The policy at my high school was to track kids from the very beginning. You didn't get to take (and pass) the AP class unless the teachers let you, but the people in the low-track courses wouldn't walk away with an F either, because the expectations were simply lower. Best of both worlds, now that I think of it in retrospect. Some level of meaningful credentials were preserved, but the parents didn't get an excuse to bitch either.
I remember back when DOS 3.3 came on three (3) high density 3.5" floppy disks...and all computers did back then was compute and all they do now is compute...
Wait...so what does this have to do with flipping? Isn't this essentially asking 'Compute the number of ways the stack can be out of order?' because you can perform a bubble sort* by flipping in polynomial time on an arbitrary stack.
If so, then isn't this the answer O(n log(n)) like any sort problem?
*If you want to compare and/or invert the position of the kth and k+1th pancake, flip at the kth pancake, compare the top two and/or flip at N-1, then flip at k again = 4 operations per transposition/comparison.
No, engineers are people knowledgeable in mathematics, physics|chemistry|biology, computation, experimentation, and design. We turn thoughts into hard reality. (Academic and sometimes non-academic) scientists...not so much. More interested in grand pontifications and intellectual masturbation than in getting anything done. All the data in the world is worthless if all you can do is write or talk about it.
QR codes are the right idea. The real money you'll need to spend is on the camera and near-realtime PC to process it.
I've had good luck using GigEVision under Linux. There's a bunch of vendors out there that have Linux drivers for their GigEVision cameras and the specialized acquisition hardware is just an ethernet card. You probably want something that goes at least 30 fps sustained (probably about 1-3k for a camera, depending on resolution and bells and whistles). That's plenty enough to be able to interpolate vehicle trajectories between frames to get down to millimeter accuracy, assuming your optics package gives you the resolution.
Webcams are probably a no-go because you'll want higher resolution in order to be able to observe and recognize the codes over a wide finishline area, and USB 2.0 is limited in the amount of bandwidth you can get.
Best advice so far. As an addendum, if you don't know how to code now, learn early (as in freshman year). That way, you can come to a professor early (end of freshman year, sophomore year) and be in a position where you can contribute to the analysis side of things as well as implementation. That's what gets names on publications, which are great to put on a resume, both for employment as well as grad school.
I'm a control systems realtime software and hardware engineer. I work 60 hours a week because the few people who know how to do what I do are gainfully employed elsewhere doing something similar. It strikes me how a large number of the 99 percenters are in a financial pinch because they majored in English or History or something else that, no matter what the Glorious Socialist Revolution may try to do, won't cut my working hours.
Here's the deal: History, Art, Literature, etc are fine courses of study, but let's not forget that they were invented for, by, and are largely about, the monied classes who can afford to substitute adult kindergarten for education. Somehow or other, the Correlation Equals Causation fallacy seems to have led quite a few members of my generation to believe that studying this nonsense makes you rich, not that being rich allows you to the luxury to study such things.
Incidentally, if more people studied real stuff, perhaps more would have picked up enough math to be able to call bullshit on the Democrats for trying to spend nonexistent money and bullshit on the Republicans for allowing the Democrats to spend nonexistent money, instead of being all bent out of shape about the government not printing enough money.
I can lock my paper copy in my safe or stash it in pumpkin patch and come back many years later to read it with more confidence that it is unaltered than if I md5/SHA/whatever a digital file, store it in the cloud, and store the checksum/signature/whatever in a digital form either elsewhere in the cloud or on a usb stick or optical disc with an unknown shelf life and an unknown period of continued compatibility with deployed hardware/software.
Mozilla, Gnome, KDE, X11. Jeez. Did all the open-source nerds with actual engineering experience all retire from everywhere at once, leaving the "ooh shiny" crowd in charge?
If this method had a track record of success in some terrestrial application, then it would be new for a Mars mission, but would be perceived as less risky, because there would be less new science/design that would be required for it. Given that a rocket-powered skycrane has never been used over an extended period (at all?) in any terrestrial application, and that computer-controlled flying cranes are relatively new (anyone know of any deployed autonomous helicopter cranes?), it's fairly high risk because it's untested.
That said, I can't think of a better way to land something heavy on Mars either, not without loading the rover down with extra weight.
There's also the issue of having enough radiation shielding in there so that non-environmentalists' brains don't explode either. I'd hate to pick up the habit of wearing a radiation badge just to go out for a sunday drive, and knowing how much stuff weighs, I'd be fairly surprised if the entire closed cycle system, with shielding, with heat exchangers, with everything will be light enough to make sense in anything smaller than a semi truck.
X is mature code and it works. It makes sense to replace it only if you replace it with something *better*, which is different from *shinier*. Dropping pretty basic features like network transparency because it doesn't make sense on tablets, or for n00bs, or etc is bad engineering, bad philosophy, and bad karma.
You should not condition the capabilities of a system on the capabilities of its least experienced users.
How about: it's easier to enforce a blanket ban than it is to nondeterministically guess which group of kids out late are up to no good and which ones aren't.
That's only true in a place that gets lots and lots and lots of snow every winter. Boston, Upstate NY, and generally that swath of the country. Go a little further south, like NYC, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and suddenly the winters are cold enough that heating costs are an issue, but the climate is either too dry or to warm or too whatever for it snow and deposit a permanent white coat on your roof.
That's the red flag that pops up in my head every time someone tells me the Chinese are going to own the world tomorrow. Culturally, they're about 100+ years behind us. We outlawed putting crap in food in 1906. In 2006, they were putting melamine in their baby food, and the official solution was to execute one designated scapegoat. That's just not on the same level of civilization as we are.
China's not centrally planned. That's how they got rich. In some (by no means many) ways, the Chinese *economy* is more free than ours. The problem China will have will happen because people who are rich, and whose parents and grandparents were rich won't be so quick to swallow the party line as people whose parents or grandparents didn't have indoor plumbing.
Don't nobody go counting nothing. The last time this was thought to happen was in the 17th century, when no one was recording calibrated data planet-wide. So the answer is, no one knows whether greenhouses gases trump solar variability or vice versa. The mature and level-headed thing to do is wait 70 years for this thing to be over and for the data to be analyzed and then you can legislate what car I can drive and what kind of light bulbs I can use if the facts come down on your side.
Developers have seen this -- as the economy is slowly improving, instead of more devs getting hired, Tata gets more business since they can do blocks of code for pennies on the dollar compared to hiring domestically.
My mother told me a story about her company trying to outsource a software project. Apparently in the dialect of English spoken in the part of India they tried to outsource to, "should" is not an imperative word the way it is here. So when the req's said that Screen N *should* contain information X, it was seen as more of a suggestion than a deliverable.
Moral of this story? The guys who avoid the major-of-the-month fiasco and go law are raking in the salaries while people who do a major thinking there will be a bubble once out are serving the lawyers their cup of morning coffee.
Absolutely. Until the next IT bubble spits out a Watson style auto-Lawyer that costs $2500 and runs on your desktop instead of $25 million and four racks of servers:)
Slashdot Mirror
The policy at my high school was to track kids from the very beginning. You didn't get to take (and pass) the AP class unless the teachers let you, but the people in the low-track courses wouldn't walk away with an F either, because the expectations were simply lower. Best of both worlds, now that I think of it in retrospect. Some level of meaningful credentials were preserved, but the parents didn't get an excuse to bitch either.
You're going to have a heck of a time doing web development in raw, inscrutable, hexidecimal numbers, directly.
I remember back when DOS 3.3 came on three (3) high density 3.5" floppy disks...and all computers did back then was compute and all they do now is compute...
People who need/want read-only media that can't have malware inserted into it by the CVS photo printer and other people's computers...
Wait...so what does this have to do with flipping? Isn't this essentially asking 'Compute the number of ways the stack can be out of order?' because you can perform a bubble sort* by flipping in polynomial time on an arbitrary stack.
If so, then isn't this the answer O(n log(n)) like any sort problem?
*If you want to compare and/or invert the position of the kth and k+1th pancake, flip at the kth pancake, compare the top two and/or flip at N-1, then flip at k again = 4 operations per transposition/comparison.
No, engineers are people knowledgeable in mathematics, physics|chemistry|biology, computation, experimentation, and design. We turn thoughts into hard reality. (Academic and sometimes non-academic) scientists...not so much. More interested in grand pontifications and intellectual masturbation than in getting anything done. All the data in the world is worthless if all you can do is write or talk about it.
QR codes are the right idea. The real money you'll need to spend is on the camera and near-realtime PC to process it.
I've had good luck using GigEVision under Linux. There's a bunch of vendors out there that have Linux drivers for their GigEVision cameras and the specialized acquisition hardware is just an ethernet card. You probably want something that goes at least 30 fps sustained (probably about 1-3k for a camera, depending on resolution and bells and whistles). That's plenty enough to be able to interpolate vehicle trajectories between frames to get down to millimeter accuracy, assuming your optics package gives you the resolution.
Webcams are probably a no-go because you'll want higher resolution in order to be able to observe and recognize the codes over a wide finishline area, and USB 2.0 is limited in the amount of bandwidth you can get.
Best advice so far. As an addendum, if you don't know how to code now, learn early (as in freshman year). That way, you can come to a professor early (end of freshman year, sophomore year) and be in a position where you can contribute to the analysis side of things as well as implementation. That's what gets names on publications, which are great to put on a resume, both for employment as well as grad school.
I'm a control systems realtime software and hardware engineer. I work 60 hours a week because the few people who know how to do what I do are gainfully employed elsewhere doing something similar. It strikes me how a large number of the 99 percenters are in a financial pinch because they majored in English or History or something else that, no matter what the Glorious Socialist Revolution may try to do, won't cut my working hours.
Here's the deal: History, Art, Literature, etc are fine courses of study, but let's not forget that they were invented for, by, and are largely about, the monied classes who can afford to substitute adult kindergarten for education. Somehow or other, the Correlation Equals Causation fallacy seems to have led quite a few members of my generation to believe that studying this nonsense makes you rich, not that being rich allows you to the luxury to study such things.
Incidentally, if more people studied real stuff, perhaps more would have picked up enough math to be able to call bullshit on the Democrats for trying to spend nonexistent money and bullshit on the Republicans for allowing the Democrats to spend nonexistent money, instead of being all bent out of shape about the government not printing enough money.
Same here. Check with your funding body (if any).
I can lock my paper copy in my safe or stash it in pumpkin patch and come back many years later to read it with more confidence that it is unaltered than if I md5/SHA/whatever a digital file, store it in the cloud, and store the checksum/signature/whatever in a digital form either elsewhere in the cloud or on a usb stick or optical disc with an unknown shelf life and an unknown period of continued compatibility with deployed hardware/software.
In-stall washbasin. Patent pending.
Mozilla, Gnome, KDE, X11. Jeez. Did all the open-source nerds with actual engineering experience all retire from everywhere at once, leaving the "ooh shiny" crowd in charge?
Risky = untested, unknown.
If this method had a track record of success in some terrestrial application, then it would be new for a Mars mission, but would be perceived as less risky, because there would be less new science/design that would be required for it. Given that a rocket-powered skycrane has never been used over an extended period (at all?) in any terrestrial application, and that computer-controlled flying cranes are relatively new (anyone know of any deployed autonomous helicopter cranes?), it's fairly high risk because it's untested.
That said, I can't think of a better way to land something heavy on Mars either, not without loading the rover down with extra weight.
What about the kernel?
There's also the issue of having enough radiation shielding in there so that non-environmentalists' brains don't explode either. I'd hate to pick up the habit of wearing a radiation badge just to go out for a sunday drive, and knowing how much stuff weighs, I'd be fairly surprised if the entire closed cycle system, with shielding, with heat exchangers, with everything will be light enough to make sense in anything smaller than a semi truck.
X is mature code and it works. It makes sense to replace it only if you replace it with something *better*, which is different from *shinier*. Dropping pretty basic features like network transparency because it doesn't make sense on tablets, or for n00bs, or etc is bad engineering, bad philosophy, and bad karma.
You should not condition the capabilities of a system on the capabilities of its least experienced users.
Right wing policies my foot. Welfare, unioned up schools, and lax law enforcement are not rightwing policies.
Sure. Let's get hung up on semantics. That's not a distraction at all. In fact, using different words will even change the facts on the ground!
How about: it's easier to enforce a blanket ban than it is to nondeterministically guess which group of kids out late are up to no good and which ones aren't.
That's only true in a place that gets lots and lots and lots of snow every winter. Boston, Upstate NY, and generally that swath of the country. Go a little further south, like NYC, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and suddenly the winters are cold enough that heating costs are an issue, but the climate is either too dry or to warm or too whatever for it snow and deposit a permanent white coat on your roof.
That's the red flag that pops up in my head every time someone tells me the Chinese are going to own the world tomorrow. Culturally, they're about 100+ years behind us. We outlawed putting crap in food in 1906. In 2006, they were putting melamine in their baby food, and the official solution was to execute one designated scapegoat. That's just not on the same level of civilization as we are.
China's not centrally planned. That's how they got rich. In some (by no means many) ways, the Chinese *economy* is more free than ours. The problem China will have will happen because people who are rich, and whose parents and grandparents were rich won't be so quick to swallow the party line as people whose parents or grandparents didn't have indoor plumbing.
Don't nobody go counting nothing. The last time this was thought to happen was in the 17th century, when no one was recording calibrated data planet-wide. So the answer is, no one knows whether greenhouses gases trump solar variability or vice versa. The mature and level-headed thing to do is wait 70 years for this thing to be over and for the data to be analyzed and then you can legislate what car I can drive and what kind of light bulbs I can use if the facts come down on your side.
Developers have seen this -- as the economy is slowly improving, instead of more devs getting hired, Tata gets more business since they can do blocks of code for pennies on the dollar compared to hiring domestically.
My mother told me a story about her company trying to outsource a software project. Apparently in the dialect of English spoken in the part of India they tried to outsource to, "should" is not an imperative word the way it is here. So when the req's said that Screen N *should* contain information X, it was seen as more of a suggestion than a deliverable.
Moral of this story? The guys who avoid the major-of-the-month fiasco and go law are raking in the salaries while people who do a major thinking there will be a bubble once out are serving the lawyers their cup of morning coffee.
Absolutely. Until the next IT bubble spits out a Watson style auto-Lawyer that costs $2500 and runs on your desktop instead of $25 million and four racks of servers :)