Comment Re:Flock you too! (Score 1) 58
Flock's founder and CEO Garrett Langley doesn't think the risks of introducing surveillance technology at scale outweigh the rewards.
And exactly how surprising is this? Did anyone expect him to say what would boil down to "You're right; this is an unsupportable invasion of privacy; legislate my company out of business and eliminate all the work and value I've put into the company, as well as put all my employees out of work"? If he actually thought ubiquitous surveillance was bad, he wouldn't have created the company in the first place, much less worked to get Flock cameras used everywhere he could get agencies to buy and install them.
Comment Re:we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score 1) 208
unless nature flicks us off like the fleas that we are, i’m pretty sure the planet is gonna sprint past that finish line.
Since all of the climate-warning cutoff values — 3C, 2C, and 1.5C — were taken from papers where they were tossed out as aspirational goals, each with no scientific justification for that value over any other, although dire predictions were ascribed to exceeding these values, such as a 2022 study published in Science titled Exceeding 1.5C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. The IPCC parroted the study: "Exceeding 1.5C could also trigger multiple climate tipping points — such as breakdowns of major ocean circulation systems, abrupt thawing of boreal permafrost, and collapse of tropical coral reef systems — with abrupt, irreversible, and dangerous impacts for humanity." (1.5C: what it means and why it matters) And since the UN has declared we've already blown past this critical temperature goal, we can sit back and wait for the catastrophes that we have been repeatedly told, in increasingly apocalyptic warnings, would happen once we inched past the 1.5C breakpoint. Based on the accuracy of the 1982 declaration by the UN that the planet would be facing an ecological disaster within two decades, its 1989 warning of a 10-year tipping point, IPCC chief Pachauri's 2007 declaration that it would be "too late" if action wasn't taken by 2012, and its recent retirement of the IPCC's RCP 8.5 (aka SSP5-8.5) warming scenario as "implausible" (despite having been used for more than ten years as the foundation of other individuals' and organizations' apocalyptic claims, some of which continue to be made despite their foundation having been pulled out from under them), though, I'm not expecting much from this UN announcement, either.
Comment Re:Dual purpose age-bracket signal :o (Score 1) 129
No. It is data with pretty low information content. You need a _lot_ more to do tracking.
And the legislators somehow make the blatant assumption that forcing computers to announce "The user of this computer is underage" when queried would never be used by bad actors to more directly focus their attention on individuals identified as children.
Comment Re:Do no good (Score 4, Informative) 222
Comment Re:Trump has the intellect of a toddler (Score 5, Funny) 269
Comment Re:A yeast feast? SF addressed it decades ago. (Score 4, Interesting) 78
Comment Re:Cheap livestock feed (Score 1) 78
Comment Re:Unknown? (Score 3, Informative) 60
Comment Re:Units, journalists don't seem to understand Wh (Score 1) 67
They claim it can go all they way to 2000 ft AGL, which is an odd spec.
Maybe they're sticking with an adage I first heard years ago relating to hang gliding — "Never go higher than you're willing to fall." Although I would think that, with a conventional aircraft like this is, going higher would give you more options for how far you can go looking to put the bird down after it loses power. Maybe they're just worried about losing their Wi-Fi connection and having the control software turn off or something silly like that.
Comment Re:It’s an adult tracking bill. (Score 2) 58
Comment Re:Has anyone asked... (Score 1) 78
Comment Re:Drummers (Score 1) 86
Anyone who has every tried to learn the drums can tell you humans are capable of true multitasking. Limb independence seems like an impossible feat when you first start out.
I don't know if it's still there, but the Science Center at the Reuben H. Fleet Space Theater and Science Center in San Diego used to have a device that was a good demonstrator of this. It had four double rows of lights, with two foot pedals and two twist handles, and a counter. It would randomly light one bulb in each of the paired rows, and by manipulating the pedals and handles, you could move the lit bulb in the other of each paired row; when you got all four matching, a counter would increment and the lit bulbs would be randomized; the goal was to get as many matches as possible before the timer ran out. Watching other people do it, I would regularly see results in the 8-15 range, with people laboriously matching one light, then the next, then the third, then the fourth, which seemed so inefficient, so I worked at it, not focusing my attention on any given light while I moved all four controls to an approximation of the correct matches before making fine adjustments for a match. After a bit of practice, I could get results consistently around 35-45 matches, and I'd usually wind up with a bunch of people watching me.