I was thinking of that Simpsons episode myself, where Lisa did the tests to see if a hamster was more intelligent than Bart by wiring a electrical charge to a cupcake.
Whenever someone at work made the same mistake twice, we'd always trundle out the Simpsons quote (is there nothing that the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for?)
They don't HAVE to be military applications for this kind of tech. Besides, it's currently only visible spectrum, so radar, infrared, etc., would defeat it.
I see this as also being useful for scientists wanting to study creatures such as gorillas in their natural habitat too, if they get downwind. Assuming there is any habitat left, of course...
No town septic, no town drainage. Grey water goes into a grey water tank which we use on the garden, and waste from the toilet goes into a septic system on site that after the main system has underground trenches where the (now somewhat treated) water soaks into the ground. Clean, green and smell-free.:)
We live on acreage, and don't have town water, drainage or septic. So our grey water goes on to the garden, and our septic system nicely greens things up, even though over here we're in the middle of (hopefully the end of) a drought.
However, the problem with human waste is that it can't be used for vegies because we've got a few too many nasties in it.
Warning: Do not listen for incoming jetpack pilot with remaining good ear.
Seriously though, I have thought about how you'd do this several times over the years, and you always ran into the problem of enough thrust in a small enough package to be truly portable. I don't think he's there yet, but it is a step in the right direction. I don't think a jet is necessarily the right approach, his internal combustion is still fine. Maybe an electric might work, if you can factor in the (not insignificant) weight of the batteries. Can't be that much heavier than a bigarse motor with fuel cells.
The chances of them all being on the same orbit as satellites, etc, is so remote when it comes to the possibility of things colliding with one other it's not really worth considering.
Also, most if not all of the things being shot up into space aren't going to stay in a stable orbit, and will likely burn up on re-entry so they should be "self-disposing".
Assuming that you build railroads or senders in the road to every single place you want to take your vehicle, of course. Might work fine in large centres such as capital cities, but I would imagine that it would take a while for it to filter to the more rural areas. Whereas visual/laser/sonar/radar sensors can just work within whatever environment it's in without the need to place additional cues. The technology is well on its way for achieving this, but as ever, scalability is a problem that needs to be overcome outside of a lab.
The AI is not so powerful. Most animals can navigate in traffic of their own kind, even insects. But no, it's no tiny project -- but it's a tractable large project.
Two problems with a lot of robot navigation systems that use visual processing are handling the differences in light at different times of the day, and handling a dynamic environment.
The environment can look very different even just comparing morning and evening, not touching night or times of the year. This makes following a path that you learned under one set of conditions look like it's a different path in another set of conditions. It's not a problem in indoor environments that have controlled lighting, but in a "real" scenario, it's not a toy problem.
I saw in the comments to the original article (see, I *did* RTFA) that many of the defendants found out about the suit from the article website! All are completely bewildered by it all.
Heck we could do that now for the most part with kind of a reverse carpel tunnel surgery. You would lose the use of your hand though.
I spend a lot of time in front of the computer, but it's not ALL I spend time on. I think I'd rather keep the use of both hands.
The mouse is going to take some beating as a cheap, comfortable pointing device. I've tried track pads, track balls, the little button mice on Toshiba laptops, but I've never been as comfortable as I am with a mouse. Plus I don't lose the use of one hand when I'm NOT on the computer:)
This is good stuff. It's the early adopters that push the technology along, making it accessible for the rest of us (one day). I would LOVE an electric car, if the problems of range, battery life and recharging time can be (are?) solved practically. As the price of fuel continues to rise, these sorts of technologies start to become more cost effective.
I've never opened my eyes real wide, stared you down, dilated my pupils, and raised my fist in front of you before. But, if I did (I probably wouldn't - Despite looking a little intimidating, I'm a pretty laid back guy), you could probably interpret my message.
Ahh, but you'd be doing the SAME thing or a close variation of it, that would always be interpreted the same way. It's not a generalisation. We'd also have a shared context.
Try now to extend that to talking about being pissed off about something else, perhaps something abstract we can't see. It would wind up as charades.
No worries man, if we were having this conversation in a bar I'd buy you a drink right now
See, I can't even SEE a bar, but I know what you mean and I'd still take that drink;) My point from above isn't necessarily about trying to convey abstract ideas, but rather extending one concept to discuss another related concept. Anyway, I can't remember enough of the literature to answer any more coherently.
One of the biggest differences (that we're aware of) is signalling vs generative language. Human language builds on itself to expand itself in ways that we can understand new words based on their parts. For example, if I say the word "bullshitism" you kind of know what I'm talking about, even though I might have just made up the word now. We don't need to agree up front on this new word. The language is therefore generalisable.
Animal language is made up of signals, that is, a set of sounds that each have a meaning. The language can't expand past the number of possible signals * permutations.
Of course maybe animals DO have a complex grammar and generative language, but observation doesn't seem to bear this out.
(Note I read most of this in a postgrad research project years ago and can't remember half of it anymore).
Slashdot Mirror
I could of died when I saw that.
That should be "I could have died when I saw that." ;)
I still have the Hard Drive, it still weighs more than me.
Yeah, all that data you could get on them old drives made 'em REAL heavy! :)
Well there you go - there's the two things I've never tried to apply a Simpsons quote to. Go figure.
I was thinking of that Simpsons episode myself, where Lisa did the tests to see if a hamster was more intelligent than Bart by wiring a electrical charge to a cupcake.
Whenever someone at work made the same mistake twice, we'd always trundle out the Simpsons quote (is there nothing that the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for?)
They don't HAVE to be military applications for this kind of tech. Besides, it's currently only visible spectrum, so radar, infrared, etc., would defeat it.
I see this as also being useful for scientists wanting to study creatures such as gorillas in their natural habitat too, if they get downwind. Assuming there is any habitat left, of course...
No town septic, no town drainage. Grey water goes into a grey water tank which we use on the garden, and waste from the toilet goes into a septic system on site that after the main system has underground trenches where the (now somewhat treated) water soaks into the ground. Clean, green and smell-free. :)
We live on acreage, and don't have town water, drainage or septic. So our grey water goes on to the garden, and our septic system nicely greens things up, even though over here we're in the middle of (hopefully the end of) a drought.
However, the problem with human waste is that it can't be used for vegies because we've got a few too many nasties in it.
Not to mention, have you seen the waste products? I wouldn't call 'em "environmentally friendly"!
I have a toddler, trust me on this. ;)
Warning: Do not listen for incoming jetpack pilot with remaining good ear.
Seriously though, I have thought about how you'd do this several times over the years, and you always ran into the problem of enough thrust in a small enough package to be truly portable. I don't think he's there yet, but it is a step in the right direction. I don't think a jet is necessarily the right approach, his internal combustion is still fine. Maybe an electric might work, if you can factor in the (not insignificant) weight of the batteries. Can't be that much heavier than a bigarse motor with fuel cells.
Please let one of the options be to send Ben Affleck into space. He has experience.
And even more importantly, make sure he stays there!
Also, most if not all of the things being shot up into space aren't going to stay in a stable orbit, and will likely burn up on re-entry so they should be "self-disposing".
Assuming that you build railroads or senders in the road to every single place you want to take your vehicle, of course. Might work fine in large centres such as capital cities, but I would imagine that it would take a while for it to filter to the more rural areas. Whereas visual/laser/sonar/radar sensors can just work within whatever environment it's in without the need to place additional cues. The technology is well on its way for achieving this, but as ever, scalability is a problem that needs to be overcome outside of a lab.
The AI is not so powerful. Most animals can navigate in traffic of their own kind, even insects. But no, it's no tiny project -- but it's a tractable large project.
Two problems with a lot of robot navigation systems that use visual processing are handling the differences in light at different times of the day, and handling a dynamic environment.
The environment can look very different even just comparing morning and evening, not touching night or times of the year. This makes following a path that you learned under one set of conditions look like it's a different path in another set of conditions. It's not a problem in indoor environments that have controlled lighting, but in a "real" scenario, it's not a toy problem.
The one that's easier to find.
Umm...
When I saw this article on Wired yesterday, what was the banner ad? Yep, for a mobile phone.
You got something against robosexuals?
I saw in the comments to the original article (see, I *did* RTFA) that many of the defendants found out about the suit from the article website! All are completely bewildered by it all.
Heck we could do that now for the most part with kind of a reverse carpel tunnel surgery. You would lose the use of your hand though.
I spend a lot of time in front of the computer, but it's not ALL I spend time on. I think I'd rather keep the use of both hands. The mouse is going to take some beating as a cheap, comfortable pointing device. I've tried track pads, track balls, the little button mice on Toshiba laptops, but I've never been as comfortable as I am with a mouse. Plus I don't lose the use of one hand when I'm NOT on the computer :)
Windows Vista
But his computer isn't "Windows Vista ready", you insensitive clod!
Anyway, back on topic.
This is good stuff. It's the early adopters that push the technology along, making it accessible for the rest of us (one day). I would LOVE an electric car, if the problems of range, battery life and recharging time can be (are?) solved practically. As the price of fuel continues to rise, these sorts of technologies start to become more cost effective.
I've never opened my eyes real wide, stared you down, dilated my pupils, and raised my fist in front of you before. But, if I did (I probably wouldn't - Despite looking a little intimidating, I'm a pretty laid back guy), you could probably interpret my message.
Ahh, but you'd be doing the SAME thing or a close variation of it, that would always be interpreted the same way. It's not a generalisation. We'd also have a shared context. Try now to extend that to talking about being pissed off about something else, perhaps something abstract we can't see. It would wind up as charades.
No worries man, if we were having this conversation in a bar I'd buy you a drink right now
See, I can't even SEE a bar, but I know what you mean and I'd still take that drink ;) My point from above isn't necessarily about trying to convey abstract ideas, but rather extending one concept to discuss another related concept. Anyway, I can't remember enough of the literature to answer any more coherently.
One of the biggest differences (that we're aware of) is signalling vs generative language. Human language builds on itself to expand itself in ways that we can understand new words based on their parts. For example, if I say the word "bullshitism" you kind of know what I'm talking about, even though I might have just made up the word now. We don't need to agree up front on this new word. The language is therefore generalisable.
Animal language is made up of signals, that is, a set of sounds that each have a meaning. The language can't expand past the number of possible signals * permutations.
Of course maybe animals DO have a complex grammar and generative language, but observation doesn't seem to bear this out.
(Note I read most of this in a postgrad research project years ago and can't remember half of it anymore).
Troll.
Dr DeBakey deserves a far better send off than the racist ramblings of a coward like you. May he be happy wherever he wound up from here.