A properly designed T2 obviously won't transfer information between different parts of it's system as text on top of video. This new DR0NE seems to be Robocop style, human inside machine, but even in this case I bet there are more efficient channels.
I read it as completely a made thing; I'm not sure there's really any evidence in the video for either reading. Just a few lines of text in the beginning talking about "autonomous drones".
This transition in modern armies from soldiers to different types of drones really scares me. Drones can easily be deployed on home soil against any kind of anti-government protests. The government would need just a few hundred of loyal operators to command a huge force.
Looking at history, the only times and societies where democracies and republics were established - e.g. Ancient Greece and Rome, France, US - were those were free citizens had access and could afford weapons similar to those used by the elite. With the transition to military drones in Western society I'm afraid the democracy will also transition to totalitarianism.
>This transition in modern armies from soldiers to different types of drones really scares me. Drones can easily be deployed on home soil against any kind of anti-government protests. The government would need just a few hundred of loyal operators to command a huge force.
It wouldn't have to even be a government (with the democratic sense) anymore. If those in power could establish a dictatorship and control the crowds with that way, I don't think anything would stopped them from doing it.
Blades in huge datacenters are not serviced one by one. Typically you'd wait until say 20% of the blades fail and only then fix and upgrade the whole rack at once.
Except that Common Lisp is a kludge, a relic, and a sad victim of 30-year–old compromises. It's also practically abandonware, with no new specification since 1994's ANSI Common Lisp. (Itself mainly clarifications to CLtL2.)
Modern Lisps — of which Clojure is currently the leader of the pack — would be a far better choice today.
Not to start a Lisp-vs-Lisp side-conversation here, but if we're going to go with a 'modern' Lisp, I'd prefer one that doesn't add syntax and which supports proper tail-call elimination.
It's not like we have a lack of those, either - Racket's my personal favorite; aside from the robust standard library, the scoped languages give me hope that the 'Lisp curse' has finally been reversed.
And then later you come across Haskell :P. Everything you could possibly want in a language, and far less wish-washy than the rest; a perfect testament to the fact that theory and practice are not at cross purposes.
Sure it's not perfect, but I posit that it's a local maximum for most tasks.
>Than you program some more and, if you're smart, you realize there's Common Lisp.
And then you realize, oh, it was just "premature realisation", actually Common Lisp is not the one "to rule them all" after all.
E.g it's useless for most embedded work, a non started on the web client side, you cannot find many programmers to hire for your project, a lot of self proclaimed Lisp programmers are just dabblers, there are not enough available libs for lots of fields (, scientific computing, GUI, multimedia etc), and a thousand other reasons.
Oh, and no killer app was been made in Common Lisp, or any Lisp for that matter, with the exception of Emacs (but that one is targeted to developers anyway). In fact, the most famous example of Lisp "success" is a mid-nineties startup that was sold to Yahoo.
The language was introduced in AutoCAD Version 2.18 in January 1986, and continued to be enhanced in successive releases up to Release 13 in February 1995.
_After that, its development was neglected by Autodesk in favor of more fashionable development environments like VBA, .NET and ObjectARX. However, it has remained AutoCAD's primary user customization language._
