"Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000."
This is a prime example of why I am loosing faith in the government (or well, pretty much totally lost it actually). A permit cost $1,500 but not having it gives you a $1000 fine? So basically I can save $500 by breaking the law?
Well really, who cares about the legality of flying the drone there? Vandalism is definitely illegal already.
I don't get why this should really become an issue. They know who did it, and they know he is an idiot who loves destroying other peoples property. Arrest him, take him to court, make him pay damages, toss him in jail to cool off for a bit.
The one thing they constantly seem to ignore is that if you put a back door in, not matter how complex the key is or how many parts it is in, you have created the 'holy grail' that every hacker in the world is going to try and find.
I don't know about anyone else, but when it is a situation of ______ organization or government VS the world's hacking community, I'm betting on the hackers.... every single time.
It becomes pretty much impossible when your cornered and all of your statements are being recorded and reviewed by a large number of people. Welcome to the internet, a place that does not take kindly to someone telling lies to hide wrongdoing.
Yes, there are some drawbacks to my suggestion and one of those would be that there would be places that you would have to manually drive.
The question though is where these cars would be the most use. To me the answer would be interstates and in cities. These places tend to have better maintained roads. So sure you have to drive manually in some areas, but if you start with major roads you can move out.
Also, admittedly the lines would have issues of being obscured, but putting lines was just the easiest solution to implement. You could also use in ground wires sending a signal much like how dog underground fences work. There are lots of ideas for ways you could guide a car and ideally your system would use at least two systems that were independent of each other.
I for one also would have a really hard time trusting an automated car to deal well with snow and ice no matter what system you have to drive it.
They would be if you made these modifications over time as the roadways were getting regular maintenance anyways. The focus being on modifying the interstates.
Imagine just driving onto the interstate hitting a button and kicking back till you get an alarm telling you your exit is coming up. As you get to the exit you take back control and start driving again, if you don't take control the car parks to the side of the exit ramp. This would certainly make long drives much easier wouldn't it?
Yes, that is how self driving cars should be. They need to be self contained and not rely on the internet.
In fact, if the computer that is driving the car is connected to the internet or has any wireless connectivity at all then I want nothing to do with it. System controlling the car should not be remote accessible.
On another side note. I think this whole self driving car thing is a prime example of looking at a problem backwards. Why are we trying to build automated cars to drive on a roadway that has been built entirely focused on giving ques to a human driver? Slight modifications to our road design would make building a self driving car trivial. Making a robot that can follow a line is something they teach in 'Introduction to engineering' classes. A few painted stripes and some new QR code type signs and suddenly building an automated car is a really simple task.
"Suri emphasises that self-driving cars need to talk over wireless networks fast enough to make decisions with the split-second timing required on the roads."
If that is the case then I'm never setting foot in a self driven car. He seriously saying we would adopt a standard of self driving car that $20 and a trip to radio shack is enough to gridlock a city rendering all cars in an area useless?
What do you think happens when you move that up like your suggesting? When the high school drop out flipping burgers is suddenly making $15 an hour do you still expect to see the dollar menu? If so your delusional.
The cost of labor goes up the businesses raise prices to make up for increased cost to the business, and end result is that the poor are still poor. Sure the number in their bank might be bigger but so what when everything cost more?
Also, Just so you know, I'm not some rich guy sitting happy and just spouting this out. If they raised minimum wage to $15 an hour I would be getting a large bump in pay. Of course I would also find myself making the same pay as a drop out.... even though I have worked hard to get where I am.
I just keep reading things about terrorism and find myself wondering. Whatever happened to "Land of the free, home of the BRAVE". Seems neither of these really describe the American population anymore.
Yes, a move like that would cause backlash against Google, but at times I think because of their dominant position in the market they have a responsibility to protect the internet.
I also think that them not making a firm stand will hurt them more in the future. If they make a stand they will get some angry politicians yelling, politicians who will likely be sightly afraid of doing much. If they keep rolling over to demands like these though then Google will loose its user base.
Reading these stories just makes me more and more interested in projects like Yacy. Peer-to-Peer search that cannot be tampered with at the whims of Governments. All it will take is one project like that to get real traction and Google would quickly loose dominance as search provider.
Is it just me that thinks this would be a prime time for Google to make a point? If they changed their homepage in Europe to a page explaining what is happening, also stating the effects. I bet they would only need to do so for maybe one day. Quite possibly only a few hours.
I for one do not use any of the social media services and I do not desire to start now. I find it really annoying though how many places are starting to just say "Hey, don't have social media? Then buzz off." Going to a different site to make a comment on a story is in no way a replacement for commenting here.
You obviously have never really talked to many introverts. Our society can kind of be a pain in the ass to those of us who do not enjoy big loud parties and don't have any interest in being the center of attention.
I'm willing to bet most of the people at these conventions are really just introverts trying to figure out how to overcome that handicap when it comes to dating. This is hardly a good reason to condemn them as human beings. They are just unfortunate people cheated out of their money by a scam artist.
Now of course, anyone who went to this show with an understanding of what it would be like.... They are idiots who should be questioning their place as a human. Of course, if you knew about the content of a show like this then you wouldn't really waste your money attending now would you?
"If the RIAA/MPAA were truly concerned about stopping malware, they'd recognize that their own demands to edit Google's search results have put people more at risk. But they won't, of course. Just like everything else, they'll likely blame Google and say that Google should figure out a way to fix this."
Is it just me that thinks maybe this is what they wanted? They love running around saying Torrents=Malware, but never had much to back that up. Now though.... they have stirred things up and brought the malware up to the top suddenly making themselves look more credible.
Maybe they can just roll out in their new underwear, worn on the outside of their outfit of course. They seem to have grand delusions they are superheros after all, so the underwear is a key part of the outfit.