Well, doing a quick search, I am seeing about 6 drone crashes per 100,000 flight hours, while truck accidents come in at around 0.3 per million miles. Not the same scales but it does show how different the crash rates are. A more direct comparison puts drones against commercial aircraft which comes in at about 2 per million flight hours. So yes, drones crash more often then other aircraft and land vehicles.
While not the verdict I would have liked, this is not terribly surprising. Tech people often like latching on to literal interpretations, loopholes in language, or novel technological work arounds. However judges take into account the 'spirt' of the law, and are often interested in how something behaves or what it actually does as opposed to the technological implementation.
Regardless of the clever implementation, Aereo behaved like a subscription cable service. How it collected and stored programming was not relevant to this.
That example indeed seems a bit unnecessary, but I suspect right now they are just starting with a simple, clear, broad rule and will start changing things once the technology has matured a bit more
That is part of the problem, the accident rate of drones is higher then manned vehicles. Meaning the only reason we see more injuries associated with trucks then drones is there are a lot more trucks around. Scale up drone usage to the same rate and things would get ugly fast.
Considering the poor safety history drones have had so far and the point that this is the FAA's job, I am not sure I would call it overreach at this stage.
It also can not last. The reason multinationals are raking in such large profits from cheap labor is OTHER companies are still paying well. It only works as long as your target customer is well off but your own work force is poor, but if the pattern continues then the target customers will bit by bit also be replaced by poorer workers and that ripples though.
Specialization and supply chain. People who build rigs get their profit up front and can pour the money strait back into facilities, equipment, parts, etc. It is a pretty solid strategy for growing a business and would likely work better then running the rigs themselves.
Strange thing is, I see free energy or alternative physics projects pop up on Kickstarter now and then, and usually they are shut down pretty quickly. I am curious why this one was allowed to continue when normally they are pretty good about not allowing them.
Maybe this is why they 'opened up' the process and removed the requirement for review. Now they can plausibly say they were not aware of projects like this.
Thing is, it is being called a scam by people who are familiar with miniaturization and physics.
A classic element of pseudoscience and scams like this is to take something that has some small connection with physics but the numbers are so far off the engineering actually is impossible. This particular one is actually a pretty old 'free energy' thing, with people claiming you can collect usable amounts of energy from ambient signals. But the numbers, even though yes they are non-zero, are so tiny as to be useless.
I have a hard time swallowing the 'asymmetric' argument. Comcast's customers are, after all, paying for access to that data, Comcast is supposed to simply be a path. If the cost of delivering that data is really that unfair on Comcast, then they need to charge their customers more and build out more infrastructure to support the increased load. That is what we pay them for.
More evidence supporting something does not necessarily mean the issue is 'settled', but it does add weight to the interoperation and puts an increased burden on detractors to defend their position.
While there might be outliers, I generally do not hear the pro-NN crowd claiming that direct peering or colocation should be outlawed, only that traffic should not be shaped based off its origin. So if some data comes in through, say, Level 3, all that should matter is that the data is coming through that pipe, not where it originated from on someone else's network.
And that is why free market solutions are not enough. The self adjusting nature of markets are generally only sensitive to the two parties involved in a transaction, they react poorly to the effects of the transaction on 3rd parties. It is why free markets tend to have slavery or something functionally equivalent, it is great for owners and sellers, and the people being trafficked are not factored in.
That is a justification or explanation, but not an excuse. An excuse is something that excuses a behavior or action, and even if it is rational such a reason does not excuse failing to notify bee keepers about spraying.
I am not sure "back pedal" is really the right word here. They did some research, published a result, other researchers pointed out potential problems with the conclusions, the original team listened to the criticisms and took them seriously.
I think you missed the poster`s point. The idea is that college should not be a prerequiste for jobs, and that all those HR departments that are requiring it are a big part of the problem.
It does not help that our society has more respect for administrators then teachers, so there tends to be less outrage when their salaries are being discussed.
Comparing it to runner`s high is what I was thinking too.
I think the criticism of the paper was a little off, or at minimal the person was creating an unnecessarily high bar. Not all addition is equal, not all withdraw symptoms are crippling, and "must be life destroying" only applies when you are talking DSM level addiction, not the physiological process.
Caffeine would be a good example of this. Physically addicting, has withdraw symptoms, but does not rise to the level of DSM addiction since people generally do not choose it over all other things. But it is still addictive.
Since I have never been involved in government auctions and I am not seeing anyone comment, what is the standard here? Is there an expectation of privacy? I have never heard of these auctions billed as being anonymous before. So are we basically talking about little more then a minor social mistake?
Doubtful. Despite the overinflated sense of self importance some people in the BTC community have, the federal government does not care all that much, They just want BTC trading to follow the same rules as other commodities, that is pretty much it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, doing a quick search, I am seeing about 6 drone crashes per 100,000 flight hours, while truck accidents come in at around 0.3 per million miles. Not the same scales but it does show how different the crash rates are. A more direct comparison puts drones against commercial aircraft which comes in at about 2 per million flight hours. So yes, drones crash more often then other aircraft and land vehicles.
While not the verdict I would have liked, this is not terribly surprising. Tech people often like latching on to literal interpretations, loopholes in language, or novel technological work arounds. However judges take into account the 'spirt' of the law, and are often interested in how something behaves or what it actually does as opposed to the technological implementation.
Regardless of the clever implementation, Aereo behaved like a subscription cable service. How it collected and stored programming was not relevant to this.
Drones crash more often then their manned counterparts. Even the military ones which are top of the line have issues with this.
That example indeed seems a bit unnecessary, but I suspect right now they are just starting with a simple, clear, broad rule and will start changing things once the technology has matured a bit more
That is part of the problem, the accident rate of drones is higher then manned vehicles. Meaning the only reason we see more injuries associated with trucks then drones is there are a lot more trucks around. Scale up drone usage to the same rate and things would get ugly fast.
You generally are not allowed to have drone trucks on the street either. The lack of direct human control makes drones significantly more dangerous.
Considering the poor safety history drones have had so far and the point that this is the FAA's job, I am not sure I would call it overreach at this stage.
In general the pattern has indeed been to move labor to places like India, this case is a bit of an anomaly or a change.
It also can not last. The reason multinationals are raking in such large profits from cheap labor is OTHER companies are still paying well. It only works as long as your target customer is well off but your own work force is poor, but if the pattern continues then the target customers will bit by bit also be replaced by poorer workers and that ripples though.
Specialization and supply chain. People who build rigs get their profit up front and can pour the money strait back into facilities, equipment, parts, etc. It is a pretty solid strategy for growing a business and would likely work better then running the rigs themselves.
Interesting choice of words there. 'Victims' and 'suspects' carry pretty different implications with them.
Strange thing is, I see free energy or alternative physics projects pop up on Kickstarter now and then, and usually they are shut down pretty quickly. I am curious why this one was allowed to continue when normally they are pretty good about not allowing them.
Maybe this is why they 'opened up' the process and removed the requirement for review. Now they can plausibly say they were not aware of projects like this.
Thing is, it is being called a scam by people who are familiar with miniaturization and physics.
A classic element of pseudoscience and scams like this is to take something that has some small connection with physics but the numbers are so far off the engineering actually is impossible. This particular one is actually a pretty old 'free energy' thing, with people claiming you can collect usable amounts of energy from ambient signals. But the numbers, even though yes they are non-zero, are so tiny as to be useless.
I have a hard time swallowing the 'asymmetric' argument. Comcast's customers are, after all, paying for access to that data, Comcast is supposed to simply be a path. If the cost of delivering that data is really that unfair on Comcast, then they need to charge their customers more and build out more infrastructure to support the increased load. That is what we pay them for.
More evidence supporting something does not necessarily mean the issue is 'settled', but it does add weight to the interoperation and puts an increased burden on detractors to defend their position.
While there might be outliers, I generally do not hear the pro-NN crowd claiming that direct peering or colocation should be outlawed, only that traffic should not be shaped based off its origin. So if some data comes in through, say, Level 3, all that should matter is that the data is coming through that pipe, not where it originated from on someone else's network.
And that is why free market solutions are not enough. The self adjusting nature of markets are generally only sensitive to the two parties involved in a transaction, they react poorly to the effects of the transaction on 3rd parties. It is why free markets tend to have slavery or something functionally equivalent, it is great for owners and sellers, and the people being trafficked are not factored in.
That is a justification or explanation, but not an excuse. An excuse is something that excuses a behavior or action, and even if it is rational such a reason does not excuse failing to notify bee keepers about spraying.
I am not sure "back pedal" is really the right word here. They did some research, published a result, other researchers pointed out potential problems with the conclusions, the original team listened to the criticisms and took them seriously.
I think you missed the poster`s point. The idea is that college should not be a prerequiste for jobs, and that all those HR departments that are requiring it are a big part of the problem.
It does not help that our society has more respect for administrators then teachers, so there tends to be less outrage when their salaries are being discussed.
Comparing it to runner`s high is what I was thinking too.
I think the criticism of the paper was a little off, or at minimal the person was creating an unnecessarily high bar. Not all addition is equal, not all withdraw symptoms are crippling, and "must be life destroying" only applies when you are talking DSM level addiction, not the physiological process.
Caffeine would be a good example of this. Physically addicting, has withdraw symptoms, but does not rise to the level of DSM addiction since people generally do not choose it over all other things. But it is still addictive.
Since I have never been involved in government auctions and I am not seeing anyone comment, what is the standard here? Is there an expectation of privacy? I have never heard of these auctions billed as being anonymous before. So are we basically talking about little more then a minor social mistake?
Doubtful. Despite the overinflated sense of self importance some people in the BTC community have, the federal government does not care all that much, They just want BTC trading to follow the same rules as other commodities, that is pretty much it.