Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Gofor: Uber for Drones->

Submitted by PvtVoid
PvtVoid (1252388) writes "Gofor claims to be developing an app that summons a drone on demand using your smartphone or tablet. From the web site: "Drones are summoned much like taxis in other popular service apps. Your desired task is either noted at the outset using presets, or customized using voice commands. Once the drone arrives, your phone's flashlight is used to pair your device with the drone. From there, it depends on the task, the object-based UI is very easy to understand. ""
Link to Original Source

Comment: Do not want (Score 1) 102

by PvtVoid (#47494899) Attached to: "Intelligent" Avatars Poised To Manage Airline Check-In
Great. This is going to be like trying to talk to one of those software customer service reps on the phone: insanely inefficient. As long as there is nothing unusual about your checkin, existing kiosks work great. If there is something unusual, the fake human won't be able to handle it any better than a standard interface will, and you'll need a real human.

Comment: Re:both? (Score 1) 77

by PvtVoid (#47494857) Attached to: Drone Search and Rescue Operation Wins Fight Against FAA

The FAA had made the current policies to prevent idiots who think they know everything (i.e. people like you) who have more money than brains from getting a UAV and hurting people by dropping it on someones head, though their roof or flying it into another aircraft. [...] As someone who flies UAVs for fun and profit (yes, I fly them illegally) I am in 100% agreement with the FAA at this point. I've been flying RC for almost 30 years and universally, the people who scream the loudest about the FAA regulation and policies are the idiots who get people hurt.

This little rant reminds me very much of the foaming at the mouth that occurred when cheap GMRS radios first came on the market: a hobby that had previously been limited to a small, insular group of uber-geeky hobbyists suddenly became accessible to anybody with a few bucks to spend, and they couldn't fucking stand it. Times change. It takes very little skill to fly a modern quadcopter (and, I might add, so so safely). There will always be dumbasses in the world. But the genie is not going back in the bottle.

Comment: Re:Harassment runs both ways (Score 1) 362

by PvtVoid (#47476443) Attached to: Sexual Harassment Is Common In Scientific Fieldwork

What is being complained about is the double standards. Women have a hell of a lot of leeway in what they can dress with - men basically start with the full 3-piece suit and remove items based on how formal it is but you're not going to find the plethora of variation that you do with female dress.

Um. Whatever it might be, that's not "harassment".

What is undoubtedly harassment if you decide to decide to throw "some shit" at a coworker because you have decided that her tits are distracting you.

Comment: Re:Harassment runs both ways (Score 1) 362

by PvtVoid (#47472273) Attached to: Sexual Harassment Is Common In Scientific Fieldwork

I'd imagine if I wore a v-neck that went half way to my naval to show off my manly chest hair and a codpiece at the next code review meeting it would certainly be considered sexual harassment.

What you're complaining about is the "harassment" that your female coworkers dress in a way that makes you want them so much you can't control yourself, not that what they're wearing would make them want to gouge their eyeballs out with a ball point pen. When you appreciate the difference between the two, you get to be a human being.

Comment: Re:Let me see if I can explain. (Score 1) 362

by PvtVoid (#47471989) Attached to: Sexual Harassment Is Common In Scientific Fieldwork

Let's say, for example, you're walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY".

Let's say, for example, that your boss sends you out walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY", or you get fired. Then your boss steals it from you, and then claims that you asked him to do it. Except the briefcase is you.

Comment: Re:Some people are jerks (Score 1, Insightful) 362

by PvtVoid (#47471953) Attached to: Sexual Harassment Is Common In Scientific Fieldwork

Do we really need explicit prohibitions against sexual harassment and sexual assaults for field work? What about murder or violent assaults? Do we need to explicitly prohibit those as well? Or are those implicitly permitted because they're not mentioned somewhere in a field manual?

The difference is that sexual assault, unlike, for example, murder, routinely goes unpunished or is even rationalized as normal behavior. If young women were regularly being murdered by their supervisors without consequence, then perhaps more attention ought to be brought to bear on that, too, eh?

Comment: Re:In Iraq? (Score 1) 435

by PvtVoid (#47468395) Attached to: FBI Concerned About Criminals Using Driverless Cars

Car heaven is where the mechanics are German, the drivers are Italian, and the leather is maintained by a British butler.

In heaven, the lovers are Italian, the cooks are French, the Germans make the cars, the Swiss are the Bankers, and the British are the police.

In hell, the Swiss are the lovers, the Italians make the cars, the French are the bankers, the British are the cooks, and the Germans are the police.

Comment: Re:How obvious does the news have to be? (Score 2) 706

by PvtVoid (#47455725) Attached to: People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use

Radical socialist nations got that way under the leadership of and influence of famously rich and exploitative people who united people under the promise of equality and utopia and are somehow suprised when their government takes away their freedom and points guns at them all the time. How many nations ended up like this?

Sweden, for example?

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Working...