Ah, but it means the UAV isn't lugging batteries and can keep aloft using less power and for as long as you want.
I'm actually wondering about something like an Eva or laptop system - have onboard batteries, but power the device through the tether up to the point where it needs to progress beyond the tether's range.
Additional fun - have the end of the tether attached to its own UAV so the tether doesn't just drop to the ground and/or get caught on something. And as long as it's purely tether-powered, stick some cameras etc on there... which comes back to the original idea, but with an optional deployable battery-equipped autonomous drone which can launch from the tethered UAV.
Of course, you will also see a lot of "Engineers" who couldn't perform a simple integration if a slide rule was shoved up them sideways. Not to mention you would see a lot of political and financial pressure brought to bear on engineering departments and faculties to graduate children of the moderately wealthy into profitable and socially desirable professions.
What would be really interesting would be if engineers had the actual social and economic status of, for example, CEOs. Make genuine engineering achievements - either construction or invention - the equivalent of Hollywood megabucks deals. If influential and wealthy families, as well as the middle and lower classes, start pushing their children towards engineering, it may politicize engineering a bit, but it would also mean that a much greater proportion of the population were trained in logical and structured research and approaches to problems. A nation of engineers would achieve much more, particularly once said engineers started turning their eye towards law and government.
Unfortunately, a lot of the money and influence which allows corporations and government departments to exist and operate at all in the first place comes from politicians of all stripe making deals and promises with each other.
The only way you're going to get rid of politics and schmoozing is to get rid of the people who empty their wallets and brains when confronted by it. And given that this is most of the human population, you could have problems accomplishing it.
How many of the old mainframe systems experienced viruses, security breaches, BSODs, spam, malware, a need for siteblocking, corporate hacking, contributions to identity theft, a complete lack of backups, or all the other events which plagued people who used PCs for business needs without understanding PCs?
Likewise, while cloud computing does have its upsides, I'm betting we'll see a lot of businesses go pure cloud, only to experience horrible problems because they didn't understand the technical limitations and vulnerabilities inherent in what they were buying?
Does this mean it would be better to say "yes", and then stumble through half-assedly trying to implement something which is not understood or which management has not paid for training in?
"Sure we can do that, boss! It involves setting your desk on fire, right?"
From that perspective, it's better to be an outside provider. Their salespeople can say "Sure thing!", and they can then screw up an implementation so badly it cripples the business, yet the provider still gets paid and in most cases never has any repercussions from the screwup.
Once you put money into the equation, the management types will either give you the cash (doubtful) or they will back off.
The other 90% of the time, they just say "You're not getting the money; do it anyway." That's the difference between internal and external services. Internal services can be told to do the impossible on pain of being fired; external services can set prices and not care at all if the business management don't take up the offer.
Does Canada register people against parties the way the US does? Australians don't (AFAIK) get these kind of calls, and I suspect that part of the reason is that there is no name-affiliation record of any kind. Voting locations and registration are handled centrally by a public service agency, and locations are published in newspapers and on the net. However, apart from personally talking to people, there isn't an easy way to tell who's likely to vote for whom other than through general demographics.
I have here a suitcase with, as you can see, a million dollars in it. You have the choice to leave it alone, or to reach in, give me any one of the bills from inside the case, and walk off with the rest of them.
I benefit a little if you choose the suitcase, you benefit a lot. And you still have the choice to walk away. Unethical?
Exactly. Show anyone being stuffed into a police car and put up a caption saying it's a terroristic hacking group. Who's going to say any different? And there are so many people in Hollywood who are looking for screentime...
The environmental inputs change unpredictably, the data input rate is a snail's pace, there's too much variety in users' voices, accents, dialects, and vocabulary, and it requires massively more processing power than a keyboard or touch interface. It's as if your kid asked for a mouse for a pet and you gave them an schizophrenic incontinent three-legged elephant.
So putting data centers there will create hundreds of no-experience-required jobs for local people? Or will the DCs simply be large buildings with a skeleton staff which neither employ locals nor create much additional local demand for human-attended resources?
Perhaps they're talking about additional employment during construction, rather than long-term?
However, it will present many false potential correlations up front and from a single source. That way, researchers can check them all out before some smartass replies to their paper with "Oh yeah? Did you check XYZ, which has a 0.8 correlation? Huh?"
Slashdot Mirror
Thin profit margin?
Buy virus; use virus to create self-increasing botnet; use botnet to send spam. Where's the expense?
Ah, but it means the UAV isn't lugging batteries and can keep aloft using less power and for as long as you want.
I'm actually wondering about something like an Eva or laptop system - have onboard batteries, but power the device through the tether up to the point where it needs to progress beyond the tether's range.
Additional fun - have the end of the tether attached to its own UAV so the tether doesn't just drop to the ground and/or get caught on something. And as long as it's purely tether-powered, stick some cameras etc on there... which comes back to the original idea, but with an optional deployable battery-equipped autonomous drone which can launch from the tethered UAV.
Yup. Determining that most cars sold to buyers had four wheels, an engine, seats, windows etc does not mean that a Yugo will sell well.
Oddly enough, not all major recording/distributing/image-management companies are looking for Art.
Send in Perry the Platypus!
SCIENCE!
Of course, you will also see a lot of "Engineers" who couldn't perform a simple integration if a slide rule was shoved up them sideways. Not to mention you would see a lot of political and financial pressure brought to bear on engineering departments and faculties to graduate children of the moderately wealthy into profitable and socially desirable professions.
What would be really interesting would be if engineers had the actual social and economic status of, for example, CEOs. Make genuine engineering achievements - either construction or invention - the equivalent of Hollywood megabucks deals. If influential and wealthy families, as well as the middle and lower classes, start pushing their children towards engineering, it may politicize engineering a bit, but it would also mean that a much greater proportion of the population were trained in logical and structured research and approaches to problems. A nation of engineers would achieve much more, particularly once said engineers started turning their eye towards law and government.
Solution: train them to be engineers.
Unfortunately, a lot of the money and influence which allows corporations and government departments to exist and operate at all in the first place comes from politicians of all stripe making deals and promises with each other.
The only way you're going to get rid of politics and schmoozing is to get rid of the people who empty their wallets and brains when confronted by it. And given that this is most of the human population, you could have problems accomplishing it.
How many of the old mainframe systems experienced viruses, security breaches, BSODs, spam, malware, a need for siteblocking, corporate hacking, contributions to identity theft, a complete lack of backups, or all the other events which plagued people who used PCs for business needs without understanding PCs?
Likewise, while cloud computing does have its upsides, I'm betting we'll see a lot of businesses go pure cloud, only to experience horrible problems because they didn't understand the technical limitations and vulnerabilities inherent in what they were buying?
Does this mean it would be better to say "yes", and then stumble through half-assedly trying to implement something which is not understood or which management has not paid for training in?
"Sure we can do that, boss! It involves setting your desk on fire, right?"
From that perspective, it's better to be an outside provider. Their salespeople can say "Sure thing!", and they can then screw up an implementation so badly it cripples the business, yet the provider still gets paid and in most cases never has any repercussions from the screwup.
Once you put money into the equation, the management types will either give you the cash (doubtful) or they will back off.
The other 90% of the time, they just say "You're not getting the money; do it anyway." That's the difference between internal and external services. Internal services can be told to do the impossible on pain of being fired; external services can set prices and not care at all if the business management don't take up the offer.
Does Canada register people against parties the way the US does? Australians don't (AFAIK) get these kind of calls, and I suspect that part of the reason is that there is no name-affiliation record of any kind. Voting locations and registration are handled centrally by a public service agency, and locations are published in newspapers and on the net. However, apart from personally talking to people, there isn't an easy way to tell who's likely to vote for whom other than through general demographics.
I have here a suitcase with, as you can see, a million dollars in it. You have the choice to leave it alone, or to reach in, give me any one of the bills from inside the case, and walk off with the rest of them.
I benefit a little if you choose the suitcase, you benefit a lot. And you still have the choice to walk away. Unethical?
Next: Wikileaks reveals Anonymous to be FBI...
Exactly. Show anyone being stuffed into a police car and put up a caption saying it's a terroristic hacking group. Who's going to say any different? And there are so many people in Hollywood who are looking for screentime...
Not if you hold your camera phone the right way...
The environmental inputs change unpredictably, the data input rate is a snail's pace, there's too much variety in users' voices, accents, dialects, and vocabulary, and it requires massively more processing power than a keyboard or touch interface. It's as if your kid asked for a mouse for a pet and you gave them an schizophrenic incontinent three-legged elephant.
Until someone starts issuing them with radio jammers.
A _poisonous_ chihuahua. With fangs, spurs, tentacles, and the ability to drop out of trees onto you.
This kind of thing is precisely why anonymity is a positive thing.
So putting data centers there will create hundreds of no-experience-required jobs for local people? Or will the DCs simply be large buildings with a skeleton staff which neither employ locals nor create much additional local demand for human-attended resources?
Perhaps they're talking about additional employment during construction, rather than long-term?
Wait for the symposium on Lake Jumping and the grant applications. :)
Science and Progress replies: If you have a question, go find out the answer. Or ask a bunch of scientists to test it for you.
However, it will present many false potential correlations up front and from a single source. That way, researchers can check them all out before some smartass replies to their paper with "Oh yeah? Did you check XYZ, which has a 0.8 correlation? Huh?"