I would be very interested in seeing these LED setups interact with electroluminescent vinyl.
I came across this stuff a few years back when I made custom glow gauges for my CRX. One really interesting thing you can do with this is do a giclee' print on it and then illuminate the art from the canvas itself.
It's pretty expensive, or I'd play with it more, but I have done animations by printing on pieces and wiring them into an array (like a blinkenlights thing).
I definitely think that there's something to that.
Back in my TFC days, I used to listen to an internet radio station while I played. I have found that years later I have a very strong association between those songs and the game itself. So much so that when I think of playing the game, the songs pop into my head, and vice versa. Obviously, the songs have nothing at all to do with TFC, nor were they associated in any intelligible way to what I was doing in the game, yet I developed an affinity for them nevertheless.
All this to say that I would not be surprised to learn that other people create strong associations with the music they hear while playing a video game. It makes a lot of sense, almost like subliminal messaging, the music kind of interlaces with the experience.
Now, if the songs are jingles about coke products or clothing lines, I'd be a little concerned. Otherwise, it reminds me of how NIN did the soundtrack for Quake. It's just kinda cool, and if you don't like it, can't you usually turn off the music and get sound effects only? Then play any kind of music you want.
Another thing that might be fun would be if there were a "video game music" genre. Like bands that just made music for video games. You could break them down into sub-groups by game type or they could theme their albums. A music industry based entirely on gamer culture, now that would be something.
Apple really needs to include a 'L' tatoo, with a perfectly chosen font of course, for the pathetic fucks who buy iPhones to stick on their foreheads. This is one of those secret Apple development leaks! It's an e-tefillin.
The requisite strap is, of course, available at the Apple store, and comes in a variety of complementary colors. They are opening up a niche market of people want to download an e-Torah and strap it to their foreheads...
Genius, really...
Osama: Did they say why they want to terminate my command? NSA: I was sent on a classified mission, sir. Osama: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you? NSA: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound. Osama: Are they... unsound? NSA: I don't see any method at all, sir. Osama: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin? NSA: I'm a soldier. Osama: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.
Mod this person up!
One of the major issues with Western Culture is our overemphasis on productivity, efficiency, and industry.
There are no food shortages today, only problems with distribution. Why? Because it is not profitable to get the food to the people who need it.
Energy? Medicine? Space? For which of these problems is a horde of unskilled laborers a solution?
Which of these problems is a horde of unskilled humans exacerbating, and in what ways?
If we can offset the burden placed on society by non-contributing individuals with super-efficient robots, what's the problem?
The only possible objection to giving "20% of the population" a life of leisure is fear of what they would do with it, or a moral objection to the fact that they are not contributing.
We have been trained to accept that profitability and efficiency are the pinnacles of human existence.
We see the statement that "20% of the population is out of work" as a problem. Why? Why are we afraid of what these people would do with their free time? Because they consume resources. What dictates the value of these resources? Availability. What dictates availability? Labor. What solves the labor problem? Robots.
In some ways, this may be an oversimplification, but it seems to me that most of the barriers to a utopian society (in the purest sense, rather than the satirical one) lie in us clinging to our paradigm of individual and societal productivity.
We are obsessed with a society that stratifies everyone. I bet that there are a lot of people out there who could do amazing things with their lives if they didn't have to worry about the daily grind. There are also a lot of people out there who would commit crimes or do *gasp* nothing with their time. Which would make it just like our present society.
Who cares if everyone is out producing something or making a contribution? Why is it a burden to the rest of society if 20% of the population stops participating in it?
Presently, the answer to this question is that we need their cheap labour, which is, IMHO, rather twisted when you think about it. If we can replace them with robots, awesome! They will be a generation of individuals who get the (unique?) experience of being able to do whatever they want with their lives.
I have actually seriously considered this before. The first time was almost a year ago when I was channel surfing and came across one of those reality cop shows. It was a typical traffic stop unfolding, and the shot was being filmed from the state trooper's "dashboard cam". The officer walks up to the driver's side window, mumbles some gibberish, which is politely subtitled as standard traffic-stop, "can I see your license" stuff. Then, the officer suddenly takesa step back, pulls out his gun and starts yelling at this guy through the window! I was like, "What the hell?". Then the narrator pops in explaining that the officer noticed the guy reach under the seat, "Like he was reaching for a weapon." It turned out that the guy was trying to push a bag of dope farther back under the seat.
A rather long story only to bring me to the question which I asked myself, "Why do the troopers record traffic stops?" The answer: Evidence. The videotape serves as evidence to back up the officer's story. I then became curious about the availability of said video if it worked against the officer. Then I took it one step further an asked, "why don't I make my own recording of myself in my car?"
Imagine if you were capturing video from your own "dashboard cam" when you got in an accident. IANAL, but that might go both ways. I suppose that your dashboard cam could be subpoenaed. But, it might help you out with your insurance claim. Same with GPS monitoring of oneself and video/audio recording yourself during a traffic stop. I wonder how a court case would go if it came down to my "dashboard video" vs. an officer's dashboard cam. Or the officer's radar gun vs. the defendant's GPS.
It's interesting that GPS/video evidence trumps a real, live, human being's testimony any day of the week.
Re:A precedent for private space exploration
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I think we may be talking about two different things.
I am talking about sending a rover, like the Mars rover, to the moon. This would be a small payload and you would be going a short distance. A space shuttle is totally unnecessary, because there aren't any people.
You don't have to develop a new launch system, because the point of the mission is just get a rover-like machine to transmit data from the moon.
The new deltas are something like $400M alone (thats of course information that the company does not want public because it's so god damn out of line with reality). I don't know what your sources are for the cost of a new delta, but this article puts the cost of a delta II launch at around $120 million.
I think that you have made your point about the cost being larger than $5 million, but $500M is just an extravagant number. The launch system is the most expensive part of the whole operation, and it is covered by less than 1/4 of $500M. If the Mars mission was $265M total, even in 1996, and a present-day delta II launch is $120M, it is conceivable that a mission could be carried out for less than $500M.
This is all assuming that you did it in $USD. A Russian, Chinese or European operation would have entirely different numbers, any of which might compare more favorably to the 1996 Mars mission.
My point is that the long-term benefits of a mission like this far outweigh the short-term costs, whatever they would be. The prize money for a contest like this is meant to catalyze innovation, not cover the expenses of the project.
Re:A precedent for private space exploration
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 1
Firstly, it was phrased as a proposition, not a statement. In addition, it was rhetorical.
The launch vehicle alone will be way more than $500M, probably by a factor of 2 or more. The Mars Pathfinder mission cost approximately $265 million including launch and operations. Development and construction of the lander cost $150 million and the rover about $25 million.
That was in 1996. Maybe "actual" research is overrated, but I would suggest that you do some before you propose baseless project costs.
A precedent for private space exploration
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
has massive implications for technological innovations for the rest of the century.
When you consider how much modern tech was a byproduct of the space race, only good can come of another one, regardless of who "wins".
Imagine if there were an open-source entry for such a project. The implications of an open-source license covering the emerging tech that shapes the next century are astounding. Could it ever happen? Not in the opinion of a hardened capitalistic cynic, but, if it did, it would cause a fundamental shift in our technology paradigm.
All they are asking for right now is a robot to a) get to the moon and b) send data back. This is for every geek who has ever reviewed the tech that they used in the 60's for the Apollo mission and thought, "We could do that today a lot faster with a lot less money."
Do you think that you could do it for $5 million?
Now its just time to buck up and do it. Do it with open source. Now that's a picture I wouldn't mind seeing plastered all over the Associated Press, a picture of a lunar robot with a huge-ass penguin logo on it.
The quickest way that I know of to get your computer to talk to your motors is through a USB Data AcQuisition device (DAQ, for short). When we built a prototype ROV, we bought an off-brand China special for about $80 that had drivers for LabView. You will also need a motor controller. Some DAQs have Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) motor controllers built into them, but these are not cheap, in my experience.
Hook your DAQ up to your control computer (we used windows), and then your motor controllers to your DAQ. The power supply that powers the motors (12 V DC or more) goes into the motor controllers, and the signal from the DAQ goes into the motor controllers (USB is 5ish V DC, I think). The power to the motors comes out of the motor controllers, according to however you program it in Labview.
We used an Open Source Motor Controller (OSMC) that we built from parts.
We used the system to vary the speed to 4 motors on the fly, using a computer interface that accepted input from a mouse and keyboard (just like Half-Life... sorta).
for Verizon. I just caught a glimpse yesterday of a world run by Verizon gatekeepers.
I was not aware of the unfolding fiber optic monopoly situation, though. This does not bode well for our economic situation in general, nor our 1st amendment. With all television signals going digital in 2008, and Verizon service contracts stipulating that they can "terminate or suspend your services", that pretty much constitutes an information chokehold. And for a limited time, you can get all your services bundled for $30 a month! That means they have you phone, your tv, and your internet.
This is effectively exchanging your bill of rights for "terms of service". But, I guess that's where we were going, anyways, right? Exchanging liberty for security? "Ride the Light"
It looks to me like Michael Robertson is pre-empting Microsoft releasing an ajax-based "GUI API" of the same name.
This would be consistent with what he has done in the past.
This would also explain why he may have jumped the gun on the release, since releasing a quality product is not the top priority, he is gambling on getting sued again.
If he gets sued and loses (incredibly unlikely, given the precedent), he's got $20 million before he is even in the red.
If he gets sued and wins, he gets even more money.
If he doesn't get sued at all, he looks like a badass to the community, forces Microsoft to do an ajax-OS-like product under a different branding, and may get a lot of traffic from people who don't understand that Microsoft doesn't own the word "Windows"
Essentially a lateral move, but IMO deserving of props.
This is basically the kind of thing that Silverlight is working towards, yes?
In this case it is the DEFENSE offering the lie-detector evidence. Great point. I couldn't believe that the discussion got as far as it did without anyone pointing that out.
While lie-detectors are only about 70% accurate, that is better odds than deciding just on the demeanor of two people in court.
I think the trouble here lies in that the 70% accuracy (which is, IMO, a joke), is not a function of pure chance, but rather the skill of the individual taking the polygraph. This means that someone who is better at taking a polygraph is more likely to be able to falsify a response. Giving this person's statements more weight than someone else who has less skill at taking polygraphs is dangerous.
In my state, sex offenders are subjected to polygraph monitoring as a condition of their probation. This is part of the tactic to produce confessions by creating the impression that they cannot lie. The justice system is training these people how to pass polygraphs by requiring them to take them over and over. Like those high school kids who practice the SATs. I have personally encountered individuals who were able to consistently lie on their polygraphs, only to get busted later.
IMO: they either detect lies or they don't. If they don't, stop using them. If they do, great, why even have trials? Just ask the defendant to take a polygraph!!
Slashdot Mirror
I would be very interested in seeing these LED setups interact with electroluminescent vinyl. I came across this stuff a few years back when I made custom glow gauges for my CRX. One really interesting thing you can do with this is do a giclee' print on it and then illuminate the art from the canvas itself. It's pretty expensive, or I'd play with it more, but I have done animations by printing on pieces and wiring them into an array (like a blinkenlights thing).
Back in my TFC days, I used to listen to an internet radio station while I played. I have found that years later I have a very strong association between those songs and the game itself. So much so that when I think of playing the game, the songs pop into my head, and vice versa. Obviously, the songs have nothing at all to do with TFC, nor were they associated in any intelligible way to what I was doing in the game, yet I developed an affinity for them nevertheless.
All this to say that I would not be surprised to learn that other people create strong associations with the music they hear while playing a video game. It makes a lot of sense, almost like subliminal messaging, the music kind of interlaces with the experience.
Now, if the songs are jingles about coke products or clothing lines, I'd be a little concerned. Otherwise, it reminds me of how NIN did the soundtrack for Quake. It's just kinda cool, and if you don't like it, can't you usually turn off the music and get sound effects only? Then play any kind of music you want.
Another thing that might be fun would be if there were a "video game music" genre. Like bands that just made music for video games. You could break them down into sub-groups by game type or they could theme their albums. A music industry based entirely on gamer culture, now that would be something.
Osama: Did they say why they want to terminate my command? ... unsound?
NSA: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
Osama: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
NSA: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Osama: Are they
NSA: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Osama: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
NSA: I'm a soldier.
Osama: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.
Gotta wonder who "lost" their shipment of 216 AMD processors.
Mod this person up!
One of the major issues with Western Culture is our overemphasis on productivity, efficiency, and industry.
There are no food shortages today, only problems with distribution. Why? Because it is not profitable to get the food to the people who need it.
Energy? Medicine? Space? For which of these problems is a horde of unskilled laborers a solution?
Which of these problems is a horde of unskilled humans exacerbating, and in what ways?
If we can offset the burden placed on society by non-contributing individuals with super-efficient robots, what's the problem?
The only possible objection to giving "20% of the population" a life of leisure is fear of what they would do with it, or a moral objection to the fact that they are not contributing.
We have been trained to accept that profitability and efficiency are the pinnacles of human existence.
We see the statement that "20% of the population is out of work" as a problem. Why? Why are we afraid of what these people would do with their free time? Because they consume resources. What dictates the value of these resources? Availability. What dictates availability? Labor. What solves the labor problem? Robots.
In some ways, this may be an oversimplification, but it seems to me that most of the barriers to a utopian society (in the purest sense, rather than the satirical one) lie in us clinging to our paradigm of individual and societal productivity.
We are obsessed with a society that stratifies everyone. I bet that there are a lot of people out there who could do amazing things with their lives if they didn't have to worry about the daily grind. There are also a lot of people out there who would commit crimes or do *gasp* nothing with their time. Which would make it just like our present society.
Who cares if everyone is out producing something or making a contribution? Why is it a burden to the rest of society if 20% of the population stops participating in it?
Presently, the answer to this question is that we need their cheap labour, which is, IMHO, rather twisted when you think about it. If we can replace them with robots, awesome! They will be a generation of individuals who get the (unique?) experience of being able to do whatever they want with their lives.
I have actually seriously considered this before. The first time was almost a year ago when I was channel surfing and came across one of those reality cop shows. It was a typical traffic stop unfolding, and the shot was being filmed from the state trooper's "dashboard cam". The officer walks up to the driver's side window, mumbles some gibberish, which is politely subtitled as standard traffic-stop, "can I see your license" stuff. Then, the officer suddenly takesa step back, pulls out his gun and starts yelling at this guy through the window! I was like, "What the hell?". Then the narrator pops in explaining that the officer noticed the guy reach under the seat, "Like he was reaching for a weapon." It turned out that the guy was trying to push a bag of dope farther back under the seat.
A rather long story only to bring me to the question which I asked myself, "Why do the troopers record traffic stops?" The answer: Evidence. The videotape serves as evidence to back up the officer's story. I then became curious about the availability of said video if it worked against the officer. Then I took it one step further an asked, "why don't I make my own recording of myself in my car?"
Imagine if you were capturing video from your own "dashboard cam" when you got in an accident. IANAL, but that might go both ways. I suppose that your dashboard cam could be subpoenaed. But, it might help you out with your insurance claim. Same with GPS monitoring of oneself and video/audio recording yourself during a traffic stop. I wonder how a court case would go if it came down to my "dashboard video" vs. an officer's dashboard cam. Or the officer's radar gun vs. the defendant's GPS.
It's interesting that GPS/video evidence trumps a real, live, human being's testimony any day of the week.
I am talking about sending a rover, like the Mars rover, to the moon. This would be a small payload and you would be going a short distance. A space shuttle is totally unnecessary, because there aren't any people.
The new deltas are something like $400M alone (thats of course information that the company does not want public because it's so god damn out of line with reality). I don't know what your sources are for the cost of a new delta, but this article puts the cost of a delta II launch at around $120 million.You don't have to develop a new launch system, because the point of the mission is just get a rover-like machine to transmit data from the moon.
I think that you have made your point about the cost being larger than $5 million, but $500M is just an extravagant number. The launch system is the most expensive part of the whole operation, and it is covered by less than 1/4 of $500M. If the Mars mission was $265M total, even in 1996, and a present-day delta II launch is $120M, it is conceivable that a mission could be carried out for less than $500M.
My point is that the long-term benefits of a mission like this far outweigh the short-term costs, whatever they would be. The prize money for a contest like this is meant to catalyze innovation, not cover the expenses of the project.This is all assuming that you did it in $USD. A Russian, Chinese or European operation would have entirely different numbers, any of which might compare more favorably to the 1996 Mars mission.
That was in 1996.
Maybe "actual" research is overrated, but I would suggest that you do some before you propose baseless project costs.
has massive implications for technological innovations for the rest of the century.
When you consider how much modern tech was a byproduct of the space race, only good can come of another one, regardless of who "wins".
Imagine if there were an open-source entry for such a project. The implications of an open-source license covering the emerging tech that shapes the next century are astounding. Could it ever happen? Not in the opinion of a hardened capitalistic cynic, but, if it did, it would cause a fundamental shift in our technology paradigm.
All they are asking for right now is a robot to a) get to the moon and b) send data back. This is for every geek who has ever reviewed the tech that they used in the 60's for the Apollo mission and thought, "We could do that today a lot faster with a lot less money."
Do you think that you could do it for $5 million?
Now its just time to buck up and do it. Do it with open source. Now that's a picture I wouldn't mind seeing plastered all over the Associated Press, a picture of a lunar robot with a huge-ass penguin logo on it.
The quickest way that I know of to get your computer to talk to your motors is through a USB Data AcQuisition device (DAQ, for short). When we built a prototype ROV, we bought an off-brand China special for about $80 that had drivers for LabView. You will also need a motor controller. Some DAQs have Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) motor controllers built into them, but these are not cheap, in my experience.
Hook your DAQ up to your control computer (we used windows), and then your motor controllers to your DAQ. The power supply that powers the motors (12 V DC or more) goes into the motor controllers, and the signal from the DAQ goes into the motor controllers (USB is 5ish V DC, I think). The power to the motors comes out of the motor controllers, according to however you program it in Labview.
We used an Open Source Motor Controller (OSMC) that we built from parts.We used the system to vary the speed to 4 motors on the fly, using a computer interface that accepted input from a mouse and keyboard (just like Half-Life... sorta).
I was not aware of the unfolding fiber optic monopoly situation, though. This does not bode well for our economic situation in general, nor our 1st amendment. With all television signals going digital in 2008, and Verizon service contracts stipulating that they can "terminate or suspend your services", that pretty much constitutes an information chokehold. And for a limited time, you can get all your services bundled for $30 a month! That means they have you phone, your tv, and your internet.
This is effectively exchanging your bill of rights for "terms of service". But, I guess that's where we were going, anyways, right? Exchanging liberty for security?"Ride the Light"
It looks to me like Michael Robertson is pre-empting Microsoft releasing an ajax-based "GUI API" of the same name. This would be consistent with what he has done in the past.
This would also explain why he may have jumped the gun on the release, since releasing a quality product is not the top priority, he is gambling on getting sued again.
If he gets sued and loses (incredibly unlikely, given the precedent), he's got $20 million before he is even in the red.
If he gets sued and wins, he gets even more money.
If he doesn't get sued at all, he looks like a badass to the community, forces Microsoft to do an ajax-OS-like product under a different branding, and may get a lot of traffic from people who don't understand that Microsoft doesn't own the word "Windows"
Essentially a lateral move, but IMO deserving of props.
This is basically the kind of thing that Silverlight is working towards, yes?
I think the trouble here lies in that the 70% accuracy (which is, IMO, a joke), is not a function of pure chance, but rather the skill of the individual taking the polygraph. This means that someone who is better at taking a polygraph is more likely to be able to falsify a response. Giving this person's statements more weight than someone else who has less skill at taking polygraphs is dangerous.
In my state, sex offenders are subjected to polygraph monitoring as a condition of their probation. This is part of the tactic to produce confessions by creating the impression that they cannot lie. The justice system is training these people how to pass polygraphs by requiring them to take them over and over. Like those high school kids who practice the SATs. I have personally encountered individuals who were able to consistently lie on their polygraphs, only to get busted later.
IMO: they either detect lies or they don't. If they don't, stop using them. If they do, great, why even have trials? Just ask the defendant to take a polygraph!!