This seems like it could blow the Arduino out of the water, at least the higher-end ones (including the ones that are currently being developed). If you can get full C++ and some actual computing power (I mean as opposed to the no-OS MCUs), and a mature IDE that'll facilitate designing GUIs, it would definitely change a few things. The Beagle Board team will also have to start rethinking the current design, since its current cheap model is $90.
And yes, I know that the Arduino as a software platform (and the IDE) isn't going anywhere, and that's great, but their plans to design higher-end models will have a very difficult time competing with a $35, QT-programmable board.
Back then you could HEAR your computer working! The dial-up modems, the loud spinning HDs, CD-ROMs, Floppy Disks, and dot-matrix printers. You knew what your computer was going just by listening. Now it's all sterile. Software is downloaded onto solid-state hard-drives, in silent computers with low-rpm fans, if any. No wonder there are so many botnets -- you have no idea what your computer is doing anymore.
I sometimes wish I could turn the sound back ON. Sure, there was cyan and #C0C0C0 all over the place, but it FELT real.
Did you read through those threads? They were comprised primarily of trolling, troll-feeding, and bad jokes. A thread can have an immense amount of posts and still be completely boring and content-free.
I often wondered how he (Ive) felt about this "arrangement". Jobs kept getting the praise though it was known that Ive was the one behind the overall product design direction. He was in charge of hardware design, specifically, but that's exactly the part which the competition is trying hardest to copy.
The value of kWp/m^2 is a factor in the overall result. If someone managed to find an extremely cheap solution that takes up more space than usual, that's still useful in certain situations. Of course the opposite is also true -- if you find an expensive way to convert solar energy more efficiently (using a smaller footprint), there's a use for that too. Advancement in both cases is beneficial.
The natural counter-argument is the question: Should the government stop funding research simply because some of the funds will (likely) reach undeserving parties?
It's not black and white. If there's been a history of wasted resources related to this particular objective, then more strict regulation should be enacted (and the natural reply to this would be: regulation is both expensive and corruptible... I guess some middle-ground is necessary).
Wiktionary: disruptive - Adjective: Causing disrupt or unrest.
MW: Disrupt - verb: to break apart / to throw into disorder. Origin: Latin disruptus, past participle of disrumpere, from dis- + rumpere to break.
But people are lazy, so they drop the context. Rather than adding the "technology", which would change the meaning (through context), they just say "disrupt" in the same way that we might say "grep" or "ping" in a non-technical conversation. It's annoying but if you challenge anyone about it they'd (probably) say that you should have deduced the context through the subject matter.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Certainly, the glasses will be cheaper and easier to produce, but even if you create a surface like that which is only a single "slab", there will still be scenarios where there's just no room, and the glasses will be the only option.
Of course, it's possible that someday you could get the same effect with a pico-projector, but doing the 3D scanning *and* 3D projecting from a single point really is sci-fi, for now.
This is a shot in the dark, but: interacting meshes would involve specific collision detection between surfaces, which (when scanning an object in real time) could lead to locked models (the virtual object could "stick" to you, or other objects). A particle system allows them to define "particles repel each other" and get around that problem. Notice how (relatively) large the particles themselves are -- I'm guessing it can only deal with a limited amount of particles within the environment at the same time. (and yes, I realize that the size of the particles you see doesn't necessarily mean that this is what the program is doing, but the number of particles probably is)
There's no force-feedback yet. You can interact with object in the environment, but you can't feel them. So this is of no interest to Picard, or the porn industry, for now.
Or, as the conspiracy theorists have long claimed, are the virus writers and anti-virus writers merely different departments of the same company
For the life of me I can't find a direct reference right now, but this was proven to be true in the 90's. Some researchers found that code in an antivirus software was designed to look for patterns that only appeared months after its release (very specific patterns, not just behaviors). Maybe someone more versed in the field can point to the example, my Googling skills are failing me at the moment.
You could always (ok, in the past ~10 years) get a more sophisticated tool (that you personally could not have come up with) and customize it to "your needs". Actually, computer viruses are most often described as "derivatives", since there are only so many original ideas that are truly effective. Even the LIOC, which was designed for a benign purpose, is used as a weapon.
I agree about the intelligence agencies part, but you could always do a lot of damage as a script kiddie if you knew how to use the right tools.
Exactly. They implemented a mechanical metaphor in a graphical UI. Kind of like a button, or a scrolling list, or drag-and-drop. So all you need is one behavior, simple though it may be, to associate with a specific event to get a patent? Then I guess Amazon was right.
Oh, and how many times has the iPhone played catch-up to Android features? I hope the the lawsuits are on the way.
Do we really have to rehash the "legal != moral" argument again? There are *plenty* of immoral ways to make a living, legally. Most of them involve lawyers in one way or another, and all of them involve greed.
What Schmidt did was a legal form of corporate espionage. Using patents to hinder large companies or trample small companies is a legal form of sabotage.
I'm not saying that patents as a whole are wrong, but this example is certainly an immoral use of them.
See also this and that. I've seen those around for years.
To be even more reductive: wouldn't any sufficiently round rigid object achieve the same objective? Given a smooth enough surface, a drop of water can also pull this off (although the surface would also have to be hydrophobic).
Distilled, this is a dynamic mechanical object reacting to gravity (as opposed to a static object like a ball). It's very nice, and I'm sure this implementation wasn't easy to pull off, but it's nothing new.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems like it could blow the Arduino out of the water, at least the higher-end ones (including the ones that are currently being developed). If you can get full C++ and some actual computing power (I mean as opposed to the no-OS MCUs), and a mature IDE that'll facilitate designing GUIs, it would definitely change a few things. The Beagle Board team will also have to start rethinking the current design, since its current cheap model is $90.
And yes, I know that the Arduino as a software platform (and the IDE) isn't going anywhere, and that's great, but their plans to design higher-end models will have a very difficult time competing with a $35, QT-programmable board.
Back then you could HEAR your computer working! The dial-up modems, the loud spinning HDs, CD-ROMs, Floppy Disks, and dot-matrix printers. You knew what your computer was going just by listening.
Now it's all sterile. Software is downloaded onto solid-state hard-drives, in silent computers with low-rpm fans, if any. No wonder there are so many botnets -- you have no idea what your computer is doing anymore.
I sometimes wish I could turn the sound back ON. Sure, there was cyan and #C0C0C0 all over the place, but it FELT real.
Did you read through those threads? They were comprised primarily of trolling, troll-feeding, and bad jokes. A thread can have an immense amount of posts and still be completely boring and content-free.
Ok, surprise me. Compare Mac market share to Dell, HP, or Lenovo. You can get the figures of the PC companies here.
I often wondered how he (Ive) felt about this "arrangement". Jobs kept getting the praise though it was known that Ive was the one behind the overall product design direction. He was in charge of hardware design, specifically, but that's exactly the part which the competition is trying hardest to copy.
Exactly how is this a counter-argument to the statement that Jobs wasn't a designer?
The cake.
The value of kWp/m^2 is a factor in the overall result. If someone managed to find an extremely cheap solution that takes up more space than usual, that's still useful in certain situations. Of course the opposite is also true -- if you find an expensive way to convert solar energy more efficiently (using a smaller footprint), there's a use for that too. Advancement in both cases is beneficial.
The natural counter-argument is the question: Should the government stop funding research simply because some of the funds will (likely) reach undeserving parties?
It's not black and white. If there's been a history of wasted resources related to this particular objective, then more strict regulation should be enacted (and the natural reply to this would be: regulation is both expensive and corruptible... I guess some middle-ground is necessary).
Wiktionary: disruptive - Adjective: Causing disrupt or unrest.
MW: Disrupt - verb: to break apart / to throw into disorder. Origin: Latin disruptus, past participle of disrumpere, from dis- + rumpere to break.
Contrast with: "Disruptive technology"
But people are lazy, so they drop the context. Rather than adding the "technology", which would change the meaning (through context), they just say "disrupt" in the same way that we might say "grep" or "ping" in a non-technical conversation. It's annoying but if you challenge anyone about it they'd (probably) say that you should have deduced the context through the subject matter.
And yeah, it's totally an overused buzzword.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Certainly, the glasses will be cheaper and easier to produce, but even if you create a surface like that which is only a single "slab", there will still be scenarios where there's just no room, and the glasses will be the only option.
Of course, it's possible that someday you could get the same effect with a pico-projector, but doing the 3D scanning *and* 3D projecting from a single point really is sci-fi, for now.
You forgot clippy and "squirting".
Damn it, I posted too soon... Replace with "yo dawg"
yo dawg
This is a shot in the dark, but: interacting meshes would involve specific collision detection between surfaces, which (when scanning an object in real time) could lead to locked models (the virtual object could "stick" to you, or other objects). A particle system allows them to define "particles repel each other" and get around that problem. Notice how (relatively) large the particles themselves are -- I'm guessing it can only deal with a limited amount of particles within the environment at the same time.
(and yes, I realize that the size of the particles you see doesn't necessarily mean that this is what the program is doing, but the number of particles probably is)
There's no force-feedback yet. You can interact with object in the environment, but you can't feel them. So this is of no interest to Picard, or the porn industry, for now.
Aw crap.
Wait, "sw" could mean anything! Yeah, I'm going with that defense.
Or, as the conspiracy theorists have long claimed, are the virus writers and anti-virus writers merely different departments of the same company
For the life of me I can't find a direct reference right now, but this was proven to be true in the 90's. Some researchers found that code in an antivirus software was designed to look for patterns that only appeared months after its release (very specific patterns, not just behaviors). Maybe someone more versed in the field can point to the example, my Googling skills are failing me at the moment.
count - Duku: 1, Centrifuges: 0.
You mean Count Dooku? That guy whot fought Yoda?
You could always (ok, in the past ~10 years) get a more sophisticated tool (that you personally could not have come up with) and customize it to "your needs". Actually, computer viruses are most often described as "derivatives", since there are only so many original ideas that are truly effective. Even the LIOC, which was designed for a benign purpose, is used as a weapon.
I agree about the intelligence agencies part, but you could always do a lot of damage as a script kiddie if you knew how to use the right tools.
Patents can force products off shelves. For a large company, it's usually just a speed bump. But it can easily crush a small company.
Exactly. They implemented a mechanical metaphor in a graphical UI. Kind of like a button, or a scrolling list, or drag-and-drop. So all you need is one behavior, simple though it may be, to associate with a specific event to get a patent? Then I guess Amazon was right.
Oh, and how many times has the iPhone played catch-up to Android features? I hope the the lawsuits are on the way.
A video of Steve Jobs. Why, it must have been two and a half minutes since I last saw one.
Do we really have to rehash the "legal != moral" argument again? There are *plenty* of immoral ways to make a living, legally. Most of them involve lawyers in one way or another, and all of them involve greed.
What Schmidt did was a legal form of corporate espionage. Using patents to hinder large companies or trample small companies is a legal form of sabotage.
I'm not saying that patents as a whole are wrong, but this example is certainly an immoral use of them.
See also this and that. I've seen those around for years.
To be even more reductive: wouldn't any sufficiently round rigid object achieve the same objective? Given a smooth enough surface, a drop of water can also pull this off (although the surface would also have to be hydrophobic).
Distilled, this is a dynamic mechanical object reacting to gravity (as opposed to a static object like a ball). It's very nice, and I'm sure this implementation wasn't easy to pull off, but it's nothing new.