That's what markets are for. If there's a high demand for robot operators in the medical industry, then more people will sign up for the money. That assumes that the cartels controlling access to the medical professions don't block this.
Did you read the article? It's not a problem of having enough robotic surgeon candidates, but of making sure they can all be adequately trained.
This is an idiotic idea, as it presumes that nowadays robotic surgery is somehow a commodity available to the masses.
I don't understand your objection?
The premise of the article seems to be that if we don't train sufficient numbers of robotic surgeons, demand for robotic surgery will outstrip the capacity of surgeons. This will result in an increase in price for robotic surgeries, and when that price exceeds what insurance companies are willing to pay, only those that are wealthy enough to self-pay for robotic surgery will be able to have it.
modern drones don't use a memory card, they stream via an ad hoc connection or as a wifi host to your cellphone.
I think drones with HD cameras do both -- stream a low-def stream to your phone so you can see what the camera sees, while saving the high quality video on local storage.
Those were the ordinances that the guy was charged with violating.
Being charged is not the same as being found guilty.
Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.
But if that's what the government is worried about, the drone was a danger before it was shot too -- it doesn't take a shotgun shell to make a drone become a hazard.
No government is worried about people shooting guns in populated areas. Drones are a hazard, but that is a separate issue.
Sure, I can understand laws against shooting, but to claim that he shouldn't have shot the drone because it could fall down and hurt someone ignores the problem that drones *already* fall from the sky even when people don't shoot them.
Pellets don't gain velocity when falling to earth...Have you ever even owned a firearm?
EVERYTHING gains velocity (9.8 m/s^2) when falling to earth...Have you ever even heard of Newton?
Check Newton's 3rd law and see if you can figure out how it might apply to this situation.
There has to be a better way to take down drones. Firing a shotgun in your backyard into the air is going to be some kind of misdemeanor, even in Kentucky. Something like "discharge of a firearm inside city limits" or something.
Can someone please start 3D-printing some silent drone-killing weapons? It would be so much more satisfying than clay pigeons and my neighbors cats. (Note to neighbor: I'm kidding. That wasn't me.)
If he's a fly fisherman he might be able to cast a fishing line close enough to get tangled in the rotors.
If the pellets can penetrate a duck in the sky while loosing velocity, then they penetrate a person on the way back down gaining velocity.
Birdshot has a relatively low terminal velocity -- I've had bird shot rain down on me during duck hunting season, and it's literally feels like rain. It's probably an eye hazard, but bird shot isn't going to kill anyone when it falls from the sky. A slug or bullet on the other hand could be more deadly since it's going to have a higher terminal velocity, especially if on a more ballistic trajectory and is still spinning and not tumbling.
Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.
But if that's what the government is worried about, the drone was a danger before it was shot too -- it doesn't take a shotgun shell to make a drone become a hazard.
Your logic is not universal. Do people have a right to go shooting people on the street? Of course not. Do people have a right to shoot a home invader? Of course. If a creepy guy climbs your fence to take pictures of your teenage daughter in her bathing suit do you have a right to smash his camera? Many juries would say so. If he uses an RC drone camera instead? Same thing. Let's hear what's on the memory card.
You'll never hear what's on the memory card since the police gave the drone (or at least the remaining pieces) back to its owner.
You could call the police and lodge a complaint like a civilized person instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.
Yeah, the drone pilot was probably being a douche. Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?
Or in other words do nothing? In my town the poilce won't even come out to investigate a car breakin, they surely aren't going to come out when I tell them someone is flying their toy helicopter over my yard.
In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.
That's not an unreasonable thing to do if he climbs over a 6' privacy fence to get onto your property.
I'd be good with that. Give everyone an incentive to never go to web sites again, or at least stop browsing mindlessly and instead pay attention to what they are doing. Not a bad thing. Society has functioned without web sites, and it will again (and pretty soon too as it's all moving to phones/tablets now anyway).
Yet you visited Slashdot long enough to not only click through to this article, but also post 7 comments.
For someone so keen on seeing the death of the web, you sure use it alot. Or when you said "Give everyone..." did you just mean "everyone else", because your rules don't apply to yourself?
Society has functioned without web sites, and it will again (and pretty soon too as it's all moving to phones/tablets now anyway
In what way do you envision phones and tablets making the web go away? I browse the web on my tablet and phone much more than on my computer.
I think the advertisers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The metrics show that their ads have lousy response rates, so they make them more obtrusive, which increases their click-through rates, yes. But then those buying the advertising eventually look at 'completion rates', and find that the obtrusive ads have lower completion rates - IE somebody actually buying the product/service, signing up, whatever. Most of the increase is from a higher mis-click rate where the user is hitting close or back as quickly as they can.
While it's true that I tend to click on the obtrusive ads much more than the low-key unobtrusive ones, that's only because I'm trying to click on the f'ing tiny little close button (which is even harder to hit on a tablet or phone). Then when I click on the add because I missed the close button by a pixel or two and the advertiser's page loads, I'm pissed off at whatever they are advertising, so I can't imagine that my click was worth paying for.
Imagine if all the effort and resources put into advertising were instead redirected to productive purposes.
You mean more productive like popups from every website saying "Support our site! Now that all internet Advertising has been banned, you have to pay us 17 cents for every page you view".
I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.
