Consider the doctrine: Death is actual beginning. "Life" we have now, is like life of the foetus in the womb. Wanting to live forever is as vain a wish - and non-sensical - as wishing eternal gestation.
I meant like XX for Beer, XXX for whiskey.
A: Ex-Wife's Bedroom
The range issue can be solved by using drones only for the last mile. Take a truck full of packages and some drones, park it in the middle of a delivery area and let the drones drop off all packages in that area.
Sure, that's what I was talking about when the story came up the first time. At least, I think it was the first time, you never really know around here. However, that's not really necessary, at least not in the first generation. Amazon can cover a significant percentage of the customers who would use a service like this simply by placing centers intelligently. Safeway still offers grocery delivery in counties where they only cover a tiny postage stamp of the total area if it will be profitable given the location of the store, and by the same token, Amazon may reasonably offer drone delivery only in subsets of certain regions.
According to the Guardian article you linked, and that I have up there, it was a publicity stunt.
False. According to that article, it is probably a publicity stunt, and some people have said that they think so, but there is no actual proof. They in fact do not unequivocally state that it is such in the article (though quoted sources say that they are sure that it is such) which I presume is why you didn't copy and paste anything where that actually happens, instead choosing to employ prevarication by calling attention to Amazon's odious business practices. I agree that they are odious, but that does not reflect upon the validity of the drone delivery model, nor Amazon's intent (or lack thereof) to employ it.
I think you're likely correct, but the linked article does not prove that you are, and it is therefore bullshit to continue pounding on it as if it contained the facts you're looking for. It doesn't. It contains speculation.
But if you really believe their is a chance that drones are going to be dropping packages off at you doorstep in under 10 - 15 years, you neither understand the logistics and you are both delusional and naive.
I'm pretty sure I do understand the logistics. Quadcopters are already capable of doing this job right now, the infrastructure needed is simply not there. The infrastructure required is broad in extent, but a straightforward and simple extension of existing systems already in place at Amazon, such as robots now performing picking jobs in some of their distribution centers.
Set down the Adderal and the Code Red.
Congratulations, you're an asshole! Your prize is getting to live with yourself!
I can't believe you got modded up...
I still just can't believe it's not butter.
It's all fine until a needle falling from the sky pokes Jimmy's eye out or injects him with psychotropic medications.
"Mommy! I found a box full of candy that fell from the sky!"
(drone falls to ground)
Hmm, another package of free drugs flying over my airspace.
I would concur with that. What I have proposed is at the upper limits* of what can be achieved by a single entity running a single entity. If you need finer granularity, more dimensions or greater timelines to give everyone a fair chance in life, no single entity (corporate or government) could do it.
*It may actually be beyond. Not financially, but organizationally. To predict the optimum path for each student individually, track that, and correct at a moment's notice, no entity has shown the capacity to do that. To perform a travelling salesman heuristic for that many people, remembering that exactly ten people with identical requirements in a subject can enter a location simultaneously and that people of different needs should never enter the same location simultaneously at all, and all the other constraints...
It is possible that the problem is too big, that it must be distributed somehow. The internet is a powerful tool for that, but it has to be used correctly.
I have worked with computer aided learning, in the sense of designing it and experimenting with its limits, back in the 90s. It was grossly underutilized, people looked at it only as a book with clickable images and audio. Internet whiteboards, collaborative tools, shared documents - all existed back then. So did multi-way videoconferencing, telerobotics and all kinds of other nifty teaching aids. Almost none were used then.
Today, some of these are used, but the technology has not stood still. Not just data but entire applications can be pushed from machine to machine. Sensors can track hand motions, allowing instructors in music, sculpture, painting or, indeed, archaeology to know precisely what is or is not happening, instant by instant. Simulators can compare expected results with the actual, long before anything is finished. In science, DIY spectrometers can tell chemistry lecturers everything they need to know.
There will be ideas I haven't even stumbled upon. My knowledge is broad, but technology is broader by far.
But these aren't being used. Computer Aided Learning remains 20 years behind the curve at best, 40 years behind at worst. (80 if you include YouTube videos of lectures, Open University was providing that sort of material a long time ago.) If you want a revolution at the level of individuals running the show, that is where to start. You need between quarter to half a century of development to be factored in. That is a lot and inertia is high. If MIT can't be more original than a video camera, an achievement sci-fi conventions could boast of even in the 80s, the people with the knowledge will not adapt to new methods by choice.
The detail given seems to try to obscure instead of clarify, in my opinion
Having skimmed the patent, I agree. I do not regularly read patents, but it is my understanding that software and process patents like this regularly suffer from this problem - they attempt to obfuscate as much of the details as possible in order to make the claims as broad as possible and to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to do anything useful with the information in the patent.
Nevermind the question of whether software patents are valid or not, this obfuscation is in direct contradiction with the intent of the patent system - to trade a monopoly in the technology for the publication of the information necessary to reproduce the technology.
His argument is paramount to "Scientists shouldn't publish in these journals because they're too highly regarded."
Perhaps those trees are overwatered, and some others could use a little love.
No competition from Amazon. Have we already forgotten it was a hoax?
Your link doesn't even prove that it was a publicity stunt, and here's why: its conclusions are based on false premises and it's full of fud. It's also clear why you didn't bother to link to the full article; it doesn't say what you want it to say either.
First FUD: "The practical issues are manifold". Yes, welcome to the real world. FUD, not a specific objection. The specific objections are then made, and they are stupid. "[...]how does it [the drone] then find the package's intended recipient?" Probably it homes in on the mobile device used to make the order, and you'll probably have to use one. How is the transfer of the package enacted? Depicted in the video. It knows where it's being delivered. What stops someone else stealing the package along the way? You mean, by shooting it down? Ah yes, this line item was expanded into two, for filler purposes. And what happens when next door's kid decides to shoot the drone with his BB rifle? The same thing as when next door's kid (the house has a child?) shoots anything else that doesn't belong to them. Except in this case, it's recorded by high-resolution camera.
Then we have an outright lie: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates this area, intends to make commercial drones legally viable and workable by 2015, but this deadline is all-but impossible No, no it isn't. It probably won't happen anyway due to lobbying from entrenched interests. But there's no reason why existing regulations can't be applied to commercial drones. The area below 500 feet is already available due to existing restrictions on civilian air traffic.
Meanwhile, Wired claims that Amazon's delivery model makes the drones unworkable, but that is just fucking stupid. It's stupid because Amazon has already changed their model partially to add more services, and there's no particular reason they can't do it again. Sort of like how Wired changed their magazine from having purple text on black backgrounds to having black text on neon green backgrounds to having black text on white backgrounds. Two changes, see? The drones won't be able to deliver everything in Amazon's catalog. It'll be small, high-value items often ordered by themselves by people willing to pay extra for rapid delivery.
In short, while it might well have been a hoax, nothing you have presented (nor any other evidence) proves it to be so.
even for humans, one's own feces are safe to eat, barring mouth sores and the like. there's nothing in it that didn't come out of you in the first place.
This is wrong. Bacteria are not evenly distributed throughout both the small and large intestines. Look up small intestinal bacterial overgrowth sometime.
The best government programs are going to do is provide substrate and catalyst for the more complex, individual reaction.
That doesn't work. Think about rare stuff.
I.e. the best address in town.
i.e. the best school in town.
i.e. the best beach front/ski lodge resort property.
i.e. Kobe beef.
i.e. A genuine 1937 Mickey Mantle baseball card (one of three left).
i.e. A house build by Frank Lloyd Wright.