"What we expect to do within the next 10 years is to not only deploy one AI-based rover, but a collection of rovers using the AI-based IDEA architecture, which cooperatively perform tasks orders of magnitude more complex than the MER rover, and do it in a much more robust way," Rajan predicted.
Using surveying instruments, teams of robots may well be able to map large tracts of the surface of Mars, according to Rajan, who said there are many reasons to use a large robot team.
"One reason is better coverage of a large area of land. Another reason is redundancy; if one or more of the robots fails, you still can accomplish the mission. Also, a team could do complex tasks that a single rover could not do. Better science results from a team effort, whether it is by robots, humans or even a robot-human team," Rajan said.
Robotic spacecraft may also fly in 'swarms,' or teams, to make scientific observations of planets, moons and other celestial objects, according to Rajan.
They've been talking about it. But it seems that their plan is to have the teams of robots will be helping each other make more accurate and precise measurements. I don't know if they are expecting to be able to repair each other. After all, that would require including repair hardware in every member of the team. (Unless you send specialized "repair-bots" whose only function is to repair the other members of the team, but then what happens if the repair-bot fails? If your plan was contingent on having the ability to repair on the fly, then you don't want to lose that ability. It's almost better to plan not to have that ability.)
But the idea of sending a dozen or so specialized robots, maybe 2 or 3 of each type, is interesting. Specialization would allow for much greater exploratory ability. mwood, I think you should play for NASA.
Tambe explained that AI research inspires the next generation of computer scientists because when they hear about NASA AI work, "their eyes light up, and then they understand what this research could mean for the future."
As a member of that next generation, I can only say: You're god damn right it does.
Yes, those neutrons are blocked by the shield. And yes, they turn into deuterium and tritium. But wait! Deuterium and tritium are used as the fuel for the reaction. So that "waste" you're talking about as dangerous can be reused. In the reactor itself.
A fusion reactor cannot blow up. It's simply physically impossible. The isotopes that are output by the neutrons slamming into the shield can then be used to fuel the reactor. Compared to any other source of power, fusion is cleaner, safer, more efficient, and more stable.
People just have to be shown that fusion power is fundamentally different from fission. Fission power is basically a controlled nuclear explosion. You have to slow down the reaction to the point where it doesn't explode, and then you can extract the energy at the rate you wanted. If you screw up, it explodes. Fusion does not use the same mechanism. Plasma is heated up in a magnetic containment field until high energy particles exit their atoms and energy is extracted. It leaves negligible waste. And the reaction cannot sustain itself. It's not the same as a fusion bomb but slowed down. If you screw up, you just have to start the reaction over again. There is no danger to the surrounding area.
Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when people in the media stop showing a picture of a nuclear bomb exploding when the talk about a nuclear power plant. Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when people start talking about fact instead of spreading FUD without actually knowing what fusion power is. Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when someone manages to build one somewhere and the city it powers suddenly has no more blackouts, no brownouts, pollution goes down, and their bills are lower. If you point out to the American people that something is good, cheap, and generally kicks a lot of ass (which resonates with the populace), they'll accept it. If you keep reminding them that there's a nuclear hysteria in this nation and they should all oppose fusion power and technological advancement because they're supposed to... well, sir, that's a self fulfilling prophecy.
I don't know if anyone has ever pointed this out to you, but that "social hurdle" is one that shouldn't even be there. People have to realize that it is completely impossible for a fusion power plant to blow up in a runaway reaction. If the containment field goes down (if it didn't, there can't be an explosion), then the reaction ends. It cannot be sustained without the containment field. There is no such thing as a runaway fusion reaction.
And it should also be mentioned that proper plant construction (which would be necessary to ensure that the employees of the plant are not killed) can block all those high energy neutrons. No pollution. Whereas the current crop, the best power plant retrofitted with all the most expensive pollution control devices simply cannot block everything that gets into the atmosphere. So make your public choose between absolutely zero pollution with a radiation shield around the reactor core, and everyone in the country dying a slow death while the environment is destroyed at an ever-increasing rate. I think you'll notice that the social hurdles will all disappear with the administration of a few facts.
Well, seeing as how I'm not in charge of any "energy" (oil) companies, it is not my responsibility to make the decision. But I can point out that in the last year Exxon Mobil's profits increased by 39-40% due to decreasing gas prices. "Decreasing gas prices?" I hear you asking. Well, they're not decreasing in price at the pump, just at the barrel. These companies are now paying what they used to pay for oil, a couple of years ago, but those decreased prices have not led to consumer gas prices returning to normal levels....
Let me reiterate. Their profits went up 40% in a year. They're making a killing.
You're just making wild assumptions that contradict the news stories and the interviews from the maker of the VT cluster and Apple. VT bought the systems from the Apple Store, and didn't get a discount.
And the Army purchased the entire initial shipment of the newest XServes. No large clusters since then? Ha!
THERE ARE NO ELECTIONS! There is no better leader than CMDRTACO! You heathens who question his divine right shall be burned! ELECTIONS ARE FOR ATHEISTS AND INFIDELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's the story if somebody announces their brand new computer, completely free of any connection between components? In fact, I would like to announce my newest invention...
Why, because I carefully compared features and prices and decided not to go with the Apple?
HA! No, because in your post you said "Dell's screen is better... Apple is the SUCK!" That's a troll. We can't all see your thoughts unless you type them down; a reader would have had no way to know you considered anything but the screen, and for all intents and purposes you made it out to be a completely uninformed decision. Try reading your post, man. (And don't be like the typical Slashdot ass: not everyone who talks is an Apple zealot, ready to accuse you if you actually have something to say.)
First of all, resolution is not the only measure of graphics capability. Secondly, if that's your only criterion for a laptop, I'm sorry. When people compare computers, they usually consider the whole package. Not just the price and the screen. You're buying more than a monitor, when you purchase a notebook. Troll.
Timesplitters for PS2 is an example of a game that was developed on (and ran) Linux. I'm not sure if there were others, but there may have been if there was one.
This is simply not true. NASA has harmed space development more than they've helped it? How can you possibly back that up? How would America have gotten to the Moon, if it weren't for NASA? Kennedy could not have said "Okay, you large corporations... get to space now." They simply wouldn't have gone, and the moon would be flying a hammer and sickle right now. They invested in programs that had awful returns for their money? Who cares! That's the great benefit of NASA over any possible private venture. The returns they get are not strictly monetary and do not come back to them. Things like tang, titanium, improved tires, etc, benefit everyone.
Sure, if corporations had been in charge, there would have been no mistakes in space. At all. Right... the only way that's possible is if nothing had ever happened in space (which is the most likely option, if there had been no NASA). If companies had been trying to do this, there would have been a lot more than 2 downed spacecraft.
In my (honest, and actually informed) opinion, if you love space, you should hate every ignoramus who comes out of the woodwork spouting uninformed foolishness about NASA and the space program. NASA has its problems, but that just means those problems should be fixed. Their presence just keeps us able to advance, scientifically, which no cash-conscious company can replace.
You're right. The world doesn't need visionaries in the government... it needs weak-willed men who care more for staying in office than for actually doing anything while they're there.
The world would be a much better place if Roosevelt hadn't had the vision to pull America out of the Depression, just because it was expensive. The world would be a much better place if Kennedy had, rather than saying "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," said "I know how useless it is to do things, so here's a $100 tax break. Obviously this will help America defeat Communism and spread its power into space, because the government is wasteful."
The government needs people with bold visions. Otherwise it's useless.
What, so people vote on the "Truth" of a website? In a time of war? Take the present time of war, for example: Michael Moore's website would get half of its votes as "Truthful" and the other half as "Rotten Liar." Same for any page where Bush's words are published. When you have people voting for it, it's just an informal poll of what people agree with. Not a measure of truth.
If her #1 use for a computer was AIM, why are you opposed to her getting an iMac? It's not expensive... sure, you can get a PC capable of instant messaging for bargain basement prices, but if you did her #1 use would not have been AIM, it would have been deleting spyware and wondering why her computer is half the speed it was when she got it a month ago. Getting the iMac let her just do what she wanted to do.
There is a positive light though, if a movie costs $50 Million, you pay a mere $10 dollars to see it, that really is amazing to think that someone shelled out that kind of cash just to entertain you/us.
Shelled out that kind of cash? Are you serious? Say people pay $10 to see a movie that costs $50 million. They would need 5 million people across the entire country to see the movie to break even. That's 2% of the US population. A successful movie only needs to attract 2% of its possible audience over the course of several weeks in order to make money. That means it does not have to be particularly good.
"But where did all that money come from?" I hear you asking. "The big Hollywood execs, who are so cool, had to put forth all of that money from their own coffers!" No, they didn't. Put together a couple bad movies that attract over 2% of the audience, and you have enough money to fund more movies in cash. Do this for 50 years, and you don't even have to worry about it. Notice that movies have been getting more and more expensive as time goes on: they have the warchest to afford it. A Hollywood movie is barely even a risk anymore. You really have to do something impressive in order to produce a failure. Like Gigli. Or Eddie Murphy's film, from a couple of years back... The Adventures of Pluto Nash, or something, which cost $94 million and grossed $6 million. Those don't come around often, but they aren't the only worthless movies.
I can't believe how often I have to say this, but Slashdot hasn't been very liberal for quite a long time. Note that every other comment is by someone who calls himself either libertarian or Republican, and more conservative comments get modded up than liberal.
And saying "Well, it makes sense that the Republicans would buy Windows & IIS, because they support big business" is *NOT* the same thing as saying "The Democrats are so much better and anti-big-business because the Republicans bought Microsoft products."
If anyone has to take their blinders off, it is every Slashdot conservative who thinks they are all alone on Slashdot. There are a lot of you. You are probably not even outnumbered. Relax, and stop talking about blinders.
Slashdot Mirror
Genius is trying something that's been done before in a way that's never been done before. And making it work.
"What we expect to do within the next 10 years is to not only deploy one AI-based rover, but a collection of rovers using the AI-based IDEA architecture, which cooperatively perform tasks orders of magnitude more complex than the MER rover, and do it in a much more robust way," Rajan predicted. Using surveying instruments, teams of robots may well be able to map large tracts of the surface of Mars, according to Rajan, who said there are many reasons to use a large robot team. "One reason is better coverage of a large area of land. Another reason is redundancy; if one or more of the robots fails, you still can accomplish the mission. Also, a team could do complex tasks that a single rover could not do. Better science results from a team effort, whether it is by robots, humans or even a robot-human team," Rajan said. Robotic spacecraft may also fly in 'swarms,' or teams, to make scientific observations of planets, moons and other celestial objects, according to Rajan.
They've been talking about it. But it seems that their plan is to have the teams of robots will be helping each other make more accurate and precise measurements. I don't know if they are expecting to be able to repair each other. After all, that would require including repair hardware in every member of the team. (Unless you send specialized "repair-bots" whose only function is to repair the other members of the team, but then what happens if the repair-bot fails? If your plan was contingent on having the ability to repair on the fly, then you don't want to lose that ability. It's almost better to plan not to have that ability.)
But the idea of sending a dozen or so specialized robots, maybe 2 or 3 of each type, is interesting. Specialization would allow for much greater exploratory ability. mwood, I think you should play for NASA.
Tambe explained that AI research inspires the next generation of computer scientists because when they hear about NASA AI work, "their eyes light up, and then they understand what this research could mean for the future."
As a member of that next generation, I can only say: You're god damn right it does.
Yes, those neutrons are blocked by the shield. And yes, they turn into deuterium and tritium. But wait! Deuterium and tritium are used as the fuel for the reaction. So that "waste" you're talking about as dangerous can be reused. In the reactor itself.
... well, sir, that's a self fulfilling prophecy.
A fusion reactor cannot blow up. It's simply physically impossible. The isotopes that are output by the neutrons slamming into the shield can then be used to fuel the reactor. Compared to any other source of power, fusion is cleaner, safer, more efficient, and more stable.
People just have to be shown that fusion power is fundamentally different from fission. Fission power is basically a controlled nuclear explosion. You have to slow down the reaction to the point where it doesn't explode, and then you can extract the energy at the rate you wanted. If you screw up, it explodes. Fusion does not use the same mechanism. Plasma is heated up in a magnetic containment field until high energy particles exit their atoms and energy is extracted. It leaves negligible waste. And the reaction cannot sustain itself. It's not the same as a fusion bomb but slowed down. If you screw up, you just have to start the reaction over again. There is no danger to the surrounding area.
Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when people in the media stop showing a picture of a nuclear bomb exploding when the talk about a nuclear power plant. Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when people start talking about fact instead of spreading FUD without actually knowing what fusion power is. Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when someone manages to build one somewhere and the city it powers suddenly has no more blackouts, no brownouts, pollution goes down, and their bills are lower. If you point out to the American people that something is good, cheap, and generally kicks a lot of ass (which resonates with the populace), they'll accept it. If you keep reminding them that there's a nuclear hysteria in this nation and they should all oppose fusion power and technological advancement because they're supposed to
I don't know if anyone has ever pointed this out to you, but that "social hurdle" is one that shouldn't even be there. People have to realize that it is completely impossible for a fusion power plant to blow up in a runaway reaction. If the containment field goes down (if it didn't, there can't be an explosion), then the reaction ends. It cannot be sustained without the containment field. There is no such thing as a runaway fusion reaction.
And it should also be mentioned that proper plant construction (which would be necessary to ensure that the employees of the plant are not killed) can block all those high energy neutrons. No pollution. Whereas the current crop, the best power plant retrofitted with all the most expensive pollution control devices simply cannot block everything that gets into the atmosphere. So make your public choose between absolutely zero pollution with a radiation shield around the reactor core, and everyone in the country dying a slow death while the environment is destroyed at an ever-increasing rate. I think you'll notice that the social hurdles will all disappear with the administration of a few facts.
Well, seeing as how I'm not in charge of any "energy" (oil) companies, it is not my responsibility to make the decision. But I can point out that in the last year Exxon Mobil's profits increased by 39-40% due to decreasing gas prices. "Decreasing gas prices?" I hear you asking. Well, they're not decreasing in price at the pump, just at the barrel. These companies are now paying what they used to pay for oil, a couple of years ago, but those decreased prices have not led to consumer gas prices returning to normal levels. ...
Let me reiterate. Their profits went up 40% in a year. They're making a killing.
No. It's "costs us less to make the same amount of revenue." They're making a killing.
Your post has the wrong title. It should have been called "Funny".
You're just making wild assumptions that contradict the news stories and the interviews from the maker of the VT cluster and Apple. VT bought the systems from the Apple Store, and didn't get a discount.
And the Army purchased the entire initial shipment of the newest XServes. No large clusters since then? Ha!
THERE ARE NO ELECTIONS! There is no better leader than CMDRTACO! You heathens who question his divine right shall be burned! ELECTIONS ARE FOR ATHEISTS AND INFIDELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait, you didn't assume that was the whole point?
...
What's the story if somebody announces their brand new computer, completely free of any connection between components? In fact, I would like to announce my newest invention
A Beowulf cluster of Brand New (TM) Ultra Cool Pin-Free Computers.
Why, because I carefully compared features and prices and decided not to go with the Apple?
... Apple is the SUCK!" That's a troll. We can't all see your thoughts unless you type them down; a reader would have had no way to know you considered anything but the screen, and for all intents and purposes you made it out to be a completely uninformed decision. Try reading your post, man. (And don't be like the typical Slashdot ass: not everyone who talks is an Apple zealot, ready to accuse you if you actually have something to say.)
HA! No, because in your post you said "Dell's screen is better
First of all, resolution is not the only measure of graphics capability. Secondly, if that's your only criterion for a laptop, I'm sorry. When people compare computers, they usually consider the whole package. Not just the price and the screen. You're buying more than a monitor, when you purchase a notebook. Troll.
Start working on your Bush and Ashcroft one-liners, since they have absolutely nothing to do with this and that's never stopped you before.
Hmm. Nobody's mentioned it but you, actually. But thanks for the assumption.
Otherwise, lighten up. Cancer jokes are funny
Thus ensuring that you will never be elected president. That's a sound byte that wouldn't go over well. *grin*
Don't you know that evil will always triumph over good?
It's because good is dumb.
Timesplitters for PS2 is an example of a game that was developed on (and ran) Linux. I'm not sure if there were others, but there may have been if there was one.
This is simply not true. NASA has harmed space development more than they've helped it? How can you possibly back that up? How would America have gotten to the Moon, if it weren't for NASA? Kennedy could not have said "Okay, you large corporations ... get to space now." They simply wouldn't have gone, and the moon would be flying a hammer and sickle right now. They invested in programs that had awful returns for their money? Who cares! That's the great benefit of NASA over any possible private venture. The returns they get are not strictly monetary and do not come back to them. Things like tang, titanium, improved tires, etc, benefit everyone.
... the only way that's possible is if nothing had ever happened in space (which is the most likely option, if there had been no NASA). If companies had been trying to do this, there would have been a lot more than 2 downed spacecraft.
Sure, if corporations had been in charge, there would have been no mistakes in space. At all. Right
In my (honest, and actually informed) opinion, if you love space, you should hate every ignoramus who comes out of the woodwork spouting uninformed foolishness about NASA and the space program. NASA has its problems, but that just means those problems should be fixed. Their presence just keeps us able to advance, scientifically, which no cash-conscious company can replace.
You're right. The world doesn't need visionaries in the government ... it needs weak-willed men who care more for staying in office than for actually doing anything while they're there.
The world would be a much better place if Roosevelt hadn't had the vision to pull America out of the Depression, just because it was expensive. The world would be a much better place if Kennedy had, rather than saying "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," said "I know how useless it is to do things, so here's a $100 tax break. Obviously this will help America defeat Communism and spread its power into space, because the government is wasteful."
The government needs people with bold visions. Otherwise it's useless.
What, so people vote on the "Truth" of a website? In a time of war? Take the present time of war, for example: Michael Moore's website would get half of its votes as "Truthful" and the other half as "Rotten Liar." Same for any page where Bush's words are published. When you have people voting for it, it's just an informal poll of what people agree with. Not a measure of truth.
If her #1 use for a computer was AIM, why are you opposed to her getting an iMac? It's not expensive ... sure, you can get a PC capable of instant messaging for bargain basement prices, but if you did her #1 use would not have been AIM, it would have been deleting spyware and wondering why her computer is half the speed it was when she got it a month ago. Getting the iMac let her just do what she wanted to do.
There is a positive light though, if a movie costs $50 Million, you pay a mere $10 dollars to see it, that really is amazing to think that someone shelled out that kind of cash just to entertain you/us.
... The Adventures of Pluto Nash, or something, which cost $94 million and grossed $6 million. Those don't come around often, but they aren't the only worthless movies.
Shelled out that kind of cash? Are you serious? Say people pay $10 to see a movie that costs $50 million. They would need 5 million people across the entire country to see the movie to break even. That's 2% of the US population. A successful movie only needs to attract 2% of its possible audience over the course of several weeks in order to make money. That means it does not have to be particularly good.
"But where did all that money come from?" I hear you asking. "The big Hollywood execs, who are so cool, had to put forth all of that money from their own coffers!" No, they didn't. Put together a couple bad movies that attract over 2% of the audience, and you have enough money to fund more movies in cash. Do this for 50 years, and you don't even have to worry about it. Notice that movies have been getting more and more expensive as time goes on: they have the warchest to afford it. A Hollywood movie is barely even a risk anymore. You really have to do something impressive in order to produce a failure. Like Gigli. Or Eddie Murphy's film, from a couple of years back
Thus, 10% of everything is nothing. Extend recursively, and I think you will find:
5.7/10.0 is good? If you were in school, that'd be an F. Sounds to me like a stinker.
I can't believe how often I have to say this, but Slashdot hasn't been very liberal for quite a long time. Note that every other comment is by someone who calls himself either libertarian or Republican, and more conservative comments get modded up than liberal.
And saying "Well, it makes sense that the Republicans would buy Windows & IIS, because they support big business" is *NOT* the same thing as saying "The Democrats are so much better and anti-big-business because the Republicans bought Microsoft products."
If anyone has to take their blinders off, it is every Slashdot conservative who thinks they are all alone on Slashdot. There are a lot of you. You are probably not even outnumbered. Relax, and stop talking about blinders.