularly to re-take it. But the person standing next to him flying exactly the same equipment under the exact same circumstances will not be required to show the same knowledge. The retired guy who has the time to fly a 150mph RC jet or a 40-pound octocopter with lethal CF rotors for several hours every day will be free of FAA burdens while the guy who uses a 3-pound plastic quad copter to inspect roof gutters twice a week for three minutes will be subject to federal scrutiny and fees.
When you start engaging in commerce, everything is different.
Yes, there are all sorts of things that come up (taxes, etc). But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity. They are saying that their total ban on drone use (except for millions of recreational users, and a dozen or so waivered entities) is all about safety. Which is why it's ridiculous that the exact same people, gear, location, and practices are considered dangerous enough to warrant a $10,000 fine when Google engineers on the clock perform them, but are considered perfectly safe, with no need to worry, when the very same people do the same exact things for fun.
I've seen no such indication. Hobby landscape photographers (who happen to be hanging their camera from a hexacopter) are not on the FAA shitlist. Just landscape photographers who fly the exact same machine in exactly the same way in the same place, time, and safety regime... but who take the exact same picture, and use it to sell a post card. $10,000 fine!
Why mod that down? That's exact the case. The FAA isn't going to ask hobby fliers to have a license or adhere to the COA requirements, etc, that they are asking the roofing contractor with a 3-pound quadcopter and a GoPro to adhere to. Ridiculous.
How careful would you be doing something dangerous when you only do it once or twice a year?
Most likely not nearly as careful. Because the situational awareness and familiarity with uncommon but real risks is far better with someone who does something regularly. The person who is, essentially, a noobie every (rare) time he does something is much more dangerous than the person who has completely internalized the risks, the habits of keeping their head on a swivel and an emergency route in mind. The pro is far more likely to have checked for GPS-endangering high KP levels before he flies. Far more likely to remember to think about compass calibration at a new site, or to know where there's likely to be re-bar under cement and thus produce false magnetic readings.
Experience trumps lack of experience every time.
Complacency, which seems to be your biggest boogeyman, is just as likely in a long-time, regular hobby flier as it is in a long time operator who knows he has to protect his business license, his company assets, his insurance eligibility, and his reputation. You've got it exactly backwards, probably because you personally know some people with bad work ethics, and for some reason pay no attention to thousands of YouTube videos of recreational operators (of drones, sailboats, dirt bikes, chainsaws, and everything else) who exhibit breathtakingly bad judgement and lack of practical skill, sometimes lethally so. But they're OK with the FAA - no worries there!
Doesn't matter. The point is that the same operators could fly exactly the same gear in exactly the same way, at the same time and place, 365 days a year, and require no COA or pilot's license - if they were doing it as a hobby. Not a single aspect of the flight risk or expense would change, just whether the engineers are on the clock, or having fun. The difference is a $10,000 fine - but the unfined flights would be no safer.
The FAA doesn't care about the rabbit, it cares about the people. Which it's equally likely to hit if it crashes.
No, that's not what they care about. Because if they did, then they wouldn't consider the exact same flight in the exact same place operated by the exact same people using the exact same equipment in exactly the same way to just fine without a pilot's license if those same operators are doing it for fun.
I don't get why you need to be able to glide a plane onto the runway during an engine failure in the landing pattern when you're probably flying a drone that is incapable of gliding at all and which is multi-engine besides.
Oh, it's worse than that. If the exact same engineers from Amazon followed all of the same exact safety protocols, used exactly the same equipment, and performed exactly the same flights in the same place doing everything exactly the same way... but did it for fun, for recreation, the FAA would be perfectly fine with that. No pilot's licenses needed, no certificate of airworthiness, no please-sir-may-I permission needed.
... are allowed to operate hobby drones without being subject to the same rules. They can fly 50' octocopters right up to that same 400' and have a grand old time without needing a pilot's license, etc. Why? Because the FAA's position on this is nonsense. Ridiculous, even. The urge to apply their regulatory power in such a ridiculously capricious way is preposterous. I can use one of my drones to check my roof gutters right now, and the FAA is completely happy with that. I can then move 50 feet to the left and do exactly the same thing to someone else's house for pizza money, and I'm subject to a $10,000 fine.
The market has to create demand.. It has to steal property with government deeds and prohibitions to create the shortages that create the demand.
Right. It takes stolen property and government force and all that in order for you to get hungry every day and thus create the demand for multiple people to compete in trying to sell you a sandwich you'll like.
people trying to sell 'Romex' watches
... are deliberately hoping that their efforts to operate fraudulently, in a dishonest theatrical simulation of a market for those two dumb to pay attention... are not the or a market.
"Douchebag", by the way, is a very American vulgarity.
True. Just like short-hand denigrations of fools in other cultures and languages - while doing the same job - would be pretty incomprehensible to a lot of other people.
Nonsense! Fraud and force are part and parcel to the process. To be against them, you would have to be an anarchist and give the land back to the natives.
Nice tap-dancing, there. "The process" is what, exactly? The process of walking up to a market and deciding when to sell or buy or trade things? How exactly is that related to one group moving into the territory previously occupied by another group (most of whom themselves displaced somebody else)? Who are "natives" - those who wandered in and started occupying the land first? Or those who happened to be occupying it when they first encountered Europeans? Should what's left of one tribe of so-called aboriginals, if they get "their" land back, in turn have to give it back to whoever's left of the tribe their ancestors killed during previous conflicts centuries or millennia ago? When you've got that spelled out in detail, please pass along your big plan. Once that's straight, take a moment to explain how that has anything to do with someone committing fraud in the course of a sale or purchase.
The market requires force to function.
Oh, I get it now, you're just joking.
It has to create shortages where none exists.
Oh, maybe you're not. You're just brainwashed by socialists. A market is shaped by supply and demand. If there's no demand, and you can't inspire any demand, then there's no market for what you're trying to sell. That's why markets work. Because the quickly expose mismatches between supply and demand, and people on both side of the equation act to find where those two things intersect in a way that both parties agree to meet. Doesn't mean that someone still trying to sell steam powered cars is going to like what the market tells them that product is worth.
The market is based on fraud. *I got what you need, man*
I'm genuinely curious. What happened to you when you were young? How did this fantasy narrative of yours get baked into you upside down world view? Do you have some sort of mental problem that makes you unable to decide if and when you want to boy something, and so you find yourself unable to rationally refuse anything that anyone offers to sell you? That must be frustrating.
That's not a feature of a market. Because that implies deception or the use of force. Fraud is by definition a departure from the market (where the participants can evaluate each other's offers and choose whether to strike a deal) and a move into a mode where one party is making things happen and the other is being tricked or forced into participating or giving something up under duress or through deceit.
In other words, you're yet another person who doesn't like to compete for business, and will gladly twist the meaning of words in order to avoid having to acknowledge reality.
Just because people in ISIS (or (for some reason) Italian gangsters) are morally warped psychopaths prone to psychotic violence does not necessarily mean they are stupid, or badly educated.
True, and I did not say otherwise. But the GP's implication of multilingualism as an indicator of being better educated and thus by implication a better person is... specious.
I would hope that my little write up might help you in the future when communicating with someone that speaks multiple languages.
I have no problem communicating with people for whom English is not their native tongue. I'm responding to the person who claims that multilingualism in and of itself is an indication of a better educated person. From extensive experience I am pointing out that that is not always or even frequently true. I applaud your personal embrace of other languages. Doing so for its own sake is a sign of intellectual curiosity and an agile mind. But that's not the only reason that people end up speaking more than one language, something the GP would like us to ignore.
Wow, you are both angry and scared. It's not about intelligence, it's about how you perceive something that you see.
And you THINK you're being a lot more condescending than you actually are. I didn't say it was about intelligence, I'm responding to the GP's assertion about levels of education having something to do with how many languages one can use. The GP's either completely disconnected from reality, or being deliberately disingenuous. Neither makes the assertion correct.
You however give me the impression that you are only experiencing half of life and cling on to your sense of superiority and intelligence to validate your place in the world.
You are free to construct whatever impression you wish. That doesn't make the GP's premise any more correct. I notice you're talking about me, and not about the substance of the comment. Which says plenty about you.
Slashdot Mirror
If car manufacturers did sensible things we wouldn't have had to bail them out a few years ago.
You mean, like, not hire the UAW to run their fabrication for them? Yeah, that would have gone a long way to avoiding that bailout.
However, I, as a member of a company that wants to make money, have to make sure that when the 95% of people who use Google try to find [X], they can find me.
No, you're under no more of an obligation to do that than you are to run print ads in the local newspaper. If you like what Google has to offer, use it. If you find using them so distasteful, use the many other options.
... then why aren't you cutting Google the same slack for following their own noses when they see a way to make their product more attractive to use? Or do you only sympathize with less successful people?
If your position is that business owners are compelled by the very nature of Google's usefulness to take advantage of what they're offering, and they have no choice in the matter because they're slaves to the usefulness of it, being foolish if they don't make money
How about sense-and-avoid in combination with ADS-B? This article [gcn.com] suggests that people are working in that direction.
Perhaps for long-haul, larger UAS platforms (like freight haulers, or long-mission mapping systems and whatnot). But do you really think that a contractor who uses a 3-pound plastic quadcopter to checkout the top of a residential chimney for 90 seconds a couple of times a week needs an ADS-B enabled platform? It's just craziness.
They weren't allowed, that's why there was an anti-trust probe.
Please cite the court documents that found Google to be a monopoly, and which defines their obligations to write their search engine routines against their own interests as the owners and operators of that service. Be specific, so that we don't have to guess where you got the court order and related documents.
Everything is about profit, like any corporation
Like PETA, the Sierra Club, and the Corporation For Public Broadcasting?
it's pretty clear they did abuse their search power
No, it's pretty clear only that you're asserting that, and don't consider it appropriate for people to start a company, write their own software, offer it to you to use at no charge to you in the way they see fit. How awful! Let me guess, you just came from a post graduate seminar on "triggering," and having a company sort their search results as they please brought back a traumatic memory of not understanding the Dewey Decimal System as a little kid, and thinking that the hot, but kind of stern librarian was really out to shame you, personally. Gah! Three more triggers in there at least! You probably should sue Slashdot for allowing someone to type those things without shielding you from them.
G is a monopoly. You know it. I know it.
Other than the part where they have competition, you are in no way obliged to use them, they aren't restraining anybody from going elsewhere for search, mail, apps, etc., all also available for free from other providers. So no, I don't know it, and you're just saying it because you are simply incensed by the notion of someone succeeding, and talking about it is yet another Trigger (!!!) that brings back that guy in elementary school who could always beat you at chess and whose mom sent him to school with a more attractive and healthy looking lunch every day.
People rallied against Microsoft for less.
Yes, they did, and that was BS, too. But times were different, and not as many other OS solutions were available, and that muddied the waters. Still, they got hosed.
We now see how inconsequential a browser is to any OS experience, and G quickly overcame IE and FF simply by producing the best webkit experience.
And despite that fit of time-traveling perspective on your part, you can't wrap your head around the fact that another search engine could be hatched out at any time by anyone, and quickly eclipse Bing, Google, et al, in exactly the same way.
So we have one choice here. Find and use a new preferred search engine.
But we can't! Google has a monopoly!
most other search engines suck for everything
Oh, so that's your actual complaint. You hate Google because they're competent. Oh no, another traumatic Triggering!
No listen, I am serious!
No, you're the least serious person in the room.
a commercial drone operator is not going to need a regular pilot's license in the future
But he will be required to pay for a permit for each aircraft, even though the hobbiest standing right next to him flying exact the same piece of equipment in the same airspace under exactly the same conditions will not. And he will be required to pass a permitting exam, and pay regularly to re-take it. But the person standing next to him flying exactly the same equipment under the exact same circumstances will not be required to show the same knowledge. The retired guy who has the time to fly a 150mph RC jet or a 40-pound octocopter with lethal CF rotors for several hours every day will be free of FAA burdens while the guy who uses a 3-pound plastic quad copter to inspect roof gutters twice a week for three minutes will be subject to federal scrutiny and fees.
When you start engaging in commerce, everything is different.
Yes, there are all sorts of things that come up (taxes, etc). But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity. They are saying that their total ban on drone use (except for millions of recreational users, and a dozen or so waivered entities) is all about safety. Which is why it's ridiculous that the exact same people, gear, location, and practices are considered dangerous enough to warrant a $10,000 fine when Google engineers on the clock perform them, but are considered perfectly safe, with no need to worry, when the very same people do the same exact things for fun.
I've seen no such indication. Hobby landscape photographers (who happen to be hanging their camera from a hexacopter) are not on the FAA shitlist. Just landscape photographers who fly the exact same machine in exactly the same way in the same place, time, and safety regime ... but who take the exact same picture, and use it to sell a post card. $10,000 fine!
Why mod that down? That's exact the case. The FAA isn't going to ask hobby fliers to have a license or adhere to the COA requirements, etc, that they are asking the roofing contractor with a 3-pound quadcopter and a GoPro to adhere to. Ridiculous.
How careful would you be doing something dangerous when you only do it once or twice a year?
Most likely not nearly as careful. Because the situational awareness and familiarity with uncommon but real risks is far better with someone who does something regularly. The person who is, essentially, a noobie every (rare) time he does something is much more dangerous than the person who has completely internalized the risks, the habits of keeping their head on a swivel and an emergency route in mind. The pro is far more likely to have checked for GPS-endangering high KP levels before he flies. Far more likely to remember to think about compass calibration at a new site, or to know where there's likely to be re-bar under cement and thus produce false magnetic readings.
Experience trumps lack of experience every time.
Complacency, which seems to be your biggest boogeyman, is just as likely in a long-time, regular hobby flier as it is in a long time operator who knows he has to protect his business license, his company assets, his insurance eligibility, and his reputation. You've got it exactly backwards, probably because you personally know some people with bad work ethics, and for some reason pay no attention to thousands of YouTube videos of recreational operators (of drones, sailboats, dirt bikes, chainsaws, and everything else) who exhibit breathtakingly bad judgement and lack of practical skill, sometimes lethally so. But they're OK with the FAA - no worries there!
This isn't a hobbyist project.
Doesn't matter. The point is that the same operators could fly exactly the same gear in exactly the same way, at the same time and place, 365 days a year, and require no COA or pilot's license - if they were doing it as a hobby. Not a single aspect of the flight risk or expense would change, just whether the engineers are on the clock, or having fun. The difference is a $10,000 fine - but the unfined flights would be no safer.
The FAA doesn't care about the rabbit, it cares about the people. Which it's equally likely to hit if it crashes.
No, that's not what they care about. Because if they did, then they wouldn't consider the exact same flight in the exact same place operated by the exact same people using the exact same equipment in exactly the same way to just fine without a pilot's license if those same operators are doing it for fun.
I don't get why you need to be able to glide a plane onto the runway during an engine failure in the landing pattern when you're probably flying a drone that is incapable of gliding at all and which is multi-engine besides.
Oh, it's worse than that. If the exact same engineers from Amazon followed all of the same exact safety protocols, used exactly the same equipment, and performed exactly the same flights in the same place doing everything exactly the same way ... but did it for fun, for recreation, the FAA would be perfectly fine with that. No pilot's licenses needed, no certificate of airworthiness, no please-sir-may-I permission needed.
... are allowed to operate hobby drones without being subject to the same rules. They can fly 50' octocopters right up to that same 400' and have a grand old time without needing a pilot's license, etc. Why? Because the FAA's position on this is nonsense. Ridiculous, even. The urge to apply their regulatory power in such a ridiculously capricious way is preposterous. I can use one of my drones to check my roof gutters right now, and the FAA is completely happy with that. I can then move 50 feet to the left and do exactly the same thing to someone else's house for pizza money, and I'm subject to a $10,000 fine.
The market has to create demand.. It has to steal property with government deeds and prohibitions to create the shortages that create the demand.
Right. It takes stolen property and government force and all that in order for you to get hungry every day and thus create the demand for multiple people to compete in trying to sell you a sandwich you'll like.
people trying to sell 'Romex' watches
... are deliberately hoping that their efforts to operate fraudulently, in a dishonest theatrical simulation of a market for those two dumb to pay attention ... are not the or a market.
Could also be he doesn't want his wife to know where he's physically keeping his pr0n server.
You know perfectly well that construction is optional in that context.
You're confusing psychopathy with tribalism.
No, I'm correcting the GP's incorrect association between multilinguism and education.
"Douchebag", by the way, is a very American vulgarity.
True. Just like short-hand denigrations of fools in other cultures and languages - while doing the same job - would be pretty incomprehensible to a lot of other people.
Nonsense! Fraud and force are part and parcel to the process. To be against them, you would have to be an anarchist and give the land back to the natives.
Nice tap-dancing, there. "The process" is what, exactly? The process of walking up to a market and deciding when to sell or buy or trade things? How exactly is that related to one group moving into the territory previously occupied by another group (most of whom themselves displaced somebody else)? Who are "natives" - those who wandered in and started occupying the land first? Or those who happened to be occupying it when they first encountered Europeans? Should what's left of one tribe of so-called aboriginals, if they get "their" land back, in turn have to give it back to whoever's left of the tribe their ancestors killed during previous conflicts centuries or millennia ago? When you've got that spelled out in detail, please pass along your big plan. Once that's straight, take a moment to explain how that has anything to do with someone committing fraud in the course of a sale or purchase.
The market requires force to function.
Oh, I get it now, you're just joking.
It has to create shortages where none exists.
Oh, maybe you're not. You're just brainwashed by socialists. A market is shaped by supply and demand. If there's no demand, and you can't inspire any demand, then there's no market for what you're trying to sell. That's why markets work. Because the quickly expose mismatches between supply and demand, and people on both side of the equation act to find where those two things intersect in a way that both parties agree to meet. Doesn't mean that someone still trying to sell steam powered cars is going to like what the market tells them that product is worth.
The market is based on fraud. *I got what you need, man*
I'm genuinely curious. What happened to you when you were young? How did this fantasy narrative of yours get baked into you upside down world view? Do you have some sort of mental problem that makes you unable to decide if and when you want to boy something, and so you find yourself unable to rationally refuse anything that anyone offers to sell you? That must be frustrating.
Luckily there's no need to use a sketchy web site in order to learn about apostrophes. Go ahead, give it a try.
Do what you can get away with
That's not a feature of a market. Because that implies deception or the use of force. Fraud is by definition a departure from the market (where the participants can evaluate each other's offers and choose whether to strike a deal) and a move into a mode where one party is making things happen and the other is being tricked or forced into participating or giving something up under duress or through deceit.
In other words, you're yet another person who doesn't like to compete for business, and will gladly twist the meaning of words in order to avoid having to acknowledge reality.
Just because people in ISIS (or (for some reason) Italian gangsters) are morally warped psychopaths prone to psychotic violence does not necessarily mean they are stupid, or badly educated.
True, and I did not say otherwise. But the GP's implication of multilingualism as an indicator of being better educated and thus by implication a better person is ... specious.
I would hope that my little write up might help you in the future when communicating with someone that speaks multiple languages.
I have no problem communicating with people for whom English is not their native tongue. I'm responding to the person who claims that multilingualism in and of itself is an indication of a better educated person. From extensive experience I am pointing out that that is not always or even frequently true. I applaud your personal embrace of other languages. Doing so for its own sake is a sign of intellectual curiosity and an agile mind. But that's not the only reason that people end up speaking more than one language, something the GP would like us to ignore.
Wow, you are both angry and scared. It's not about intelligence, it's about how you perceive something that you see.
And you THINK you're being a lot more condescending than you actually are. I didn't say it was about intelligence, I'm responding to the GP's assertion about levels of education having something to do with how many languages one can use. The GP's either completely disconnected from reality, or being deliberately disingenuous. Neither makes the assertion correct.
You however give me the impression that you are only experiencing half of life and cling on to your sense of superiority and intelligence to validate your place in the world.
You are free to construct whatever impression you wish. That doesn't make the GP's premise any more correct. I notice you're talking about me, and not about the substance of the comment. Which says plenty about you.