Another possible angle is it may only be able to set up for the jump if it's right-side-up, and we never see it flipping itself over, so if it found itself upside-down, it could be in trouble?
As with many jumping devices there is no top or bottom; the device is symmetrical top to bottom. If you look closely at the video you will see that the legs are attached between the wheels and chassis and are themselves symmetrical. They can move in either direction so it does not matter which side is up for the device to be able to jump.
Sire it would require camera lenses on both sides of the device but that don't weigh much..
Even if it may suit 25% of the market how much of that market would actually purchase one? Would that be enough to support the infrastructure needed by these vehicles?
congratulations on proving that you totally failed to understand this concept. or to type.
Take a look at this pictures. It looks to me like it is a single module desiged to swap a single engine with a single battery pack. That swapping structure is quite large and not viable for almost all drivers. That is much different than this video which is how a central station would work.
Renting a Gen-set would require one to go to the gen-sets are stored. will this take longer? Yes. Will this be inconvenient? Yes. Is it open? Will they have the module I need? Considering that there has been a company trying for years to build central battery swap locations the issues are not small.
To me the drawback of the extra energy requited to carry a very small gasoline engine around is much less thn the drawback of having to go to a central location every time one needs to travel far.
That is really funny. Where will the kWhrs of electricity required to chard the electric car's battery come from? The tow truck? Sure it can if you want to wait a couple of hours to get a big enough charge to go a few miles. Vehicle alternators to not put out that much power and inverters have a limit. For example, the one referred to has a 800W maximum. to get a 10% charge on an 15kWhr battery would take 1500/800 = 1.875 hours. Which would take you 15 miles if the total range was 150 miles.
Buying a Lear jet is not what most people do. A slightly different choice of car is very common. What I was trying to say is that swapping modules requires planning and sometimes plans fail.
There are a couple of issues with your solution; Battery capacity; For example the Mitsubishi i-MiEV have a 16kWhr battery. 32% of that would be 5.1kWhr. How can you pack that much power in a battery the size of a 12V? Charge time; Batteries are not fuel tanks you can't just dump energy into a battery instantaneously. The faster you try charging a battery the hotter the battery gets and the shorter the battery life. Dumping 5.1kWhw of energy into a batter pack takes a lot longer than 8 minutes..
Since we don't have the text of the Tweets and British law does not seem to differentiate between hate speech and "Fighting words", which are not protected in the US, we have no idea what was actually said. It may have been "fighting words" as defined in the US. There is a huge difference between "All homosexuals are going to hell" and "Send all homosexuals to hell".
The lack of take up probably has several reasons; 1. Different battery specifications for different vehicles. 2. The need to conform the battery to the dimensions of the vehicle. 3. The additional hardware required to make a large heavy battery swappable. 4. The reluctance of some people to give up their batter for an unknown battery.
We can not even get standard cell phone batteries let alone standard electric car batteries.
Then you are at work and a loved in a few towns over is taken to hospital in serious condition. You now have to drive home or to the swap station, swap modules and drive to the hospital.
Another more likely scenario is that you get to work and find that your daughter forgot to plug the car in last night after she used it and you didn't notice it battery level when you left home. Why was it plugged in when you went to work? Because your daughter remembered in the morning and plugged the car in trying to avoid the issue and hoping there was enough power left in the car.
When you replace the main batter pack the motive power comes from the gasoline engine in stead of a "ange-extended electric car (like the Chevrolet Volt) that carries around the engine when it's not needed you get a gasoline powered car that carries around electric motors and batteries that it does not need (there is a 5kW battery that is not removed when the module is swapped).
There are a few other issues with the concept. 1. Who has the space for the device that swaps the big battery fro the gasoline motor? 2. What do you do if you suddenly need toto drive a longer distance than planned? You would need to go all the way home, swap modules and start out again. That is not very convenient. 3. Central swap stations will never be accepted. Who in their right mine would want to give away their engine or batter pack to receive a different one when you have no idea of the age or maintenance of that pack? Even assurances of proper maintenance would not be enough to make me bite. To even approach my level of comfort, ever engine and batter module would have to be inspected and repaired before I would ever accept it. This would cost a large amount of money and require many spares and some would be out of service waiting for or in the process of repair. 4. Even if the swap station always gave me back my module then point 2 become even broader; Every time I want to drive a longer distance or plans are changed I would need to drive somewhere to pick up my engine. That is not convenient at all. It would be simpler to belong to a car share program.
The beauty of the Volt is that the gasoline engine is always there. It could be change of plans, emergencies, forgetfulness, etc that runs the batter down but there is always a backup. With the module swapping the backup is somewhere else.
But I really don't think you should be imprisoned just for being a racist.
It is not illegal to be a racist and that is not what he was jailed for. One can choose to not associate with people of other races and that is fine. It is illegal to use speech that incites racial hatred, a form of speech that is not even protected in the US. Freedom of speech is not absolute there are types of speech that are unprotected. Hate speech is one of those types of unprotected speech.
We also have no idea what was actually said. It could have been innocuous like "he is such a faker: It could have been much worse like "Let the n***** die. J***** b****** should be allowed on our pitches anyway". There is a line between trolling and hate speech and in the eyes of the law he crossed it and is being held accountable.
I see the difference... finally. Even though I posted "This is where the 36 Million faces/second comes in and is not done by the camera at all" I didn't change enough of the headline. Damn, I thought I was perfect.;) Oh well, better luck next time.
Someone has been watching way too many action movies. They are not reality. If someone is powerful enough to "eliminate anyone who threatens their power" they would not need facial recognition to do it; they have people for that.
The chances that cameras can help solve crimes is absolutely certain thousands of times over.
You seem to think that possible misuses override all other considerations. You can be the one to tell that to the families of every person killed even though their killer was wanted and walking boldly around on the street. Facial recognition could have stopped it but because of you their family member is dead.
It is all just numbers until you put up actual references ("Google it" is not a reference). If you want to refute something put up a real reference and you may change opinions. Otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your butt.
How does one suffer when someone else logs one's location? In fact it is a two edged sword; a suspect can be found near the place the crime was committed and possibly convicted. The suspect could just as well as being found far away and cleared.
The ten 10-1 ration are just numbers. It is possible that tracking people could solve hundreds of crimes, clear hundreds of people and be misused in very few cases.
I have np problem with the government tracking where I am. I have nothing to hide.
Please quote where is the Bill of Rights that the government can not retain the location you were when in public?
The ten 10-1 ration are just numbers. It is possible that tracking people could solve hundreds of crimes, clear hundreds of people and be misused in very few cases. Where does the line get drawn? 10-1, 50-1, 100-1,?? Just because a technology can be misused does not mean that a technology should not be used. If possible misuse was the criteria the police would never be given weapons because they could be used on innocent people. Proper safeguards and penalties for misuse of technology is what is needed.
Then warrants become more of a catch 22 than they were before; One needs evidence to get a warrant one needs a warrant to get evidence. One also does not know they need to track someone until they become a suspect. If there is no record of where they were then much evidence is lost.
Come on editors do your job. The headline is "Japanese CCTV Camera Can Scan 36 Million Faces/Second". That is not even close to what this system is doing. System does the following; 1. creates a thumbnail picture of the face. How long this takes is not noted. 2. Searches a database for matches. This is where the 36 Million faces/second comes in and is not done by the camera at all.
A better headline would have been "Japanese CCTV Camera Can Search Through 36 Million Faces/Second". That is a much less impressive feat than scanning as it is just a way of encoding a face for faster searches.
RTFA. It uses heat and shape memory alloy to create force. The way shape memory alloy works is that it has one shape when hot and another when cold. The robot has two ways to create this heat; electricity or catalytic action of a platinum catalyst. It is not even clear if the electricity is from a tether or batteries.
The issues with this technology are as follows; 1. Currently the only moving version runs on electricity to create the heat.
"A hydrogen-powered version works underwater, but has to be held with a clamp as it isn’t producing enough power to keep itself from sinking." 2. The fuel powered version uses hydrogen and oxygen externally supplied and can not even support it's own weight.
"Disappointingly, the authors mention that the Robojelly in the above video is still electrically powered, as the chemical system needs refinement for full power." 3. The hydrogen version has no steering capability.
"“We are now researching new ways to deliver the fuel into each segment so that each one can be controlled individually. This should allow the robot to be controlled and moved in different directions.” 4. The capability to "gather oxygen and hydrogen its surroundings" has not even been looked into. 5. The speed is extremely slow compared with ocean currents. It is little more than a drifter with some depth control. 6. It is extremely weak. It's payload capacity is almost zero. It is not all that useful when it can not carry sensors and communication gear.
Specifically, here are the hurdles this technology has to overcome to be viable: 1. Shape memory alloy; there is a physical limit to how fast shape memory alloy changes shape. It is not instantaneous. There is a limit to the size of the wire as the heat has to penetrate through the shape alloy wire for full change to occur and then that heat has to be dissipated to change shape back. 2. Catalytic heat delivery; How much heat can be delivered in such a cold environment. The system works against itself. It needs cold water to change the shape of the memory alloy wire but not so cold so that the heat generation is overcome. How big a wire can this catalyst power? 3. The system to "gather hydrogen and oxygen from its surroundings" has not even been looked into. It may never work as no research has been done on it. At this point is is just an idea. It's like designing a tethered robot and saying "with a fusion motor this robot could run indefinitely".
I love the final sentence from the abstract; "Fuel-powered bell deformation of 13.5% was found to be comparable to that of electrically powered (29%) and natural jellyfish (42%)." The fact that something is comparable does not mean that it compares well. The bell deformation of the fuel-powered version is 32% of that of jellyfish. Is the sufficient to do anything useful?
Yet another premature article about the beginnings of an interesting technology that has yet to overcome a number of huge hurdles. These articles downplay the hurdles to make themselves look more interesting. The researchers have done the easy part but the hard parts may be insurmountable. Considering that the hurdles are so large this technology may never be viable.
If Craig is completely incompetent then why is he working for the company. In most instances Craig would have some acceptable level of competence but not as much as Nate.
Why use Nate's valuable time to do things that Craig can do. In all projects there a easy tasks that just take time to do. For example, changing the text on a web page prompt. It may only take a few minutes to do but it is a distraction. Why not get Craig to do it while Nate concentrates on the hard stuff. Every team has varied skill levels. A good dev manager parcels out tasks based on that.
Perhaps in System X Craig could work on well speced page layout while Nate works on optimizing the database queries.
The issue in the mythical man month is that there is a tipping point where adding more people will slow down a project. For example, if a project would take one person a year to complete it would be quite possible for two people to do it in a little over 6 months. You have doubled the workforce and nearly halved the time. On the other hand if 100 people are working on a three month project one can not add another 100 people and get it done in a month and a half. The issue becomes worse the further into the project one gets. Somewhere between those two extremes is the tipping point. The mythical man month is about speeding a project to completion; it is not about dealing with overtime.
What the article was trying to point out is that if a dev department is continually assigning 50 hours/week of work to their employees productivity will spiral down. In many instances it is possible to add 20% to a dev team and not impact communications too much. In most projects the tasks can be parceled out to six people just as well as five with little or no issues. That is where a good dev manager comes in. It is true that two people can not work on a single task and get it done twice as fast but if there are ten tasks to be done two people can be given five each.
Another issue is that not all of a programmer's time deals with project completion. There are always bug fixes and "little web enhancements" that need to be done. If I had a nickle for every time I heard "it's just a report"... These small jobs are generally parceled out and may be the cause of the overtime. If another programmer was hired and was given all those "side" jobs it would have no impact on project communications, allow project programmers to concentrate on the project and allow everyone to work a 40 hour week avoiding burn out. Project productivity would go way up.
Slashdot Mirror
Another possible angle is it may only be able to set up for the jump if it's right-side-up, and we never see it flipping itself over, so if it found itself upside-down, it could be in trouble?
As with many jumping devices there is no top or bottom; the device is symmetrical top to bottom. If you look closely at the video you will see that the legs are attached between the wheels and chassis and are themselves symmetrical. They can move in either direction so it does not matter which side is up for the device to be able to jump.
Sire it would require camera lenses on both sides of the device but that don't weigh much..
I was not proposing a 20 mile extension cord but commenting on the difficulty of electric vehicles that run out of power away from outlets.
Even if it may suit 25% of the market how much of that market would actually purchase one? Would that be enough to support the infrastructure needed by these vehicles?
congratulations on proving that you totally failed to understand this concept. or to type.
Take a look at this pictures. It looks to me like it is a single module desiged to swap a single engine with a single battery pack. That swapping structure is quite large and not viable for almost all drivers. That is much different than this video which is how a central station would work.
Renting a Gen-set would require one to go to the gen-sets are stored. will this take longer? Yes. Will this be inconvenient? Yes. Is it open? Will they have the module I need? Considering that there has been a company trying for years to build central battery swap locations the issues are not small.
To me the drawback of the extra energy requited to carry a very small gasoline engine around is much less thn the drawback of having to go to a central location every time one needs to travel far.
That is really funny. Where will the kWhrs of electricity required to chard the electric car's battery come from? The tow truck? Sure it can if you want to wait a couple of hours to get a big enough charge to go a few miles. Vehicle alternators to not put out that much power and inverters have a limit. For example, the one referred to has a 800W maximum. to get a 10% charge on an 15kWhr battery would take 1500/800 = 1.875 hours. Which would take you 15 miles if the total range was 150 miles.
Buying a Lear jet is not what most people do. A slightly different choice of car is very common. What I was trying to say is that swapping modules requires planning and sometimes plans fail.
True but you can call for a can of gas. A 20 mile extension cord is much harder to come by.
There are a couple of issues with your solution;
Battery capacity; For example the Mitsubishi i-MiEV have a 16kWhr battery. 32% of that would be 5.1kWhr. How can you pack that much power in a battery the size of a 12V?
Charge time; Batteries are not fuel tanks you can't just dump energy into a battery instantaneously. The faster you try charging a battery the hotter the battery gets and the shorter the battery life. Dumping 5.1kWhw of energy into a batter pack takes a lot longer than 8 minutes..
Since we don't have the text of the Tweets and British law does not seem to differentiate between hate speech and "Fighting words", which are not protected in the US, we have no idea what was actually said. It may have been "fighting words" as defined in the US. There is a huge difference between "All homosexuals are going to hell" and "Send all homosexuals to hell".
So eve if the top speed is 80mph the average speed is 40. Yeah, I would really want to drive from SF to LA at 40mph.
Which is really going to help you 20 miles out of town when you are nowhere neal a power outlet.
The lack of take up probably has several reasons;
1. Different battery specifications for different vehicles.
2. The need to conform the battery to the dimensions of the vehicle.
3. The additional hardware required to make a large heavy battery swappable.
4. The reluctance of some people to give up their batter for an unknown battery.
We can not even get standard cell phone batteries let alone standard electric car batteries.
Then you are at work and a loved in a few towns over is taken to hospital in serious condition. You now have to drive home or to the swap station, swap modules and drive to the hospital.
Another more likely scenario is that you get to work and find that your daughter forgot to plug the car in last night after she used it and you didn't notice it battery level when you left home. Why was it plugged in when you went to work? Because your daughter remembered in the morning and plugged the car in trying to avoid the issue and hoping there was enough power left in the car.
The need for longer range is not always planned.
When you replace the main batter pack the motive power comes from the gasoline engine in stead of a "ange-extended electric car (like the Chevrolet Volt) that carries around the engine when it's not needed you get a gasoline powered car that carries around electric motors and batteries that it does not need (there is a 5kW battery that is not removed when the module is swapped).
There are a few other issues with the concept.
1. Who has the space for the device that swaps the big battery fro the gasoline motor?
2. What do you do if you suddenly need toto drive a longer distance than planned? You would need to go all the way home, swap modules and start out again. That is not very convenient.
3. Central swap stations will never be accepted. Who in their right mine would want to give away their engine or batter pack to receive a different one when you have no idea of the age or maintenance of that pack? Even assurances of proper maintenance would not be enough to make me bite. To even approach my level of comfort, ever engine and batter module would have to be inspected and repaired before I would ever accept it. This would cost a large amount of money and require many spares and some would be out of service waiting for or in the process of repair.
4. Even if the swap station always gave me back my module then point 2 become even broader; Every time I want to drive a longer distance or plans are changed I would need to drive somewhere to pick up my engine. That is not convenient at all. It would be simpler to belong to a car share program.
The beauty of the Volt is that the gasoline engine is always there. It could be change of plans, emergencies, forgetfulness, etc that runs the batter down but there is always a backup. With the module swapping the backup is somewhere else.
But I really don't think you should be imprisoned just for being a racist.
It is not illegal to be a racist and that is not what he was jailed for. One can choose to not associate with people of other races and that is fine. It is illegal to use speech that incites racial hatred, a form of speech that is not even protected in the US. Freedom of speech is not absolute there are types of speech that are unprotected. Hate speech is one of those types of unprotected speech.
We also have no idea what was actually said. It could have been innocuous like "he is such a faker: It could have been much worse like "Let the n***** die. J***** b****** should be allowed on our pitches anyway". There is a line between trolling and hate speech and in the eyes of the law he crossed it and is being held accountable.
I see the difference ... finally. Even though I posted "This is where the 36 Million faces/second comes in and is not done by the camera at all" I didn't change enough of the headline. Damn, I thought I was perfect. ;) Oh well, better luck next time.
Someone has been watching way too many action movies. They are not reality. If someone is powerful enough to "eliminate anyone who threatens their power" they would not need facial recognition to do it; they have people for that.
The chances that cameras can help solve crimes is absolutely certain thousands of times over.
You seem to think that possible misuses override all other considerations. You can be the one to tell that to the families of every person killed even though their killer was wanted and walking boldly around on the street. Facial recognition could have stopped it but because of you their family member is dead.
It is all just numbers until you put up actual references ("Google it" is not a reference). If you want to refute something put up a real reference and you may change opinions. Otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your butt.
How does one suffer when someone else logs one's location? In fact it is a two edged sword; a suspect can be found near the place the crime was committed and possibly convicted. The suspect could just as well as being found far away and cleared.
The ten 10-1 ration are just numbers. It is possible that tracking people could solve hundreds of crimes, clear hundreds of people and be misused in very few cases.
I have np problem with the government tracking where I am. I have nothing to hide.
Please quote where is the Bill of Rights that the government can not retain the location you were when in public?
The ten 10-1 ration are just numbers. It is possible that tracking people could solve hundreds of crimes, clear hundreds of people and be misused in very few cases. Where does the line get drawn? 10-1, 50-1, 100-1,?? Just because a technology can be misused does not mean that a technology should not be used. If possible misuse was the criteria the police would never be given weapons because they could be used on innocent people. Proper safeguards and penalties for misuse of technology is what is needed.
Then warrants become more of a catch 22 than they were before; One needs evidence to get a warrant one needs a warrant to get evidence. One also does not know they need to track someone until they become a suspect. If there is no record of where they were then much evidence is lost.
Which is exactly what I said in my point #2.
Come on editors do your job. The headline is "Japanese CCTV Camera Can Scan 36 Million Faces/Second". That is not even close to what this system is doing. System does the following;
1. creates a thumbnail picture of the face. How long this takes is not noted.
2. Searches a database for matches. This is where the 36 Million faces/second comes in and is not done by the camera at all.
A better headline would have been "Japanese CCTV Camera Can Search Through 36 Million Faces/Second". That is a much less impressive feat than scanning as it is just a way of encoding a face for faster searches.
RTFA.
It uses heat and shape memory alloy to create force. The way shape memory alloy works is that it has one shape when hot and another when cold. The robot has two ways to create this heat; electricity or catalytic action of a platinum catalyst.
It is not even clear if the electricity is from a tether or batteries.
The issues with this technology are as follows;
1. Currently the only moving version runs on electricity to create the heat.
"A hydrogen-powered version works underwater, but has to be held with a clamp as it isn’t producing enough power to keep itself from sinking."
2. The fuel powered version uses hydrogen and oxygen externally supplied and can not even support it's own weight.
"Disappointingly, the authors mention that the Robojelly in the above video is still electrically powered, as the chemical system needs refinement for full power."
3. The hydrogen version has no steering capability.
"“We are now researching new ways to deliver the fuel into each segment so that each one can be controlled individually. This should allow the robot to be controlled and moved in different directions.”
4. The capability to "gather oxygen and hydrogen its surroundings" has not even been looked into.
5. The speed is extremely slow compared with ocean currents. It is little more than a drifter with some depth control.
6. It is extremely weak. It's payload capacity is almost zero. It is not all that useful when it can not carry sensors and communication gear.
Specifically, here are the hurdles this technology has to overcome to be viable:
1. Shape memory alloy; there is a physical limit to how fast shape memory alloy changes shape. It is not instantaneous. There is a limit to the size of the wire as the heat has to penetrate through the shape alloy wire for full change to occur and then that heat has to be dissipated to change shape back.
2. Catalytic heat delivery; How much heat can be delivered in such a cold environment. The system works against itself. It needs cold water to change the shape of the memory alloy wire but not so cold so that the heat generation is overcome. How big a wire can this catalyst power?
3. The system to "gather hydrogen and oxygen from its surroundings" has not even been looked into. It may never work as no research has been done on it. At this point is is just an idea. It's like designing a tethered robot and saying "with a fusion motor this robot could run indefinitely".
I love the final sentence from the abstract; "Fuel-powered bell deformation of 13.5% was found to be comparable to that of electrically powered (29%) and natural jellyfish (42%)." The fact that something is comparable does not mean that it compares well. The bell deformation of the fuel-powered version is 32% of that of jellyfish. Is the sufficient to do anything useful?
Yet another premature article about the beginnings of an interesting technology that has yet to overcome a number of huge hurdles. These articles downplay the hurdles to make themselves look more interesting. The researchers have done the easy part but the hard parts may be insurmountable. Considering that the hurdles are so large this technology may never be viable.
If Craig is completely incompetent then why is he working for the company. In most instances Craig would have some acceptable level of competence but not as much as Nate.
Why use Nate's valuable time to do things that Craig can do. In all projects there a easy tasks that just take time to do. For example, changing the text on a web page prompt. It may only take a few minutes to do but it is a distraction. Why not get Craig to do it while Nate concentrates on the hard stuff. Every team has varied skill levels. A good dev manager parcels out tasks based on that.
Perhaps in System X Craig could work on well speced page layout while Nate works on optimizing the database queries.
The issue in the mythical man month is that there is a tipping point where adding more people will slow down a project. For example, if a project would take one person a year to complete it would be quite possible for two people to do it in a little over 6 months. You have doubled the workforce and nearly halved the time. On the other hand if 100 people are working on a three month project one can not add another 100 people and get it done in a month and a half. The issue becomes worse the further into the project one gets. Somewhere between those two extremes is the tipping point. The mythical man month is about speeding a project to completion; it is not about dealing with overtime.
What the article was trying to point out is that if a dev department is continually assigning 50 hours/week of work to their employees productivity will spiral down. In many instances it is possible to add 20% to a dev team and not impact communications too much. In most projects the tasks can be parceled out to six people just as well as five with little or no issues. That is where a good dev manager comes in. It is true that two people can not work on a single task and get it done twice as fast but if there are ten tasks to be done two people can be given five each.
Another issue is that not all of a programmer's time deals with project completion. There are always bug fixes and "little web enhancements" that need to be done. If I had a nickle for every time I heard "it's just a report"... These small jobs are generally parceled out and may be the cause of the overtime. If another programmer was hired and was given all those "side" jobs it would have no impact on project communications, allow project programmers to concentrate on the project and allow everyone to work a 40 hour week avoiding burn out. Project productivity would go way up.