Absolutely. Based off the feedback I've seen, I did a shit job at explaining what I'm saying.
Basically, I'm saying that older body designs for cars were heavier, not as strong, boxy, and easier to perform body repair work.
Modern body design is stronger, lighter, sleeker, and more likely to have very expensive not-at-home repairs, or more severe damage that can't be repaired completely, like a bent frame.
Modern phone battery replacement seems like modern car body work. It can be done, but it more expensive.
I never meant to talk about car repairs in general, but due to the increased dependence on software and car maker douchebaggery, there are comparisons to be made there, too.
I was referring to the difference between BODY ON FRAME and UNIBODY design, not cars in general. Learn to read. I know cars are modular, but their frames no longer are, in general.
I bet you've never hammed out a dent by unbolting the quarter panel. Hint- It's really easy, if you don't have a unibody car where the quarter panel is welded to the frame.
Otherwise, you're having to cut it off with a welder, which is about the same as the technical skill to replace a battery in a modern phone.
Since we love car analogies here, do you think the trend towards non-removable batteries is comparable to the changes in car body design?
It seems older cars used body-on-frame and other designs that basically allowed the person performing the repair to unbolt parts, work on them or replace them, and then bolt them back on.
The disadvantage to this was a weaker body, or a heavier one.
That seems to be the trend with phones: A lightweight and small phone means a sealed case.
As a consumer, my goal is to be as free as possible.
As a consumer, my goal is to purchases items to meet as many of my requirements for as long as possible with the lowest price.
Apps, that might be vapor one day, fit those requirements often. I can't imagine not buying one that will give me usefulness out of some sort of protest vote.
It isn't software. It's an "app". I'm not being a smartass, I'm pointing out that smartphone apps are not comparable to PC software any more than a Big Mac is. It is meant to work only on the ecosystem it was purchased in, which is highly hardware dependent.
It seems like you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.
It's a matter of principle. I don't want to support vendor lock-in.
Interesting. Where does the line exist for this in your mind?
Isn't watching a movie at a theater a type of vendor lock-in? You can only watch that movie while at the theater that one time, and you have no rights to watch it again.
What about a buffet? You're unable to take the food that you've paid for out of the restaurant.
Many of those features would be trivial for Apple to implement as advanced settings (hell, solitary coders are writing this stuff and giving it away for free), and not against the Apple ethos (unlike, say, emulators). But for now you have to expose yourself to security risks in order to do all this useful stuff with your expensive pocket computer.
I 100% agree with everything you're saying there. My Motorola RAZR had per-person MMS custom ringtones before the iPhone was even released, and it took them until iOS 5 or so until they allowed that. Stupid.
Worst case, make it something that can only be enabled with a bit of work, like how you have to use their tool to install certificates and other higher-level stuff.
While it annoys me that I can do many things that should be trivial and some UX god at Apple is preventing me from doing it, the main reason I'm on Apple is for the security and stability. I won't root it and lose that, because if I were going to do that, I'd get an Android again.
Do I think iOS is perfect? Hell no. Is it the best? In some cases, yes, in many other cases, no. It just happens to be the best for me, right now.
How exactly does one take advantage of walls that only prevent you from enjoying more garden?
The walls that keep me in keep the pests and intruders out. Sure, there is garden I'm missing out on, but I have enough garden to meet my needs and I never find that my vegetables are stolen or burned when I go to my garden.
More freedom has more risk, in pretty much any venue.
I used to do some CRAZY shit with my non-Apple phones. Then came the day that the latest app I installed and modified kept me from making a business call while travelling away from a computer which was needed to regain control of my device.
After that point, I decided I was OK with restricting my freedom ON MY PHONE in order for my phone to be more stable.
If you had ever used a jailbroken iPhone and realized the capabilities it unlocks, you would change your mind
I'm aware of the capabilities it unlocks, but I'm just curious why I'd accept the lost stability, not just security, that happens when using an iPhone outside of the way it was designed.
Apple is great at doing the things they intended you to do with the device. It is well known that if you try to use an Apple device in a way it wasn't designed for, it will be frustrating and difficult.
You're swimming upstream on a jailbroken Apple iOS. Why not use an Android, which was designed with a totally different and open mentality?
I suppose then that the USSR's Mars 3 explorer in 1971 must be a figment of my imagination.
No, but 70 lines of an ambiguous image and 14.5 seconds of transmission hardly "wins" the race to Mars. How is that really any more useful than a hard landing?
So, do you really call it a successful soft landing if it couldn't complete its mission?
I agree, the summary is bad, but the title is correct: Viking 1 won the Martian Space Race, since it actually succeeded and exceeded the mission goal: Transmitting useful information from the surface of Mars.
If he can move half-way over and pass safely, why would he need to put his entire vehicle into another lane instead?
If he can move half-way over safely, he can move fully over safely. If he can't move fully over safely, then if any of the three vehicles (northbound car, southbound car, and southbound cyclist) shift at all (say, to avoid an obstacle), the cyclist dies.
He certainly didn't signal his illegal maneuver, either, which is just as much of a legal requirement for a cyclist as it is for a motorist if you're planning to interfere with traffic.
If he was already occupying the lane, he wasn't interfering with traffic. He has the right to the lane.
He also needs to choose to obey the other laws of the road if he wants respect.
So, I assume when you did this pass UPHILL, it wasn't across a solid yellow line?
I'm guessing that this is a VOIP system using UDP packets,
Why would drone VIDEO use VOICE over IP?;)
I get what you were trying to say, it was likely RTSP using UDP. This is Slashdot, though, and being technically correct is the best kind of correct.:D
The only other point I'd make is that the best way to avoid issues like this is to use an onboard unit for HD video storage, and use the wireless link at a low res so you can just aim the camera better. The AR Drone, for example, does this with a USB slot for a thumb drive onboard and the option for low-res video over the 2.4 ghz link.
Still, thanks for your informative post that shows why it likely was not edited.
I just had a bicyclist pass another bicyclist while I was going by, while there was traffic in the other lane. I almost drove straight up his asshole, and he would have deserved it too,
In my state, at least, riding two abreast is completely legal.
Those bikes are traffic, and they were ahead of you. You shouldn't be passing them until you can do so safely by getting all 4 of your tires in the next lane.
If there was an oncoming car, you made an unsafe pass.
There is nothing better than sitting outside on the streets at 22:30 and enjoying the colours of a sunset in its final stage, in summer ofc. I also like it nit to be waken in the morning at 7:00 by glaring sunlight.
Why not both? Personally, I'd rather be staring at the Milky Way at 2230 instead of sunset, having already seen the sunset hours earlier.
I normally have AC filtered so I can't even see them, but I saw the responses and had to come here to tell you about pfSense: https://pfsense.org/
Seriously, this would take care of almost all of the items on your list, and you can get the hardware new for $200-$300, or just re-purpose an old PC for free.
The smallest allocation any site should ever be given is defined as a/48
I really struggle with that large of an allotment for homes, by default. I think that a/64 is fine as the default if the SOHO router doesn't ask for anything more, and a/60 if they request it through DHCP-PD. I do agree with a/48 for anything outside a home user, though.
The idea that we can create a universal language that everybody will understand by abandoning language and simply making a recognizable symbol for every single concept that anybody might ever want to communicate is stupid.
IKEA already did that. Creating 80+ local language instructions were a pain and an expense, so now all of them, or almost all of them, are completely comic-strip-like without a single line of text.
That said, the goal isn't to create a symbol for every single concept. We've been successful in creating icons for many things that save real money in not having local words when a symbol will do.
"But I don't want to have to learn all of these things!"
You don't need to. Simply print off the local-language version of the ones you need and place it in the area it is needed. For example, laundry care instructions on the wall in your laundry room, or tableware symbols in the kitchen.
I wasn't suggesting the heli's have a mandate for ADS-B, but that the drones do. The devices that are wanting to make the changes should start with the technology to do it with the least disruption.
Those helicopters without ADS-B would be reliant on whatever collision-avoidance technology is on the drones and their own eyes. As I said, the drones should never be 100% reliant on any single form of collision-avoidance, so I expect at least 3 (ADS-B, optical, IR, and laser perhaps?).
If a pilot doesn't want the extra layer of ADS-B, they can do without it, but the drones can't. If a pilot discovers that there is a lot of drone traffic in their area and having ADS-B IN would give them more peace of mind, they can know that their investment will result in seeing every drone.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're thinking of body repairs.
Absolutely. Based off the feedback I've seen, I did a shit job at explaining what I'm saying.
Basically, I'm saying that older body designs for cars were heavier, not as strong, boxy, and easier to perform body repair work.
Modern body design is stronger, lighter, sleeker, and more likely to have very expensive not-at-home repairs, or more severe damage that can't be repaired completely, like a bent frame.
Modern phone battery replacement seems like modern car body work. It can be done, but it more expensive.
I never meant to talk about car repairs in general, but due to the increased dependence on software and car maker douchebaggery, there are comparisons to be made there, too.
I was referring to the difference between BODY ON FRAME and UNIBODY design, not cars in general. Learn to read. I know cars are modular, but their frames no longer are, in general.
I bet you've never hammed out a dent by unbolting the quarter panel. Hint- It's really easy, if you don't have a unibody car where the quarter panel is welded to the frame.
Otherwise, you're having to cut it off with a welder, which is about the same as the technical skill to replace a battery in a modern phone.
Since we love car analogies here, do you think the trend towards non-removable batteries is comparable to the changes in car body design?
It seems older cars used body-on-frame and other designs that basically allowed the person performing the repair to unbolt parts, work on them or replace them, and then bolt them back on.
The disadvantage to this was a weaker body, or a heavier one.
That seems to be the trend with phones: A lightweight and small phone means a sealed case.
As a consumer, my goal is to be as free as possible.
As a consumer, my goal is to purchases items to meet as many of my requirements for as long as possible with the lowest price.
Apps, that might be vapor one day, fit those requirements often. I can't imagine not buying one that will give me usefulness out of some sort of protest vote.
But, bully for you. Keep fighting the good fight.
They can be vapor *tomorrow* if your phone breaks.... that is, unless you buy another phone from the exact same vendor
Same is true if you buy a Windows application, but you're locked into the OS vendor, not the hardware vendor.
A software is meant to be reusable
It isn't software. It's an "app".
I'm not being a smartass, I'm pointing out that smartphone apps are not comparable to PC software any more than a Big Mac is.
It is meant to work only on the ecosystem it was purchased in, which is highly hardware dependent.
It seems like you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.
It's a matter of principle. I don't want to support vendor lock-in.
Interesting. Where does the line exist for this in your mind?
Isn't watching a movie at a theater a type of vendor lock-in? You can only watch that movie while at the theater that one time, and you have no rights to watch it again.
What about a buffet? You're unable to take the food that you've paid for out of the restaurant.
A pay-per-view event? Movie rental?
Do you have a single example of a in-the-wild vulnerability that will run on factory iOS devices?
I personally don't buy applications that can only be executed on devices from a single vendor.
Why not?
I'm perfectly happy to buy some $1-$10 apps that I know full well may be vapor in a few years.
I spent more than that on lunch yesterday, and flushed it today.
It isn't like we're talking about $900 software.
Many of those features would be trivial for Apple to implement as advanced settings (hell, solitary coders are writing this stuff and giving it away for free), and not against the Apple ethos (unlike, say, emulators). But for now you have to expose yourself to security risks in order to do all this useful stuff with your expensive pocket computer.
I 100% agree with everything you're saying there. My Motorola RAZR had per-person MMS custom ringtones before the iPhone was even released, and it took them until iOS 5 or so until they allowed that. Stupid.
Worst case, make it something that can only be enabled with a bit of work, like how you have to use their tool to install certificates and other higher-level stuff.
While it annoys me that I can do many things that should be trivial and some UX god at Apple is preventing me from doing it, the main reason I'm on Apple is for the security and stability. I won't root it and lose that, because if I were going to do that, I'd get an Android again.
Do I think iOS is perfect? Hell no. Is it the best? In some cases, yes, in many other cases, no. It just happens to be the best for me, right now.
Oh, I agree with you there. I really wish they would add that.
I'm not an Apple Fanboi, I really disagree with how heavy-handed they are.
Still, they fit my balance of risk/functionality right now.
How exactly does one take advantage of walls that only prevent you from enjoying more garden?
The walls that keep me in keep the pests and intruders out. Sure, there is garden I'm missing out on, but I have enough garden to meet my needs and I never find that my vegetables are stolen or burned when I go to my garden.
More freedom has more risk, in pretty much any venue.
I used to do some CRAZY shit with my non-Apple phones. Then came the day that the latest app I installed and modified kept me from making a business call while travelling away from a computer which was needed to regain control of my device.
After that point, I decided I was OK with restricting my freedom ON MY PHONE in order for my phone to be more stable.
If you had ever used a jailbroken iPhone and realized the capabilities it unlocks, you would change your mind
I'm aware of the capabilities it unlocks, but I'm just curious why I'd accept the lost stability, not just security, that happens when using an iPhone outside of the way it was designed.
Apple is great at doing the things they intended you to do with the device. It is well known that if you try to use an Apple device in a way it wasn't designed for, it will be frustrating and difficult.
You're swimming upstream on a jailbroken Apple iOS. Why not use an Android, which was designed with a totally different and open mentality?
I'm an Apple iOS user, and a former Palm/Windows CE/Blackberry/Windows Phone/Android user.
I simply don't understand jailbreaking an iPhone. The whole point of me having an iPhone is to take advantage of the walled garden.
If I want something with better hardware on a lower price that I can customize any way I want, I'd have an Android again.
Since having a reliable and secure phone is more important to me than features, I have have decided to get an iPhone and not jailbreak it.
Can those that do jailbreak explain why they don't go to Android?
Fair use is a concept in American law. That doesn't make it automatically accepted in Germany.
I suppose then that the USSR's Mars 3 explorer in 1971 must be a figment of my imagination.
No, but 70 lines of an ambiguous image and 14.5 seconds of transmission hardly "wins" the race to Mars. How is that really any more useful than a hard landing?
So, do you really call it a successful soft landing if it couldn't complete its mission?
I agree, the summary is bad, but the title is correct: Viking 1 won the Martian Space Race, since it actually succeeded and exceeded the mission goal: Transmitting useful information from the surface of Mars.
If he can move half-way over and pass safely, why would he need to put his entire vehicle into another lane instead?
If he can move half-way over safely, he can move fully over safely.
If he can't move fully over safely, then if any of the three vehicles (northbound car, southbound car, and southbound cyclist) shift at all (say, to avoid an obstacle), the cyclist dies.
He certainly didn't signal his illegal maneuver, either, which is just as much of a legal requirement for a cyclist as it is for a motorist if you're planning to interfere with traffic.
If he was already occupying the lane, he wasn't interfering with traffic. He has the right to the lane.
He also needs to choose to obey the other laws of the road if he wants respect.
So, I assume when you did this pass UPHILL, it wasn't across a solid yellow line?
I'm guessing that this is a VOIP system using UDP packets,
Why would drone VIDEO use VOICE over IP? ;)
I get what you were trying to say, it was likely RTSP using UDP. :D
This is Slashdot, though, and being technically correct is the best kind of correct.
The only other point I'd make is that the best way to avoid issues like this is to use an onboard unit for HD video storage, and use the wireless link at a low res so you can just aim the camera better.
The AR Drone, for example, does this with a USB slot for a thumb drive onboard and the option for low-res video over the 2.4 ghz link.
Still, thanks for your informative post that shows why it likely was not edited.
I just had a bicyclist pass another bicyclist while I was going by, while there was traffic in the other lane. I almost drove straight up his asshole, and he would have deserved it too,
In my state, at least, riding two abreast is completely legal.
Those bikes are traffic, and they were ahead of you. You shouldn't be passing them until you can do so safely by getting all 4 of your tires in the next lane.
If there was an oncoming car, you made an unsafe pass.
There is nothing better than sitting outside on the streets at 22:30 and enjoying the colours of a sunset in its final stage, in summer ofc. I also like it nit to be waken in the morning at 7:00 by glaring sunlight.
Why not both?
Personally, I'd rather be staring at the Milky Way at 2230 instead of sunset, having already seen the sunset hours earlier.
I normally have AC filtered so I can't even see them, but I saw the responses and had to come here to tell you about pfSense:
https://pfsense.org/
Seriously, this would take care of almost all of the items on your list, and you can get the hardware new for $200-$300, or just re-purpose an old PC for free.
Have fun!
The smallest allocation any site should ever be given is defined as a /48
I really struggle with that large of an allotment for homes, by default. I think that a /64 is fine as the default if the SOHO router doesn't ask for anything more, and a /60 if they request it through DHCP-PD. /48 for anything outside a home user, though.
I do agree with a
The idea that we can create a universal language that everybody will understand by abandoning language and simply making a recognizable symbol for every single concept that anybody might ever want to communicate is stupid.
IKEA already did that. Creating 80+ local language instructions were a pain and an expense, so now all of them, or almost all of them, are completely comic-strip-like without a single line of text.
That said, the goal isn't to create a symbol for every single concept. We've been successful in creating icons for many things that save real money in not having local words when a symbol will do.
Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://athome.kimvallee.com/20...
http://webstore.ansi.org/safet...
"But I don't want to have to learn all of these things!"
You don't need to. Simply print off the local-language version of the ones you need and place it in the area it is needed. For example, laundry care instructions on the wall in your laundry room, or tableware symbols in the kitchen.
I wasn't suggesting the heli's have a mandate for ADS-B, but that the drones do. The devices that are wanting to make the changes should start with the technology to do it with the least disruption.
Those helicopters without ADS-B would be reliant on whatever collision-avoidance technology is on the drones and their own eyes. As I said, the drones should never be 100% reliant on any single form of collision-avoidance, so I expect at least 3 (ADS-B, optical, IR, and laser perhaps?).
If a pilot doesn't want the extra layer of ADS-B, they can do without it, but the drones can't. If a pilot discovers that there is a lot of drone traffic in their area and having ADS-B IN would give them more peace of mind, they can know that their investment will result in seeing every drone.
Fair?