And why a general purpose robot? Because it will probably end up being much cheaper than making a whole range of specialized robots effective. A Roomba will vacuum nicely, but it won't do the stairs, or move the chairs out of the way, or open the door to go into the next room after emptying its own bag. Sure, it could be made to do all those things having to do with vacuuming, but it would make it that much more complex.
You don't see too many hybrid microwave oven/vacuum cleaner/cars do you? Why build a general purpose robot that needs a vacuum cleaner so it can clean the house? You're back to buying individual machines AND a machine to operate them.
You kind of answered your own question there. It makes sense to separate functions into separate appliances, and that includes separating the highly complex part to give these tools the mobility, vision and smarts that enable them to do their tasks by themselves.
Also, in technology, the phrase "too expensive" should always beconsidered with the word "today" added. Think computers: how long did powerful computing take to become cheap and ubiquitous? There's no components in humanoid robots that will not become cheaper with mass production, and as we often see with other technology, mass production will drive simplification of the design itself as well. If there's a good use for humanoid robots, I'm betting that eventually they will be cheap enough for individuals to own. The hardware isn't even that expensive today, the problem is that the software just isn't there yet.
With that said, no terrorist of any persuasion would be so dumb as to stick a (tiny) bomb in an R/C plane. There are much easier and effective ways to blow up people.
However the article implies that there is more to the case: "As a general matter, the decision finds that the FAA's 2007 policy statement banning the commercial use of model aircraft is not enforceable". In other words, the judge didn't say that the rule was not broken, but that the rule itself is poorly drafted.
I'm just glad he's not a criminal... or founder of a cryptocurrency.
The way to fix this is legislation, not a moral appeal. The problem I have with the current tax situation is that these loopholes only get profitable at a certain level because they are not cheap: your $500 and them some will be spent on lawyer and accountant fees if you go for the tax loophole. Large corporations end up paying next to no tax, while small companies pay the full bill. I looked into such a loophole a while ago for a company reporting a yearly profit of around $120k, and the tax benefit did outweigh the costs...but only because this company could make a convincing case for "paying" their holding company for a license on intellectual property. Companies who provide simple goods or services have far fewer options... if my corporate tax ended up at
BTW I don't own and never owned more than a couple of them either.
In this case, they could claim that the risk of having your BTC stolen can be mitigated sufficiently by individuals, by not having too many BTC in any exchange, and by looking into an exchange's reputation. Whether or not that's a reasonable risk to run instead of BTC and exchanges being subject to regulation is another matter... in the end, even free market proponents might come to the conclusion that some regulation is needed.
- HVAC? Hell yes. Having heating and AC automated and remotely controllable adds comfort (turning the heating on before we arrive home), convenience (no need to manage schedules, remote control from anywhere in the home), and saves money (by turning off heating automatically in unoccupied rooms).
- The toaster? Maybe not. I did connect a few other appliances like the fryer, which I don't want to remain on when we leave or go to bed.
- Locks... none in my home are connected, but I've heard from many owners of vacation rental properties that remotely operated locks can be a godsend.
- Washing machines & dryers? Not yet... but soon these devices will be able to negotiate with the grid to turn on at a time determined by the power company, in exchange for a lower rate. The water heater in my old flat already did that over 20 years ago (it had a nice clunky bakelite control box sitting next to it).
None of this is life-changing stuff, and much of the technology is still in its infancy (especially when it comes to security!), but the benefits already outweigh the risks by far.
In Age of Conan, you start earning Offline Levelling points at a certain point, you get 1 every 4 days or so. You can use those to level up any character already over 30, 1 level per point. This ensures that you have at least some proficiency in playing the boosted character, and still allows grinders to level up the normal way, while making it feasible for casual players to have a few level 80 alts as well.
Even back in the days of Ultima Online, they introduced this at some point in the form of the guaranteed gain system. In UO, you'd gain skill for every action related to that skill. Make a sword, gain blacksmithing skill. After a certain level the gain would drop off to a point where you'd only have a certain probability of gaining a point. Close to the skill cap, you might have a 1 in 1000 or worse chance at a point. Even for regular players it might take 6 months or more of hard work to reach the cap. Being a grandmaster meant something... but was pretty much unattainable for casual players. So, the guaranteed gain system would always give you a skill point for the first sword you'd make in a certain time period. A few hours at lower levels up to multiple days close to the cap. You'd still take months to reach the cap but you wouldn't spent hours every day working at it, and power gamers could still grind to gain additional points during the "cool down" period.