Conversely these "set it and forget it" drones can be programmed to fly miles. You set a course, off it goes and you'll see it again 20 minutes later. Assuming it hasn't hit a tree, power / cable line, or a bird, or a plane, or been flipped by the weather, or simply suffered a fault and fallen out of the sky. The drone is also likely to be programmed to fly over points of interest which may be roads, buildings, cities etc.
That's where the danger lies. The risk for the operator has disappeared and a laissez faire attitude which could put other people at greater harm.
Just like British gun control, because only allowing people to own a shotgun or bolt action rifle makes the world so much safer.
Yes as the death / murder statistics in countries with firearm controls would show.
Secure by default should ALWAYS be the policy pursued in software. People are afraid to change the default setting and if that default setting compromises their safety, privacy or otherwise puts them at risk then the default sucks.
Anything which has a consumable element to it is manufactured in such a way as to be proprietary and usually protected by design patents and / or DRM.
Exactly why I didn't buy one of these machines. I thought they were totally a-holes for making this move, but I gotta hand it to them, it's a rare thing for a business to admit that they were wrong. Good on them!
The issue is they only said they were wrong because they lost money. If they had made money they'd all be hive fiving each other on their business acumen and other companies would soon follow with their own proprietary DRM systems.
Not saying the concept is a bad idea at all but it might not be ideal. I expect people in sunny climes all year round could easily supply 90-100% of their supply from solar assuming they had the means to capture the energy.
It's shame it's gotten this way since it used to be a good paper with good journalists. Now it's just clickbait.
And Christopher Booker is a blithering idiot. I suspect he actually believes the shit he's spouting even though it doesn't pass a cursory fact check. I mentioned those two but there are several more there spouting some highly questionable views.
The rest of it is a direct violation of every one of Eric Raymond's guidelines in "The Luxury of Ignorance" essay about open source interfaces.
No it isn't. Quite the opposite really:
For all the hate GNOME receives it is simple, forgiving, task centric, and generally acts as a facilitator to do other stuff. It doesn't mean it's flawless but it doesn't follow a kitchen sink mentality that could confuse a non expert. I daresay many experts (including myself) appreciate a simple desktop too and if they don't, they can use another one.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones