It works this way today. Surprisingly well, in fact.
Waiting for a drone to be dispatched from the nearest airport? Not so much.
who says they'd need to be dispatched from an airport? use the helicopter pad on top of the hospital, or dispatch from the roof of the local police station. you're simply not going to be able to send paramedics in a helicopter to every medical emergency where they could be useful, because of the expense, whereas sending a drone in lieu of, or in advance of, an ambulance could be cost effective for more cases. Who knows how many more? I don't claim to.
And when that ambulance or helicopter arrives it will not only have the epi-pen, but oxygen, a defibrillator, a, trache kit, plasma, bandages, most drugs you would ever need in the field, back board, stretcher, and, let me see, there was something else, what was it, OH YEAH, I remember now, TRAINED PARAMEDICS, and TRANSPORT.
those will certainly useful if the patient's still alive when you get there.
Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right?
presumably drones will use autopilot for the most part, rather than the manual piloting on which cars presently depend. there isn't much to steer around up there.
Again, this is not a mutually exclusive concept - if one can come up with an "effectual means" to keep drones from crashing, those same measures should be applicable to manned aircraft.
there are plenty of applications for which a drone aircraft is suitable but for which a manned aircraft is not, generally on account of the cost of their operation. applying the same safety measures to manned aircraft will not help.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
"We don't need" is a rhetorical device employed to justify forbidding something on the basis of its being unnecessary, generally when the speaker is unsure of his other arguments, one of which in this case involved the likelihood of crashes. Whether we need drones is a question entirely separate from that of whether they're dangerous. Whether they're dangerous or not, clearly we don't need them, since we've gotten by without them in the past. Likewise, it is arguable we do need plenty of things that are dangerous (for example, a military with decent destructive capabilities).
Except of course, they aren't being introduced for those reasons.
yet.
Sorry, but your argument boils down to "think of the children", and has nothing at all to do with how and why they're deploying drones.
"think of the children" is an argument used to justify regulation.
Now you're suggesting we should allow drone surveillance on the chance that while they're up there spying they could use it to call an ambulance. There's reasons why the police are prohibited from doing certain things.
I'm not sure why you'd assume drone tech won't proceed like most other tech: faster, cheaper, smaller. Furthermore sending a chopper full of paramedics is not something you're going to be able to do in many situations. You can't send one out each time someone needs an epi-pen, but sending one on a drone could save someone's life.
You'd do better to focus on why the privacy and security issues cannot be similarly resolved,
No addition to police capabilities has led to better security or better privacy in well over a thousand years. Why should we expect this tool be any different?
Setting aside the veracity of that statement, law enforcement applications are surely a small fraction of possible uses for drones. Imagine, for example, a fire department sending drones into a burning building in order to assess damage and locate victims before sending personnel to locations where they can do the most good, or an ambulance drone ferrying medication and supplies to accident victims within minutes.
That seems like a reason for regulation, not prohibition. As an example, let's say you limit drone use to fire and ambulance services. If someone's having a heart attack, you could send out a defibrillator that could be available within a couple of minutes. (Israel employs private motorbike riders for this very purpose, since ambulances often arrive to late to do anything.) This would be an easy way to save lives, and the cost would likely be covered by the reduced cost of caring for the victims. Of course you can argue that this would only lead to law enforcement using the same technology, but you could use the same logic regarding plenty of existing technology whose use by police is restricted.
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
"We don't need" is hardly a reason to make something illegal in itself. The phrase is a lazy rhetorical device.
Further, what makes you think such machines wouldn't be orders of magnitude more reliable than human drivers (who can get drunk, old, preoccupied, poisoned by testosterone, or succumb to idiocy), who operate much heavier equipment, and in closer proximity to potential victims? You seem to be presuming no one can come up with an effectual means to prevent a malfunctioning device from causing damage, which seems implausible, given the fact that a simple airbag like mechanism that slows the rate of descent would probably serve reasonably well in many situations, especially in conjunction with the same kind of laws that restrict helicopter flight over populous areas.
You'd do better to focus on why the privacy and security issues cannot be similarly resolved, instead of merely mentioning them whilst waving your hands wildly about. Surely photography and recording technology itself poses serious privacy and security issues, but this would have a been lousy reason for banning the public use of cameras and microphones.
Identical twins isn't the interesting case. It's the conjoined twins that are the real puzzle. Suppose there are a pair of conjoined twins. One is an artist and hates computers, one is a programmer and hates art. Everybody knows this and will testify to the fact. When the artist goes to sleep, the programmer whips out a laptop and hacks into the Pentagon. He gets caught, gets arrested, and admits guilt... what are you going to do, imprison him?
The problem is that it re-enforces the stereotype and actually does cause certain behaviour. If you constantly tell one group they are a bunch of criminals and just assume they are probably up to no good then you shouldn't be surprised when it turns out they are.
The point of treating everyone equally is to make it clear that regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation or whatever you have the same chance, the same opportunity to make something of yourself. Of course in reality not everyone has access to good schools or good jobs, but if you keep re-enforcing that imagine it strengthens it. We still need to push to level the playing field, despite all the progress that has been made.
So what do you propose? That Google censor itself in the interest of inducing desired behavior (in this case, law-abidance) in some subsection of the population? Considering the types of organizations that historically have attempted to improve a society by controlling 'dangerous' information, that seems a dubious idea.
When I said "you", I should've said "astronomers". This is an experiment that has been done at many observatories, all over the world. It's easily falsifiable by any sufficiently sophisticated nation, and I can think of at least one that would've loved to have called "Bullshit!" on a moon landing, if it never happened.
yes, but how do we know it was the US who put the reflector there? if they wanted to leave unequivocal proof, they should have attached a pair of truck nuts to the moon.
First, the countries economy depends on its citizens having jobs. If you, instead, give those jobs to non-citizens, then you hurting the economy.
Not if those non-citizens create more jobs than they take up. If hiring a bunch of foreign engineers is the alternative to not hiring any additional staff, and those engineers are productive enough that the company that hired them then hires a bunch of lawyers, secretaries, janitors, and so forth, you're not hurting the economy. Of course this only works if there is a scarcity of local talent willing to do the job at a price that leaves room for profit.
Naturally it is in the interest of local engineers to claim there is no such scarcity, just as any profession likes to see its numbers remain low in order to boost wages. I would argue that the optimal number of engineers is such number that an additional person entering the field would create no net gain for the economy. I have no idea how to figure out what that number is, but the idea that it happens to be that which exists in the country without this modification to the H1B program seems non-obvious. Who knows? Maybe it's lower.
if anything, it's the reverse: at the present rate of incarceration, every US citizen will be a convict by 2076, which is basically how Australia started out
between Dell's unbeatable reputation for sleek, innovative, high-margin technological wizardry, and Microsoft's remarkable ability to bring such inimitable mix of elegant simplicity and raw sex-appeal to new markets as puts their rabid fan base into a swoon, every other player in the industry would doubtless close down and give the money back to their shareholders.
"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., April 4, 1967
he sure loved the passive voice. It's a wonder he didn't declare "A dream is had by me!"
Slashdot Mirror
It works this way today. Surprisingly well, in fact. Waiting for a drone to be dispatched from the nearest airport? Not so much.
who says they'd need to be dispatched from an airport? use the helicopter pad on top of the hospital, or dispatch from the roof of the local police station. you're simply not going to be able to send paramedics in a helicopter to every medical emergency where they could be useful, because of the expense, whereas sending a drone in lieu of, or in advance of, an ambulance could be cost effective for more cases. Who knows how many more? I don't claim to.
And when that ambulance or helicopter arrives it will not only have the epi-pen, but oxygen, a defibrillator, a, trache kit, plasma, bandages, most drugs you would ever need in the field, back board, stretcher, and, let me see, there was something else, what was it, OH YEAH, I remember now, TRAINED PARAMEDICS, and TRANSPORT.
those will certainly useful if the patient's still alive when you get there.
Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right?
presumably drones will use autopilot for the most part, rather than the manual piloting on which cars presently depend. there isn't much to steer around up there.
Again, this is not a mutually exclusive concept - if one can come up with an "effectual means" to keep drones from crashing, those same measures should be applicable to manned aircraft.
there are plenty of applications for which a drone aircraft is suitable but for which a manned aircraft is not, generally on account of the cost of their operation. applying the same safety measures to manned aircraft will not help.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
"We don't need" is a rhetorical device employed to justify forbidding something on the basis of its being unnecessary, generally when the speaker is unsure of his other arguments, one of which in this case involved the likelihood of crashes. Whether we need drones is a question entirely separate from that of whether they're dangerous. Whether they're dangerous or not, clearly we don't need them, since we've gotten by without them in the past. Likewise, it is arguable we do need plenty of things that are dangerous (for example, a military with decent destructive capabilities).
Except of course, they aren't being introduced for those reasons.
yet.
Sorry, but your argument boils down to "think of the children", and has nothing at all to do with how and why they're deploying drones.
"think of the children" is an argument used to justify regulation.
Now you're suggesting we should allow drone surveillance on the chance that while they're up there spying they could use it to call an ambulance. There's reasons why the police are prohibited from doing certain things.
are you sure you read the right post?
I'm not sure why you'd assume drone tech won't proceed like most other tech: faster, cheaper, smaller. Furthermore sending a chopper full of paramedics is not something you're going to be able to do in many situations. You can't send one out each time someone needs an epi-pen, but sending one on a drone could save someone's life.
You'd do better to focus on why the privacy and security issues cannot be similarly resolved,
No addition to police capabilities has led to better security or better privacy in well over a thousand years. Why should we expect this tool be any different?
Setting aside the veracity of that statement, law enforcement applications are surely a small fraction of possible uses for drones. Imagine, for example, a fire department sending drones into a burning building in order to assess damage and locate victims before sending personnel to locations where they can do the most good, or an ambulance drone ferrying medication and supplies to accident victims within minutes.
That seems like a reason for regulation, not prohibition. As an example, let's say you limit drone use to fire and ambulance services. If someone's having a heart attack, you could send out a defibrillator that could be available within a couple of minutes. (Israel employs private motorbike riders for this very purpose, since ambulances often arrive to late to do anything.) This would be an easy way to save lives, and the cost would likely be covered by the reduced cost of caring for the victims. Of course you can argue that this would only lead to law enforcement using the same technology, but you could use the same logic regarding plenty of existing technology whose use by police is restricted.
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
"We don't need" is hardly a reason to make something illegal in itself. The phrase is a lazy rhetorical device.
Further, what makes you think such machines wouldn't be orders of magnitude more reliable than human drivers (who can get drunk, old, preoccupied, poisoned by testosterone, or succumb to idiocy), who operate much heavier equipment, and in closer proximity to potential victims? You seem to be presuming no one can come up with an effectual means to prevent a malfunctioning device from causing damage, which seems implausible, given the fact that a simple airbag like mechanism that slows the rate of descent would probably serve reasonably well in many situations, especially in conjunction with the same kind of laws that restrict helicopter flight over populous areas.
You'd do better to focus on why the privacy and security issues cannot be similarly resolved, instead of merely mentioning them whilst waving your hands wildly about. Surely photography and recording technology itself poses serious privacy and security issues, but this would have a been lousy reason for banning the public use of cameras and microphones.
Identical twins isn't the interesting case. It's the conjoined twins that are the real puzzle. Suppose there are a pair of conjoined twins. One is an artist and hates computers, one is a programmer and hates art. Everybody knows this and will testify to the fact. When the artist goes to sleep, the programmer whips out a laptop and hacks into the Pentagon. He gets caught, gets arrested, and admits guilt... what are you going to do, imprison him?
imprison him in an art museum
.. cause really - he's just too good for what Star Wars has become.
He belongs in a museum!
This message did not originate from KRTV, and there is no emergency
those are some wily zombies
Give up your freedom for what you think is security and you'll find you have neither. Old Ben said something like that.
wow I need to watch star wars again
so now what they need to do is explain
before the nation's capital got its own pair of truck nuts
The problem is that it re-enforces the stereotype and actually does cause certain behaviour. If you constantly tell one group they are a bunch of criminals and just assume they are probably up to no good then you shouldn't be surprised when it turns out they are.
The point of treating everyone equally is to make it clear that regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation or whatever you have the same chance, the same opportunity to make something of yourself. Of course in reality not everyone has access to good schools or good jobs, but if you keep re-enforcing that imagine it strengthens it. We still need to push to level the playing field, despite all the progress that has been made.
So what do you propose? That Google censor itself in the interest of inducing desired behavior (in this case, law-abidance) in some subsection of the population? Considering the types of organizations that historically have attempted to improve a society by controlling 'dangerous' information, that seems a dubious idea.
So, if a website is down, and someone goes to buy something, that means they are unable to purchase it later when the site is back up?
after I got the error message I just assumed Amazon had gone out of business. it's lucky I saw this article!
What makes you think the military would be any more successful fighting a guerrilla war here?
much bigger targets
When I said "you", I should've said "astronomers". This is an experiment that has been done at many observatories, all over the world. It's easily falsifiable by any sufficiently sophisticated nation, and I can think of at least one that would've loved to have called "Bullshit!" on a moon landing, if it never happened.
yes, but how do we know it was the US who put the reflector there? if they wanted to leave unequivocal proof, they should have attached a pair of truck nuts to the moon.
the guy sits and eats simple foods on a mat on the floor, sleeps on the floor.
it's even more impressive than you think. that mat is photoshopped into the pictures.
First, the countries economy depends on its citizens having jobs. If you, instead, give those jobs to non-citizens, then you hurting the economy.
Not if those non-citizens create more jobs than they take up. If hiring a bunch of foreign engineers is the alternative to not hiring any additional staff, and those engineers are productive enough that the company that hired them then hires a bunch of lawyers, secretaries, janitors, and so forth, you're not hurting the economy. Of course this only works if there is a scarcity of local talent willing to do the job at a price that leaves room for profit.
Naturally it is in the interest of local engineers to claim there is no such scarcity, just as any profession likes to see its numbers remain low in order to boost wages. I would argue that the optimal number of engineers is such number that an additional person entering the field would create no net gain for the economy. I have no idea how to figure out what that number is, but the idea that it happens to be that which exists in the country without this modification to the H1B program seems non-obvious. Who knows? Maybe it's lower.
have any evidence of that, idiot?
if anything, it's the reverse: at the present rate of incarceration, every US citizen will be a convict by 2076, which is basically how Australia started out
between Dell's unbeatable reputation for sleek, innovative, high-margin technological wizardry, and Microsoft's remarkable ability to bring such inimitable mix of elegant simplicity and raw sex-appeal to new markets as puts their rabid fan base into a swoon, every other player in the industry would doubtless close down and give the money back to their shareholders.
Whatever might have been not to like about Aaron Swartz as a person, fact is that he's a victim of excessive persecution
I dream one day we'll live in a country where each citizen is subjected to exactly the right amount of persecution.
"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., April 4, 1967
he sure loved the passive voice. It's a wonder he didn't declare "A dream is had by me!"
"do I have to post this on google+? I wanted my friends to see it."