It is in fact the other way around. The US Government completely and entirely dominates the private sector economy, controlling nearly every aspect top to bottom. The US is one of the most regulated economies in the G20, with economic regulations continuing to expand rapidly, the government adds thousands of new regulations annually.
That blatant government control is why the NSA (US military, executive branch) was able to force Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, et al. to comply against their will, and often against their attempts to defend themselves. It's also why this is even an issue at all. If Congress were owned by corporations, none of this would be happening, Apple would have dismissed them with a swipe of its hand, given it's the world's richest private corporation.
If corporations owned Congress, the US wouldn't have one of the highest effective corporate tax rates on earth.
"If Congress were owned by corporations, none of this would be happening"--it's almost as if there can be multiple interests influencing / lobbying for power somehow, and not a single corporation owns all of congress...
It was most likely a licenced and insured pilot - looked like battery failure to me, but usually large unit (this was an X8) would have had dual batteries for redundancy. Being an X8 it would have dual motors and props, so if one failed it could still fly.
The media shouldn't blow this out of proportion - if quads are banned they will regret loosing such awesome aerial footage.
The main problem, as stated in the article, is that he was flying right above the head of the competitors instead of from a distance as he was suppose to do. But that cameraman/marketing company decided instead to go for the better angle, ignoring the risk for the competitors.
Potentially mired in rights issues (since they originally acquired it from Macromedia, who may have not owned 100% of the codebase), or written so badly that vulnerabilities will be made very obvious by its open-sourcing.
If you take any complex system out of the environment it evolved to survive in, it won't work as well. Doesn't matter which knob you tweak, it won't be the environment it evolved in. There will just be a different set of failures.
Is this necessarily true? I can see how it would often be true, in general, but don't see how it's necessary. For example, animals in captivity can often live longer. Lifespan and quality of life are decent enough proxies for "working well".
I would assume that stronger gravity would just come along with a different set of health issues (joint and muscle problems dealing with more stress, heart would be affected having to work harder to pump blood, etc).
I would assume that registration would be free, but now that I think about it I wonder if it will be that way (or stay that way). It seems like this may be less about the "protection" of people and just another revenue source for the government.
Registration might be free, but the cost of insurance if required would probably depend on the capabilities of the drone. I might imagine an insurance market in which there is a discount for flying under the control of open source software.
I got hit by two of these (1/27 to Feb 4th and 6/4 to 6/22), and they were relentless. It was difficult to know where the attack originated because many proxies were involved - most inside the USA). We only managed a 62% uptime during the whole affair, many customers were upset, and it really hurt business. We ended up refunding everyone for the month and sending out a huge apology, for which many customers were understanding. Still, it hurt our business dramatically.
We lead the nation in welfare, alcohol abuse and fetal alcohol effects, suicide, sexually transmitted disease, credit card debt, number of women murdered, and domestic abuse.
So, basically every thing you listed can probably be directly related to Alcohol Abuse. Maybe, just maybe, giving people a healthier and less abusive vice will make your job easier.
It is true that small amounts of pot has been legal in Alaska, but my concern is geared towards greater accessibility. Now that it is legal and will be sold commercially it will be much easier for young adults to attain. Usually the youth will steal from their guardians, just like alcohol.
I've been teaching 21 years and I can tell when a student has started smoking pot. When a young person begins smoking their grades usually drop and they do not seem to care. This may not be the case with adults, but it is VERY obvious when working with youth.
I don't think increased accessibility is a legitimate concern. A pot smoking parent that can't keep their stash secure from their kids will be equally ineffective whether the pot was purchased from the black market or legally from the grocery store.
I can clearly see the popular opinion (reddit/hacker news) is that marijuana is harmless. My professional opinion is different, however, and over the course of my career I have seen its affects first hand. Laugh and down vote me if you will, but the negative affects are real and damaging to youth and the research backs me up.
My teenage relative's schoolmate went from being an excellent student and actress to a severe down-and-out in a short space of time due to her marijuana use. Likely other things contributed but the change was radical.
Without administering chemical tests to all of your students, you can't know with certainty which ones are using.
Sure, if a student has problems from it you will be able to observe that, but it's flawed reasoning to go from "I observe some students having problems" to "Using always leads to those problems".
And I don't naively believe that marijuana is harmless, but if you give me a choice between prohibition for everyone and (further support for) programs that reach out to students that exhibit sudden changes in behavior, it isn't very hard to decide.
I remember asking my father why he never drank alcohol. He said, "My dad (your grandfather) and three brothers couldn't leave it alone, so I figure I wouldn't be able to either. If you are wise you will do the same." I'm 46 and never had an alcoholic drink.
I drank my first beer when I was 18 years old. That was the only beer that year. When 19 I drank two. When 20 I drank four. When 21 I drank eight (yes, really!). Around 23 I started drinking like everyone else. It's funny because I initially didn't drink by choice - thanks to religious upbringing + the general distaste for beer I refused to drink (and, sadly, partying[0]) alcohol, opting for coke instead. What I learned then is that alcoholic beverages just start to taste more the more you drink them.
[0] - It's not the booze I didn't drink that I regret; it's the connections with interesting people of various trades I could make, but didn't, because I haven't attended the university grills, etc.
As a counter-point, I also had heavy alcoholism and drug use on both sides of my family. I drink in moderation, primarily on social occasions, and I almost never drink to the point of inebriation. I have never felt any compulsion to drink to excess.
I had a similar experience to your father growing up and that's exactly the conclusion I reached. Learning what not to do through the example of others can be quite efficient.
I'm a teacher and this is great practice for students learning to type. I thought a full screen mode would be helpful. I had a hard time reading the words at times.
