Slashdot Mirror
Headlights That See Through Rain and Snow
wisebabo writes "I think it was Newton who said if you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, you could predict the future down to the effect the flutter of a sparrow's wing would have on the weather. Aside from quantum indeterminacy (which, of course, he knew nothing about) and questions of free will, it is clear we are a long long way from getting even close to the theoretical limits of prediction. Still, here's something that, to me, is very impressive. Some researchers manage to track raindrops (or snowflakes) in front of a light and, in real time, change the beam so that they are not illuminated! This drastically reduces glare. The obvious application is for driving cars in inclement weather. I'm hoping we're entering a new age where computers (and cheap sensors) have become so powerful as to make possible a whole host of 'magical' (like Arthur C. Clarke predicted) applications."
Here is another possible idea: LCD screen on windows. Track driver eye position. Create opaque circles exactly positioned on the lines between eyes and sun. Far better than those flip-down sunshields. Added bonus, someone will be able to hack it to obscure billboards too.
Can we adapt this tech to my TV for when my wife casually walks between me and the screen while I'm playing Call of Duty?
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
'Free will' (read: your brain) is special and sits outside the sphere of the physical realm?
Besides the fact that according to recent advances in the cognitive sciences free will is increasingly overrated.
"I think it was Newton who said if you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, you could predict the future down to the effect the flutter of a sparrow's wing would have on the weather."
Doesn't sound much like the kind of thing Newton wrote, have you got a citation for it?
-wb-
He didn't predict that at some arbitrary point in the future technology would have the appearance of being magical, he didn't make a prediction at all in this regard. His statement "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (presumably) means "Any sufficiently advanced technology relative to the observer's baseline is indistinguishable from magic.", but that isn't as catchy.
If you could show someone from the 1700's an iPhone it would be "indistinguishable from magic" to them. If an alien race were to zip into orbit tomorrow at faster than light speed it would be "indistinguishable from magic" to us as we don't have any idea how that can be achieved, or even if it is possible. The technology described in the article is impressive but clearly distinguishable from magic, the article describes how it works.
and questions of free will
Free will has NOTHING to do with determinism. Free will has no meaning except from the point of view of whoever exercises it, and he can not predict his own behavior without predicting deciding to predict his behavior ad infinitum, what makes no sense. For everyone else, the question is absolutely irrelevant, so ability or inability to predict anyone else's actions is completely meaningless.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I know this is a different and potentially interesting system, but I had a crazy physics professor decades ago who added an infrared lamp to his headlights and he would drive in the fog with IR goggles (IR is less diffused than normal light). What was scary is that he would turn off the normal lights to avoid glare, so nobody could see him come...
Non-Linux Penguins ?
"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."
— Marquis Pierre Simon de Laplace
Ok, I didn't get the quote exactly right but I think I captured the gist of it.
Of course it's a good idea:
Very clever idea, yes, but I wouldn't call it impressive. It's all very simple technology we've had for a while now. Just one of those "Why hadn't anyone thought of that?" ideas.
Isn't that the very definition of a clever idea?
Big misunderstanding about Quantum Physics: It is not because our interpretation of quantum states is probabilistic that quantum physics are NOT deterministic. There may perfectly well be a deterministic behavior of quantum physics, it's just that so far we can only describe is with non-deterministic mathematics. See the Copenhagen Interpretation
http://www.transparency.org
"I think it was Newton..."
...but checking up before posting would be too much trouble, right?
Did Isaac Newton even know the universe was made of particles?
No sig today...
Yes. I like my statements the way I like my power supplies: Redundant. Which is the way I like my statements.
Use the tracking of the individual snowflakes to steer a MW laser installed on the hood of the car, that blasts all the nearby snowflakes, reducing glare.
Now it's cool.
I like my statements like I like my statements: Tautological.
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." - Frank Zappa
--
BMO
well he was wrong, this kind of idea doesnt allow for emergance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Actually, Laplace's idea does allow for emergence (you just need to know enough about the laws of physics and how they combine). Where it runs into problems is when faced with non-linearity (i.e., mathematical chaos and extreme sensitivity to initial conditions) and quantum physics (you can't ever know the initial state and there's no hidden variable theory that you can deduce by observation). In other words, Laplace was wrong but for excellent and interesting reasons.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Actually, it means that those of us that were adopted are immune to the Grandfather Paradox, and thus, the only ones that can time travel.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!