The whole thing shouldn't weigh very much, assuming it's limited to delivering lightweight objects, and the rotors could be covered with a screen. I don't see much potential for danger. The worst thing that could happen would be a total system failure causing it to drop out of the sky, and even that could probably be mitigated with something like a failsafe that deploys a parachute if the speed is too high.
It should be safer than multi-ton delivery trucks, which can and have killed people. I was a mailman at one time - we were required to get out and look behind the truck before backing up because a mailman once killed a toddler who wandered behind his truck (though I doubt very many carriers actually follow that rule).
That's not going to solve overpopulation problems here, because it would be cheaper to feed someone for life (ie it would require less energy) than it would be to send that person outside of Earth's gravitational field.
There was an error in my calculations, which are based on freshman college physics I took in the 90s, so never mind.
Gravitational potential energy = kinetic energy = .5massescape velocity^2. = .5human bodyweight kg 11,200 m/s. Convert the units and you've got a few years worth of calories (which I think I mixed up with kilocalories the first time).
Why should "oriental" be offensive? It's derived from a word for "eastern." What fool came up with the idea that we should be offended by it, and start using the term "Asian," which could refer to anyone from Tel Aviv to Vladivostok?
Why should "Mexican" be offensive? It's refers to a nationality. Are you offended by "American" or "Japanese," and if not, why should you be offended by "Mexican?"
"Retard" was originally intended to be a clinical term referring derived from a word meaning "slow" or "delayed," which replaced previous terms such as idiot or imbecile. How much gentler can you get? If retard has become perjorative, it's because nobody wants to be what the word refers to, and there's not much you can do about that. If you successfully replace it with a nonsense word, say "quixmar," in ten years "quixmar" will be used as an insult in middle school, become offensive, and have to be replaced. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Calling someone Mexican is fine if you know they are Mexican. Calling someone Mexican because they're Chilean and that's your word for brown people is offensive precisely because it's a nationality-- you're saying that you don't know, or more likely don't care, that there is more than one country Hispanic people come from.
I can't find a good source on this, but I suspect you're wrong about "retard" being used clinically. The terms "mentally retarded", and "mental retardation", were and still are used in clinical settings to describe delayed development (though they're going out of fashion quickly). The use of "retard" (as a noun) is pejorative because of linguistics relating to the distinction between attribute and essence; the same reason "a group of black men" is fine, but "a group of blacks" is not.
Mistaking a Chilean for a Mexican is no more offensive than mistaking a German for a Swiss (or a Spaniard for a Portuguese). If you think it is, then I strongly suspect you are actively looking for opportunities to be offended, for your own reasons.
I mean, I'm not offended, because this never happens to me, because I'm white. But I'm given to understand that national pride is as important to Central and South Americans as it is to anyone, and this is something that matters to many expats, and it's not hard for me to understand why.
Try calling your average middle American a Russian (same difference, right?) and you might be in the ballpark.
I read up on "retard" due to this post. Retard was originally used to replace words such as cretin, imbecile, fool, etc.
Those were once clinical terms, but by the late 19th century they had become pejorative. So retardation was introduced, and worked for a while. Then it became a schoolyard insult, and was replaced by mentally disabled or mentally challenged.
If schoolchildren invent an insult out of "disabled", then I imagine a new term will be introduced. This doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea to replace "retarded", but it seems likely that there's no permanent solution.
Yeah, special was already an insult when I was in school in the 90s. Didn't realize challenged had become one already. Have they made a noun out of it or just an adjective? Retarded produced both, which is one probably helped it spread.
And that's one of the problems with PC. In that regards, it doesn't work. If we call "orange thinkers" those which IQ is around or above average and "green thinkers" to the other group, then sooner you'll hear "What? Are you a green thinker?"
But I know for a fact that "retarded" and "retardation" have not been replaced; they're being phased out for political reasons, but the terms still have a specific meaning and are definitely still in use clinically.
What I doubt (lacking real evidence) is that the person-noun form "retard" -- think about phrases like "discharging a retard", "managing retard behavior", "a unit full of retards" -- was ever in widespread clinical use, as "idiot" or "imbecile" were in the past. The move to stop using those terms was not about just changing the word, but also recognizing mental disorders as something distinct from a person's inherent nature.
(Again, similar to the move from "negroes" to "black people". Either can be used pejoratively, but the former is arguably intrinsically offensive.)
I know someone has to have written about this, but I don't know who. My sense is that it is like an unconscious societal arms race. In the presence of prejudice labels take on negative connotations. People notice and use new terms that are free of these connotations. Then the new terms acquire the connotations and the cycle repeats.
Maybe this is the best we can hope for, that we get lulls in the coloration of terms and less prejudice to confront at each new cycle.
Most killings in war haven't involved looking a man in the eyes and shooting him for a very long time. At least as recently as WWI, most deaths (excluding disease) were caused by artillery shells fired by someone who would usually never see his victim at all. That's even more impersonal than killing someone with a drone.
But in those cases you don't know if you actually killed someone or not, you're just launching a shell off into the void. In this case the person pulls the trigger and then watches the carnage live and in IR/thermal. The action of pulling the trigger and the aftermath are inextricably interconnected. As perhaps they should be, but it's certainly not the same as being a gunner in an artillery battery.
I had the exact opposite experience - our chromebook is used all the time while or tablet collects dust. Having a real keyboard is a big advantage. The features you list that a tablet has that the chromebook doesn't are all on our phones anyway.
I would think little kids today don't get talked to as much as they did in the past because many or most have single mothers with jobs and few or no siblings, whereas the baby boomers had a dad and a stay at home mom and lots of siblings. And they had nothing to do but talk to each other, since you couldn't spend all day staring at screens then.
If this is correct, developments in the last several decades should have been a cognitive disaster. Afaik they weren't.
Sure, if you define success strictly in terms of reproductive fitness. By that standard, two of the heroes of hners, pg and Steve jobs, are abject failures, while a crack whore who has eight kids who were taken away by cps is a paragon of success.
I thought jobs was a father of one, but a quick look on wiki shows I was mistaken. But I'm pretty sure pg is, and probably always will be at his age and the age of h his wife. One child is better than none but still fails from a reproductive fitness point of view. You only pass on half of your genome to each kid, so it takes two just to break even, let alone succeed. If that's your definition of success.
> ... so it takes two just to break even, let alone succeed. If that's your definition of success.
In modern times, ideas are more influential than children. If you doubt this, try to tell me the names of Einstein's children. Give up? They're special and general relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look charming in group photographs.
Would you rather have two children, or influence the thinking of a million people -- and their children? Which has the greatest effect on evolution?