It seems to work in most of the rest of the world.

80 dB is the legal limit.

Riding a 120 dB bike would be painfully loud for the rider.

Also, due to the way sound dissipates, I'd argue that having a loud motorcycle does more to impair the motorcycle driver's hearing of his/her surroundings than it does to alert other drivers to the presence of a motorcycle.

I don't really know anything about this particular dustup between the music labels and Google, but I do know one thing: the music labels have a long and storied history of abusing their stranglehold over distribution channels for their own financial benefit. With that shoe currently on the other foot, I wonder if this isn't a bit of butthurtedness on the part of the labels that Google isn't willing to kowtow to them?

The drone in the article can fly about 1000 ft above ground level. Hope you're a good shot!

Security is always a trade-off. Anyone who gives a shit about whether or not AWS has access to the plaintext will encrypt the data prior to transmitting it to AWS.

The use case where I could see SSE-C being helpful is where a customer has a lot of data to encrypt, and the security requirements are minimal. Rather than the customer using their own CPU resources to perform the encryption/decryption, the customer can offload that work to AWS's servers.

Another potential use case is one where the customer was originally going to rely on S3 permissions to secure the data. However, making a policy configuration mistake is pretty easy, and as another layer of protection, they use SSE-C so that whoever tries to retrieve the data would need to have the keys in order to do anything useful with it.

But, yeah. I wouldn't rely on it for high security needs. Encrypt the data yourself prior to transmitting to AWS if you want to be safer.

Not if you encrypt your data prior to sending it to AWS.

But yes, if you use AWS's encrypt/decrypt service, then they retain the keys by necessity. That buys you having your data encrypted at rest, which may have some value for certain compliance-type use cases, but other than that, it doesn't buy you much.

I think that your comments describe a larger fissure within the Republican party. With respect to social conservatives and libertarian conservatives, there just isn't as much common ground as there needs to be in order to form a political party from both groups.

By way of example, is forbidding same-sex marriage a pro-individual freedom, small-government value? No, it is not. Are Second Amendment rights an Evangelical Christian value? No, they are not. But we libertarians are supposed to clam up about certain freedoms to avoid alienating the evangelicals, and you've got these church groups advocating for gun rights to appease the libertarians. It's starting to come apart at the seams, and has resulted in The Tea Party.

The Tea Party isn't really a bunch of whack jobs like the media says. They're just Republicans who have been over-promised to and under-delivered to for too long. The libertarians are disaffected because the GOP is giving us big government after having promised us small. The Evangelicals are disaffected after having been promised abortion bans, faith-based initiatives, etc. You may not agree that any of the above policy goals are laudable, but you certainly have to admit that we've gotten the opposite of all that since Bush I. Can you blame Republican voters of all stripes for being fed up with the GOP establishment?

This is true. There is nothing new about Danyliw's project other than the 3D printing aspect of it.

That being said, I think it is a super cool project that he's doing, especially for an undergrad. He'll learn a ton from it, and will probably go on to do great things.

I watched the video yesterday and I'm not re-watching it, but did Danyliw's quad even have GPS? Because if not, you can already get a decent Micro Quad for about $50 that's built out of a PCB. Granted, it doesn't have GPS and can't fly autonomously, but it is a standards-compatible and hackable quad at the $50ish price point.

True. The cost of machines could increase, decrease, or remain the same. Also, the minimum wage could increase or remain the same (it doesn't tend to decrease). So that means...

Actually, what does that mean. Did you have a point there? I'm fairly certain that you did not.

Actually, I did not get lucky, unless you count being born with dogged persistence as "lucky".

This is my 4th business, actually. The first three failed miserably. But, I just kept trying because I just can't help myself. 4th time was the charm, but I'm at a stellar 25% success rate. Or, sorry. "luck rate".

Thank you for missing the point.

These people can all be replaced in whole or in part by automation. That's the point. Do we really need a human being to pour coffee?

No, we don't.

I'm sorry, but did I read you correctly? That you see unemployment among the lowest-skilled and most vulnerable in society as a good thing?

If so, then I should like to hear your reasoning.

Here's a contrived example to illustrate the point.

Let's say that Acme Inc has a low-skill job that can be performed equally well by either by a human or by a machine. Should Acme hire a worker to perform this job, or purchase a machine?

Answer: it depends on which costs more. Let's say that over the expected lifetime of the machine, the costs to operate it (purchase, maintenance, electricity, etc.) nets out to $15 per hour. Let's say that hiring a worker to perform the job costs $14.50 per hour at the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour (including taxes and benefits and whatnot).

I actually run a business, and for me, I'd much rather hire a worker at $14.50 per hour than buy the machine at $15 per hour because while the machine really would only be able to perform the task that it was designed to perform, a human being is much more versatile and can be trained and can grow with my business.

But now we raise minimum wage to $15 per hour, which is really $30 per hour once you get done with taxes and benefits. As a business owner, this tradeoff looks very different to me. Now the employee costs twice what the machine costs. While I'd generally prefer to have an employee over a machine, in this case, I'd have to buy the machine and not hire the worker. I mean, it's twice the cost if I hire someone. I've got a family to feed. Not happening.