Even if I cannot tell that I agree with everything 100%, still it is an interesting article.
It is not hard to install a dual-boot Linux, or to install GIMP parallel to the PhotoShop, etc. And give them a try, at least from time to time.
It would make the commercial soft to work better, when one have a ready alternative. This way I use nowadays mostly GIMP and OpenOffice, not for ideological reasons, but because they have features which I need.
Please, note that even after a forest fire the significant part of trees, the root system, remains intact underground. So trees reduce the CO2 even in areas with forest fires. Trees' roots are also built from CO2 through the photosynthesis.
a meaningful discussion on the Internet practically impossible. They not only promote an opinion, but pose themselves as idiotic or over-aggressive opponents too.
I think an international UN anti-trolling agreement, or at least a declaration, could be beneficial for the whole planet.
The system is actually not too expensive, because a parachute is not an expensive technology. I wonder why there is still not such a system on passenger planes?
I do not need an "inflight entertainment", I read a book usually, or an ultra modern transformer-armchair, or any other similar frills. I would like however to arrive to a destination in one piece, knowing that if there is a failure, someone thought of a plan B.
A manned aircraft cannot fly lower than 200 - 300 meters (depending on a country). It can fly only according to a flight plan. A manned aircraft produces enormous noise. It costs a lot of money, even renting or fueling one for an hour costs a lot of money. It weighs thousand of kilograms, while a drone weighs hundreds of grams, seven(!) orders of magnitude lower.
I read and view aerial photos (from a drone) of several cases when a public servant with a modest salary possessed a kind of royal property worth millions. I've never seen anything like this from a manned aircraft.
At the same time, sociologists claim that no society can exist without certain amount of accepted lies. Drones change it, they make it more difficult to obfuscate. It could be the main reason of the unprecedented attack on this technology.
What if a SUV which has got 500 horse powers and weighs three tons gets hijacked? One needs to study for years to pilot an UAV, but everybody can drive.
In my opinion there should be a legal limit to personal car power and weight; say 100 hp and 1500 kg.
And it is not "maybe", it is happening. About one and a half million(!) people are being killed on roads each year by cars globally. Times more badly injured. These are figures of a WW3. These accidents are related to drinking, suicides, mental illness, terrorism, drugs, etc.
And practically nothing is done about it. Even more powerful and massive cars hit the market. So, please, stop blaming drones. Let us first learn how to handle the real problem at hands.
It is not possible in principle to compete with Chinese companies because of the prohibitive regulations of the civil UAV market in the US and especially in the EU.
The civil UAV industry is like the space industry was in the second half of the 20th century. This is where innovations happen. This industry could generate millions of new hi-tech jobs. But instead we have got populist law-makers who act speaking figuratively like Chihuahuas attacking anything new and looking back for approval.
In real world we see that over-powered cars are mostly used by terror groups, but not UAVs. Still the EU does not try to limit the power of a car by say 200 hp and the weight by say 1500 kg, what is more than enough. On the contrary we see new personal cars with more than 500 hp and the weight more than 3000 kg.
So it should not be this concern which you mention. In my opinion it is kind of liberal self-righteous populism.
The EU accepted the rule that the FPV, first-person-view, transmitter of an RC aircraft, or a drone, cannot have the power more than 25 mW, while a smartphone can have the transmitting power of 1000, or even 3000 mW.
It basically destroyed the emerging UAV & FPV market and the industry in the EU countries. It made existing FPV drones unreliable and dangerous, while the FPV videolink starts to break at about 100 meters.
There are simple effective measures which could solve the energy related issues including nuclear power-stations' safety. For example, introducing the compulsory office dressing code when temperature is higher than +25C, - business shorts, sandals, a shirt with short sleeves, no-tie.
Or allowing to dry laundry outdoors at dedicated spaces. Or limiting the heated/air-conditioned area of an apartment by 50 square meters per person in the architecture/construction code.
The weight of a personal car could be limited by say 1300 kg. We are trying to solve a social problem by technical means, but it is impossible. Human greed and vanity exceed even nuclear power.
...I think the only thing left for us... is to... learn Russian....
Actually it would be a good idea. All the leading "specialists" on Russia: Müller, Clintons, McCain, etc. do not speak a word in Russian, never visited Russia, except maybe an airport and diplomatic buildings in the capital, have a vague idea of its history and culture.
As a result they just cannot grasp the issues, problems, and worries of the Russian society. It seems to me sometimes they are trying to communicate not with the real country but with a phantom which they themselves created by a collective effort.
Bigger cars and bigger houses with powerful air-conditioning on one side (which caused global warming in the first place), tropical heat on the other side of the divide.
I also think of spam suggestions with the following question "Was it useful?". But when I really am to do something I have to spend have an hour to find a significant option buried in the layers of "AI" stuff.
Roll back fuel standards, - what it could mean? Will we witness 5 tons SUVs instead of 3 tons? 700 hp motors instead of current 500 hp? 400 km/h speedometers instead of 300 km/h?
I mean, - could it be even worse standards than we had all these years, and which led to these monsters on the roads.
....cheap... for the modern communist to still be able to afford soy lates and dream of other people paying for their stuff.
Communism, the great way for EVERYONE to be poor. *
* = except for the party elite.
K. Marx wrote - "I am not a Marxist". You are right, the implementation of "communism" in Eastern Europe with the hostile surrounding environment was a failure. But it does not negate current social problems and contradictions.
Building a library with free access for poor people, or cycling paths in a city, so that people can use bicycle for free, or community stadiums, etc. are also elements of what could be called a practical communism for the lack of a better word.
...Nothing is stopping that from happening now... except for the long line of other semi-skilled workers waiting to take their places....
One can be as skilled as it gets, but being 50+ years old makes her/him a potential target of the ageism.
Ageism is real. I had thought otherwise, but now I encounter it myself regularly. One has to be not only skilled but young, pretty, plus posses a baby face.
People of advanced age still may mitigate this problem by being fit via exercise and diet.
One can be young and not believing all this, but wait and see...
It is all true. I agree and I do not argue with it. I would like just to pint that the quantity of gold on the surface of Earth is very limited.
It is just a cube with the side of 50 meters (some researches say 20 meters): https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz... . That's it. That is all the gold available for billions of people on several continents.
Being an amateur prospector I know only too well how rare it is. So it is in a way not like an usual commodity.
There is water - means that probably there were rivers, and consequently gold.
Excuse my ignorance but why would rivers be evidentiary to the presence of Gold?
We may witness thousands of rockets departing to Mars daily.
Gold is a very useful element but it's pretty worthless when your planet doesn't have a habitable environment. The cost per kilo to transport it is much higher than the value of Gold on Earth.
On Earth there is gold in many rivers in the form of glitter, sand, and nuggets. I am an amateur prospector myself.
The history of humanity is the history of Gold. One can sell as much gold as he got. It is very different from other products in this respect.
I know for sure there are gold and diamonds specialists in the Mars exploration teams. If gold is discovered in large quantities on Mars people will start constructing DIY rockets and suits in backyards. Something similar happened already during gold rushes of the past.
I have got a similar expression. I see at some forums, comments sections, the same people, the same writing style, publishing regularly comments reflecting a specific political persuasion.
I guess, it is not governments themselves who are doing it, but some private subcontractors. Probably, such a subcontractor may fulfill orders from different parts of the political spectrum. I mean the same employee may argue at a forum with himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if I cannot tell that I agree with everything 100%, still it is an interesting article.
It is not hard to install a dual-boot Linux, or to install GIMP parallel to the PhotoShop, etc. And give them a try, at least from time to time.
It would make the commercial soft to work better, when one have a ready alternative. This way I use nowadays mostly GIMP and OpenOffice, not for ideological reasons, but because they have features which I need.
Please, note that even after a forest fire the significant part of trees, the root system, remains intact underground. So trees reduce the CO2 even in areas with forest fires. Trees' roots are also built from CO2 through the photosynthesis.
a meaningful discussion on the Internet practically impossible. They not only promote an opinion, but pose themselves as idiotic or over-aggressive opponents too.
I think an international UN anti-trolling agreement, or at least a declaration, could be beneficial for the whole planet.
The system is actually not too expensive, because a parachute is not an expensive technology. I wonder why there is still not such a system on passenger planes?
I do not need an "inflight entertainment", I read a book usually, or an ultra modern transformer-armchair, or any other similar frills. I would like however to arrive to a destination in one piece, knowing that if there is a failure, someone thought of a plan B.
Blades kill big endangered birds which like soaring in the places where wind turbines are installed. Cats do not attack them.
One pair of big birds may kill two thousand mice per summer. This is why in some areas of Europe there is an invasion of mice nowadays.
A manned aircraft cannot fly lower than 200 - 300 meters (depending on a country). It can fly only according to a flight plan. A manned aircraft produces enormous noise. It costs a lot of money, even renting or fueling one for an hour costs a lot of money. It weighs thousand of kilograms, while a drone weighs hundreds of grams, seven(!) orders of magnitude lower.
I read and view aerial photos (from a drone) of several cases when a public servant with a modest salary possessed a kind of royal property worth millions. I've never seen anything like this from a manned aircraft.
At the same time, sociologists claim that no society can exist without certain amount of accepted lies. Drones change it, they make it more difficult to obfuscate. It could be the main reason of the unprecedented attack on this technology.
is that a drone with camera gives too much power in hands of citizen journalists.
In the past all one needed a high fence and a guard, and not one could see an estate, a factory, a dump, etc.
Now it becomes much harder to hide issues.
What if a SUV which has got 500 horse powers and weighs three tons gets hijacked? One needs to study for years to pilot an UAV, but everybody can drive.
In my opinion there should be a legal limit to personal car power and weight; say 100 hp and 1500 kg.
And it is not "maybe", it is happening. About one and a half million(!) people are being killed on roads each year by cars globally. Times more badly injured. These are figures of a WW3. These accidents are related to drinking, suicides, mental illness, terrorism, drugs, etc.
And practically nothing is done about it. Even more powerful and massive cars hit the market. So, please, stop blaming drones. Let us first learn how to handle the real problem at hands.
Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
It is not possible in principle to compete with Chinese companies because of the prohibitive regulations of the civil UAV market in the US and especially in the EU.
The civil UAV industry is like the space industry was in the second half of the 20th century. This is where innovations happen. This industry could generate millions of new hi-tech jobs. But instead we have got populist law-makers who act speaking figuratively like Chihuahuas attacking anything new and looking back for approval.
In real world we see that over-powered cars are mostly used by terror groups, but not UAVs. Still the EU does not try to limit the power of a car by say 200 hp and the weight by say 1500 kg, what is more than enough. On the contrary we see new personal cars with more than 500 hp and the weight more than 3000 kg.
So it should not be this concern which you mention. In my opinion it is kind of liberal self-righteous populism.
The EU accepted the rule that the FPV, first-person-view, transmitter of an RC aircraft, or a drone, cannot have the power more than 25 mW, while a smartphone can have the transmitting power of 1000, or even 3000 mW.
It basically destroyed the emerging UAV & FPV market and the industry in the EU countries. It made existing FPV drones unreliable and dangerous, while the FPV videolink starts to break at about 100 meters.
There are simple effective measures which could solve the energy related issues including nuclear power-stations' safety. For example, introducing the compulsory office dressing code when temperature is higher than +25C, - business shorts, sandals, a shirt with short sleeves, no-tie.
Or allowing to dry laundry outdoors at dedicated spaces. Or limiting the heated/air-conditioned area of an apartment by 50 square meters per person in the architecture/construction code.
The weight of a personal car could be limited by say 1300 kg. We are trying to solve a social problem by technical means, but it is impossible. Human greed and vanity exceed even nuclear power.
...I think the only thing left for us ... is to ... learn Russian....
Actually it would be a good idea. All the leading "specialists" on Russia: Müller, Clintons, McCain, etc. do not speak a word in Russian, never visited Russia, except maybe an airport and diplomatic buildings in the capital, have a vague idea of its history and culture.
As a result they just cannot grasp the issues, problems, and worries of the Russian society. It seems to me sometimes they are trying to communicate not with the real country but with a phantom which they themselves created by a collective effort.
These jets and chemical explosions would just produce more CO2 on massive scale. What was the root cause of these calamities in the first place.
Bigger cars and bigger houses with powerful air-conditioning on one side (which caused global warming in the first place), tropical heat on the other side of the divide.
I also think of spam suggestions with the following question "Was it useful?". But when I really am to do something I have to spend have an hour to find a significant option buried in the layers of "AI" stuff.
Roll back fuel standards, - what it could mean? Will we witness 5 tons SUVs instead of 3 tons? 700 hp motors instead of current 500 hp? 400 km/h speedometers instead of 300 km/h?
I mean, - could it be even worse standards than we had all these years, and which led to these monsters on the roads.
So no bicycle paths, no stadiums, no libraries, just rich people inside expensive cars.
I am almost sure you did not read "Les Misérables" by Victor Hugo. I mean the orginal text in French.
....cheap... for the modern communist to still be able to afford soy lates and dream of other people paying for their stuff.
Communism, the great way for EVERYONE to be poor. *
* = except for the party elite.
K. Marx wrote - "I am not a Marxist". You are right, the implementation of "communism" in Eastern Europe with the hostile surrounding environment was a failure. But it does not negate current social problems and contradictions.
Building a library with free access for poor people, or cycling paths in a city, so that people can use bicycle for free, or community stadiums, etc. are also elements of what could be called a practical communism for the lack of a better word.
...Nothing is stopping that from happening now... except for the long line of other semi-skilled workers waiting to take their places....
One can be as skilled as it gets, but being 50+ years old makes her/him a potential target of the ageism.
Ageism is real. I had thought otherwise, but now I encounter it myself regularly. One has to be not only skilled but young, pretty, plus posses a baby face.
People of advanced age still may mitigate this problem by being fit via exercise and diet.
One can be young and not believing all this, but wait and see...
It is all true. I agree and I do not argue with it. I would like just to pint that the quantity of gold on the surface of Earth is very limited.
It is just a cube with the side of 50 meters (some researches say 20 meters): https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz... . That's it. That is all the gold available for billions of people on several continents.
Being an amateur prospector I know only too well how rare it is. So it is in a way not like an usual commodity.
There is water - means that probably there were rivers, and consequently gold.
Excuse my ignorance but why would rivers be evidentiary to the presence of Gold?
We may witness thousands of rockets departing to Mars daily.
Gold is a very useful element but it's pretty worthless when your planet doesn't have a habitable environment. The cost per kilo to transport it is much higher than the value of Gold on Earth.
On Earth there is gold in many rivers in the form of glitter, sand, and nuggets. I am an amateur prospector myself.
The history of humanity is the history of Gold. One can sell as much gold as he got. It is very different from other products in this respect.
I know for sure there are gold and diamonds specialists in the Mars exploration teams. If gold is discovered in large quantities on Mars people will start constructing DIY rockets and suits in backyards. Something similar happened already during gold rushes of the past.
There is water - means that probably there were rivers, and consequently gold. We may witness thousands of rockets departing to Mars daily.
I have got a similar expression. I see at some forums, comments sections, the same people, the same writing style, publishing regularly comments reflecting a specific political persuasion.
I guess, it is not governments themselves who are doing it, but some private subcontractors. Probably, such a subcontractor may fulfill orders from different parts of the political spectrum. I mean the same employee may argue at a forum with himself.