You're mistaken. One of the primary functions of RC aviation, rocketry, etc. clubs is to promote, facilitate, and train safe, responsible operation. The incidents that keep showing up in the news have no affiliation with these clubs.
To my understanding there really is all that much in the way of boogie men people are demanding protection from. The biggest demand right now regard protection from--very real--thug law enforcement officers.
Mandatory buy backs/turn-ins are quite possible, and have been employed before with demonstrable success. We still await your answer regarding a more viable solution though. If you don't want to lose your "gun rights" folks like you are going to need to come up with a much better response than "f**k you. Second amendment". There's a tipping point and it's fast approaching.
Ok. How about the UK then. gun deaths by country. Their regular police force do not carry guns. Funny thing, they seem to do rather well at de-escalation of conflicts without actually killing anyone.
If this were any other product party to so many deaths, the CPSC would have long banned these things. What kind of fracked up world do we live in where lawn darts and Buckyballs are evil, but it's perfectly cool to fill our homes with guns. No requirements for storage, no requirements for training, no requirements for mental health, etc..
If you can ban guns fitting certain criteria, e.g. "full-autos made after 1986". You can ban guns fitting other criteria. e.g. "using gun powder". It also isn't "the masses" it's a minority of self-serving, very vocal people that inexplicably maintain the ear of politicians.
You understand that ethanol is an indirect petroleum derivative right? That whole game was a means whereby one might shore up corn farmers. The only real difference between gas and ethanol is that in the case of the latter you have to first dump the petroleum onto the ground.
As for the rest, you're basically just describing logistics and driver talent. Maybe you can call it engineering, but it isn't what comes to most people mind.
What is different about the extension approval process that it see more success than the creation of newer, safer reactors? Why aren't they (the anti-nuke people) willing/able to pursuit the more logical course of action--the denial of operating extensions for obsolete, unsafe reactors?
NVIDIA and AMD cannot release complete open source drives. There's IP within their closed drivers that's been licensed from third parties. Everyone would have to get on board and that probably won't ever happen.
Behind the closed source drives are a lot of IP, some of which are on license from a third-party. It's not quite so easy as to say "be free" and all source be revealed. This means that for the RMS types out there, they have to reinvent the wheel. Of course to reinvent that wheel, you have to have the knowledge to do so as well as the time and motivation. To date the stars required to make that happen have never come in alignment. Probably never will.
There would be little to no demand for private video if the dash/body cams recordings were public record and readily accessible to everyone without impediment.
You want data? For one week, every time you see a woman, insult her, particularly in a sexually explicit manner. Note their responses and provide us with a summary from your hospital bed, that is if you're physically able to.
There are a number of flawed theories floating around, particularly the open-source community, but other bastions of geekdom as well.
1. "success == correct" -- success is not binary. Just because a project is successful does not mean methods employed were optimal. You may well have just hit a local maxima but missed the opportunity for a global maxima.
2. "talented == thick skinned" -- a lot of talented people, and particularly the introverted, do take things very personally
3. "abuse == productivity" -- while certain people are motivated to perform in order to get away from abuse, that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Abuse more often fractures, demoralizes and lowers productivity.
4. "misogyny == productivity" -- About the only thing gained, is a woman free community
5. "homophobia == productivity" -- As with four above the only thing gained is a less diverse community and by extension smaller talent pool
Abusing your team because you don't have the patience to deal with their perceived incompetence? Seriously? The only thing that does is lower productivity, create schisms, and fill the ranks with "yes men" willing to allow a project to be driven off a cliff for fear of suffering abuse having spoken up. In many ways Linux succeeds in spite of Linus not because of him. People rally around his banner in large part because of a shared passion, not his people skills.
There's a difference of perspective between two groups of people. On one side you have user's of Wi-Fi for Internet access, as well as amateur radio operators. Then you have corporate interests, particularly the cellular carriers. The former are given over to the belief that the unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4 and 5GHz band were set aside for their use while the latter having fat wallets can "buy their own damn spectrum". After all they wouldn't share their's even if asked "pretty please." Then you have the latter group for whom think they can take advantage of whatever law and regulation allow.
I personally fall into the former camp, as does probably a large majority of people here. When we hear of such things as LTE-U the first things that comes to mind, tend to follow along the line of "hell no" and "greedy {expletive}s are trying to steal from us again." Given the prices we pay for cellular service, it's a bit of a sore point. Quite frankly I think deservedly so. It's also hard to not be skeptical that this would only be deployed at convention centers, malls, and the like and that it would be kept to the power levels allowed to unlicensed operators. We hear all the time the desire to switch to micro-cells. Further whose to say these guys wouldn't find a way to get an amateur operator license while they're at it and use amplifiers.
You're missing it. Apple's product requires third-party implementations to make up the difference. Google's product has it built in. As far as I can tell, my Q50's electronics for instance are a cobbled together mess of a few different OEMs, with an Infiniti badged facade wrapped around them. Android Auto, eliminates the bug prone piecemeal approach in favor of a common and inclusive platform. This makes it easier to maintain and secure, provides user's a broader eco-system of on board apps, and allows the car manufacturers to focus on what they know and do best.
That's funny and all, however this information does provide benefit to a variety of stakeholders, including the vehicle occupants. For Google's side, among I'm sure others, is real world data sets pertaining to how people drive their cars. This information is rather handy in developing safer autopilot capable cars. In exchange users are given services--as is Google's business model--that provide customer benefits. Vehicle diagnostics, personalized route planning, infotainment, teen/valet driver nannies, etc..
In the contexts for which I am familiar there is a bit of a difference. They are offering communication services wherein little to no contention exists. Take the local coffee shop for instance. Their Wi-Fi hotspot--which are usually free anyway--is the only available means of getting on the Internet unless you have a cellular modem and a supporting data plan. The same goes for airports, airplanes, city buses, commuter trains, etc. even if they charge a fee to connect it is a wholly fair use. Moreover, they rely upon the same communication technology/protocols, i.e. 802.11{x}
LTE-U on the other hand--a restricted access, data plan consuming, aggressive protocol--would occupy areas already being used by personal, even commercial (coffee house) Wi-Fi. In the cases such as hotels that attempted to restrict the functioning of mobile hot spots you better believe people were crying foul. LTE-U has the makings of being the same wolf with a different sheepskin. It steals public park land for the country club. If the roles were reversed and the blue collar folks tried to "jump the fence" there would be huge fines and probably jail time.
Ok, I'll bite. Regardless of duty cycling, and/or other forms of "mitigation" I fail to see how occupying the same frequencies as our Wi-Fi routers can do anything other than steal capacity. Further it is reported that LTE-U is more aggressive than Wi-Fi at grabbing open air time--shorter backoff period--meaning that where there is contention, it won't even play fair. In locations with already high-contention--like apartments, this sounds like a very unpalatable cocktail, enough to make Wi-Fi so slow as to be unusable. What are we missing?
For a certain technology it "can only go so far." If we want cleaner systems, and what is being offered isn't able to meet the challenge that doesn't mean the standard needs to be weakened. It means the system being employed needs to be evolved/replaced. In short we throw the requirements at the engineers and they come up with a new solution.
Slashdot Mirror
You're mistaken. One of the primary functions of RC aviation, rocketry, etc. clubs is to promote, facilitate, and train safe, responsible operation. The incidents that keep showing up in the news have no affiliation with these clubs.
To my understanding there really is all that much in the way of boogie men people are demanding protection from. The biggest demand right now regard protection from--very real--thug law enforcement officers.
Mandatory buy backs/turn-ins are quite possible, and have been employed before with demonstrable success. We still await your answer regarding a more viable solution though. If you don't want to lose your "gun rights" folks like you are going to need to come up with a much better response than "f**k you. Second amendment". There's a tipping point and it's fast approaching.
Ok. How about the UK then. gun deaths by country. Their regular police force do not carry guns. Funny thing, they seem to do rather well at de-escalation of conflicts without actually killing anyone.
If this were any other product party to so many deaths, the CPSC would have long banned these things. What kind of fracked up world do we live in where lawn darts and Buckyballs are evil, but it's perfectly cool to fill our homes with guns. No requirements for storage, no requirements for training, no requirements for mental health, etc..
If you can ban guns fitting certain criteria, e.g. "full-autos made after 1986". You can ban guns fitting other criteria. e.g. "using gun powder". It also isn't "the masses" it's a minority of self-serving, very vocal people that inexplicably maintain the ear of politicians.
I seem to recall folks like you claiming that trains could not exceed 30 MPH without risk of suffocating their passengers.
You understand that ethanol is an indirect petroleum derivative right? That whole game was a means whereby one might shore up corn farmers. The only real difference between gas and ethanol is that in the case of the latter you have to first dump the petroleum onto the ground.
As for the rest, you're basically just describing logistics and driver talent. Maybe you can call it engineering, but it isn't what comes to most people mind.
Just like you (used to...) read Playboy for the articles?
I've got a hunch said racing team was not having a consultation for a NASCAR entrant.
I'd liken it to a comment whereby one calls the Amish technologically backwards.
What is different about the extension approval process that it see more success than the creation of newer, safer reactors? Why aren't they (the anti-nuke people) willing/able to pursuit the more logical course of action--the denial of operating extensions for obsolete, unsafe reactors?
If it'd help, I'd be willing to supply "certified" #2 voting pencils for $10 each.
NVIDIA and AMD cannot release complete open source drives. There's IP within their closed drivers that's been licensed from third parties. Everyone would have to get on board and that probably won't ever happen.
Behind the closed source drives are a lot of IP, some of which are on license from a third-party. It's not quite so easy as to say "be free" and all source be revealed. This means that for the RMS types out there, they have to reinvent the wheel. Of course to reinvent that wheel, you have to have the knowledge to do so as well as the time and motivation. To date the stars required to make that happen have never come in alignment. Probably never will.
There would be little to no demand for private video if the dash/body cams recordings were public record and readily accessible to everyone without impediment.
I guess I need to brush up on my Latin...
You want data? For one week, every time you see a woman, insult her, particularly in a sexually explicit manner. Note their responses and provide us with a summary from your hospital bed, that is if you're physically able to.
There are a number of flawed theories floating around, particularly the open-source community, but other bastions of geekdom as well.
1. "success == correct" -- success is not binary. Just because a project is successful does not mean methods employed were optimal. You may well have just hit a local maxima but missed the opportunity for a global maxima.
2. "talented == thick skinned" -- a lot of talented people, and particularly the introverted, do take things very personally
3. "abuse == productivity" -- while certain people are motivated to perform in order to get away from abuse, that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Abuse more often fractures, demoralizes and lowers productivity.
4. "misogyny == productivity" -- About the only thing gained, is a woman free community
5. "homophobia == productivity" -- As with four above the only thing gained is a less diverse community and by extension smaller talent pool
Abusing your team because you don't have the patience to deal with their perceived incompetence? Seriously? The only thing that does is lower productivity, create schisms, and fill the ranks with "yes men" willing to allow a project to be driven off a cliff for fear of suffering abuse having spoken up. In many ways Linux succeeds in spite of Linus not because of him. People rally around his banner in large part because of a shared passion, not his people skills.
There's a difference of perspective between two groups of people. On one side you have user's of Wi-Fi for Internet access, as well as amateur radio operators. Then you have corporate interests, particularly the cellular carriers. The former are given over to the belief that the unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4 and 5GHz band were set aside for their use while the latter having fat wallets can "buy their own damn spectrum". After all they wouldn't share their's even if asked "pretty please." Then you have the latter group for whom think they can take advantage of whatever law and regulation allow.
I personally fall into the former camp, as does probably a large majority of people here. When we hear of such things as LTE-U the first things that comes to mind, tend to follow along the line of "hell no" and "greedy {expletive}s are trying to steal from us again." Given the prices we pay for cellular service, it's a bit of a sore point. Quite frankly I think deservedly so. It's also hard to not be skeptical that this would only be deployed at convention centers, malls, and the like and that it would be kept to the power levels allowed to unlicensed operators. We hear all the time the desire to switch to micro-cells. Further whose to say these guys wouldn't find a way to get an amateur operator license while they're at it and use amplifiers.
You're missing it. Apple's product requires third-party implementations to make up the difference. Google's product has it built in. As far as I can tell, my Q50's electronics for instance are a cobbled together mess of a few different OEMs, with an Infiniti badged facade wrapped around them. Android Auto, eliminates the bug prone piecemeal approach in favor of a common and inclusive platform. This makes it easier to maintain and secure, provides user's a broader eco-system of on board apps, and allows the car manufacturers to focus on what they know and do best.
That's funny and all, however this information does provide benefit to a variety of stakeholders, including the vehicle occupants. For Google's side, among I'm sure others, is real world data sets pertaining to how people drive their cars. This information is rather handy in developing safer autopilot capable cars. In exchange users are given services--as is Google's business model--that provide customer benefits. Vehicle diagnostics, personalized route planning, infotainment, teen/valet driver nannies, etc..
In the contexts for which I am familiar there is a bit of a difference. They are offering communication services wherein little to no contention exists. Take the local coffee shop for instance. Their Wi-Fi hotspot--which are usually free anyway--is the only available means of getting on the Internet unless you have a cellular modem and a supporting data plan. The same goes for airports, airplanes, city buses, commuter trains, etc. even if they charge a fee to connect it is a wholly fair use. Moreover, they rely upon the same communication technology/protocols, i.e. 802.11{x}
LTE-U on the other hand--a restricted access, data plan consuming, aggressive protocol--would occupy areas already being used by personal, even commercial (coffee house) Wi-Fi. In the cases such as hotels that attempted to restrict the functioning of mobile hot spots you better believe people were crying foul. LTE-U has the makings of being the same wolf with a different sheepskin. It steals public park land for the country club. If the roles were reversed and the blue collar folks tried to "jump the fence" there would be huge fines and probably jail time.
Ok, I'll bite. Regardless of duty cycling, and/or other forms of "mitigation" I fail to see how occupying the same frequencies as our Wi-Fi routers can do anything other than steal capacity. Further it is reported that LTE-U is more aggressive than Wi-Fi at grabbing open air time--shorter backoff period--meaning that where there is contention, it won't even play fair. In locations with already high-contention--like apartments, this sounds like a very unpalatable cocktail, enough to make Wi-Fi so slow as to be unusable. What are we missing?
For a certain technology it "can only go so far." If we want cleaner systems, and what is being offered isn't able to meet the challenge that doesn't mean the standard needs to be weakened. It means the system being employed needs to be evolved/replaced. In short we throw the requirements at the engineers and they come up with a new solution.