You could always start a business. Find something interesting, cheap and bulk order online (probably from china (be careful not to get ripped off)), and re-sell it on your own fancy website or just ebay.
Exactly. Which doubles it's uses not only as a water filter but as a strong light weight container for almost anything. I'm thinking Airships that don't need re-filling and light weight gas tanks for fuel cells.
Very nice, but while we are at it why not put a second set of blinding lights for the cop car behind you, maybe a xbox kinect controlled.22 pistol under the car for shooting the cops tires out, changing licence plates of course, and add cellphone/radio jamming equipment.
The cars are pretty smart and can remap on the fly if they run into a problem (just like a human would) and they do create their own maps (i can't be bothered to look up the videos, but we have robots that can map the inside of mines without any guidance, and the car Stanley that won the darpa urban grand challenge could even drive up over the curb to miss a road obstruction as well as dealing with a completely foreign environment). The Google cars however usually just add detail to the already extensive knowledge of the roads with data they observe (mostly from the laser range finder).
The car would be able to respond to a police car and it's flashing lights the same way a human would. It's not hard to see and the police should follow a fairly similar procedure every time they want to pull some one over so you could recognise that the same way as you recognise another car's intent on the road (i think the police are more worried about the huge reduction in accidents, speeding and drink driving which could put a lot of them out of the job). Sure crooks could make their car look like a cop car and put some flashing lights on it, but they could do that now to human drivers. Also i'm not saying it would be impossible to steal an autonomous car but with the kind of electronic security, cameras, and gps data it has, it would make it harder then taking a normal car. The biggest problem is people wont know who to sue if something does go wrong; which is ridiculous because this technology would reduce traffic and accidents (and if less people die what's the problem) while acting as a personal taxi for your family and friends.
woah sorry dude. i didn't relize you took it so strongly (that or just have NO life). By the way english isn't my first language, and this would be a lot easier if it didn't have so many stupid rules.
Maybe you could explain why (like i tried explaining to you about continued learning vs stagnation), instead of just dismissing it. Oh wait your an anonymous coward that's not even going to read this.
It's true it's not the same as a uni degree, and an employer wont value an online course much; but add in 'introduction to artificial intelligence' and 'machine learning 101' from Stanford online to your resume and it'll defiantly add to your chances. Even if it's not a proper degree (and it will never substitute a real degree) it shows your interested in continued learning, rather then only doing what is necessary to score a job. Also I'm not trying to get jobs with these courses you only make other people rich by working for them. The trick is to start your own business then it doesn't matter what qualifications you have, providing you have a good business plan.
Fair point, how about if it was $10 per student, $1 000 000 goes a long way to building more interactive videos. Also most of the class would of bought the textbook which was over $100, so if you made a better solution for that students will have more money to play with.
I would of happily paid $100 for the ai class, and the class had over 100 000 people in it, that's $10 000 000. Also advertising on the site would do well.
Which is fine with me (read my other posts), but I don't see a point in Sony alienating potential users and not getting any sales from them. Plus they are suing some customers for letting other customers know about how to get out of the ps3 town, suing the map salesmen in my car analogy.
How can they dictate the use of a device after i buy it. Who passed this law that if big companies think they can make more money then we have to obey. It's like i sell you a car take your money, but say "oh your not allowed to drive this out of the town because i get a cut from all the petrol stations in this city".
Also it's a slippery slope once you let the marketing division decide how the customer has to use the device. Honestly if I buy something I should be able to do whatever i want with it. If they think they will make more money with a sub cost price then fine, but it's not like were renting the console from Sony there shouldn't be conditions on use (conditions of use if you want to connect the device to their network maybe (but then you just alienate customers)).
Fair point, and i understand that's why they removed the option (also because even though it's not as good, linux is also a competing free game service), but how much are they really loosing. I'll admit i was tempted by building an 8 playstation 3 super computer but i was going to buy the ps3s second hand. Media centre or workstation is a small concern however if it's a single consumer they will return to the original OS for most gaming, and if it's for a bigger operation it's not hard to price the console high enough that the pc equivalent will cost less and have more options. Also as much as Linux is gaining momentum it's something that will scare your average and majority of consumers, so it's really only the geeks your stopping; and as sony has learnt the hard way they are people you want on your side spreading good reviews and pushing the product, instead of hacking the network and general badmouthing.
Same with me it's not that hard to install another os and customising Linux is also pretty easy these days. My point is rather than lose customers like us completely why not allow us to use it however we want and as little or as much as we want. Microsoft doesn't make that much less money if we only use it occasionally (it would probably result in less sales from the market place, but i'm never going to buy much software any way), and what they lose in additional sales they would make up in word of mouth and market share. I agree about Apple and MS pandering to people and can only see it hurting the companies.
MS knows that once linux really starts to take hold anywhere at all they are in danger everywhere.
I'm not so sure, the majority of Linux geeks have windows installed aswell. I reckon the real way to success would be to embrace linux, hell they should provide there own version and make dual booting easy. Then majority of people will use windows most of the time, but the semi geeks won't feel too trapped and the hardcores still get exposer. If MS wants market share silly lock downs won't get them there, making a compelling new device with the great functions and features will; something like installing the kinect inside a phone maybe.
$50 000 isn't that hard to come up with. If i saved most of my money for a year i could have about that much, and if an online course gave me the skills to create and run the equipment (given a market for the product) i could get setup with my own business quite easily and never have to go to uni. I'm not really sure about the market on semiconductors but i just finished an online ai class if i can turn that knowledge into products for under $100 000 (a couple of years saving while i'm planning) then i'm set.
Slashdot Mirror
You could always start a business. Find something interesting, cheap and bulk order online (probably from china (be careful not to get ripped off)), and re-sell it on your own fancy website or just ebay.
Water is pretty easy to stop, plastic is pretty good at it.
Exactly. Which doubles it's uses not only as a water filter but as a strong light weight container for almost anything. I'm thinking Airships that don't need re-filling and light weight gas tanks for fuel cells.
Very nice, but while we are at it why not put a second set of blinding lights for the cop car behind you, maybe a xbox kinect controlled .22 pistol under the car for shooting the cops tires out, changing licence plates of course, and add cellphone/radio jamming equipment.
It's early days, but still pretty awesome.
The cars are pretty smart and can remap on the fly if they run into a problem (just like a human would) and they do create their own maps (i can't be bothered to look up the videos, but we have robots that can map the inside of mines without any guidance, and the car Stanley that won the darpa urban grand challenge could even drive up over the curb to miss a road obstruction as well as dealing with a completely foreign environment). The Google cars however usually just add detail to the already extensive knowledge of the roads with data they observe (mostly from the laser range finder).
The car would be able to respond to a police car and it's flashing lights the same way a human would. It's not hard to see and the police should follow a fairly similar procedure every time they want to pull some one over so you could recognise that the same way as you recognise another car's intent on the road (i think the police are more worried about the huge reduction in accidents, speeding and drink driving which could put a lot of them out of the job). Sure crooks could make their car look like a cop car and put some flashing lights on it, but they could do that now to human drivers. Also i'm not saying it would be impossible to steal an autonomous car but with the kind of electronic security, cameras, and gps data it has, it would make it harder then taking a normal car. The biggest problem is people wont know who to sue if something does go wrong; which is ridiculous because this technology would reduce traffic and accidents (and if less people die what's the problem) while acting as a personal taxi for your family and friends.
woah sorry dude. i didn't relize you took it so strongly (that or just have NO life). By the way english isn't my first language, and this would be a lot easier if it didn't have so many stupid rules.
Maybe you could explain why (like i tried explaining to you about continued learning vs stagnation), instead of just dismissing it. Oh wait your an anonymous coward that's not even going to read this.
It's true it's not the same as a uni degree, and an employer wont value an online course much; but add in 'introduction to artificial intelligence' and 'machine learning 101' from Stanford online to your resume and it'll defiantly add to your chances. Even if it's not a proper degree (and it will never substitute a real degree) it shows your interested in continued learning, rather then only doing what is necessary to score a job. Also I'm not trying to get jobs with these courses you only make other people rich by working for them. The trick is to start your own business then it doesn't matter what qualifications you have, providing you have a good business plan.
Fair point, how about if it was $10 per student, $1 000 000 goes a long way to building more interactive videos. Also most of the class would of bought the textbook which was over $100, so if you made a better solution for that students will have more money to play with.
I would of happily paid $100 for the ai class, and the class had over 100 000 people in it, that's $10 000 000. Also advertising on the site would do well.
Which is fine with me (read my other posts), but I don't see a point in Sony alienating potential users and not getting any sales from them. Plus they are suing some customers for letting other customers know about how to get out of the ps3 town, suing the map salesmen in my car analogy.
How can they dictate the use of a device after i buy it. Who passed this law that if big companies think they can make more money then we have to obey. It's like i sell you a car take your money, but say "oh your not allowed to drive this out of the town because i get a cut from all the petrol stations in this city".
Also it's a slippery slope once you let the marketing division decide how the customer has to use the device. Honestly if I buy something I should be able to do whatever i want with it. If they think they will make more money with a sub cost price then fine, but it's not like were renting the console from Sony there shouldn't be conditions on use (conditions of use if you want to connect the device to their network maybe (but then you just alienate customers)).
Fair point, and i understand that's why they removed the option (also because even though it's not as good, linux is also a competing free game service), but how much are they really loosing. I'll admit i was tempted by building an 8 playstation 3 super computer but i was going to buy the ps3s second hand. Media centre or workstation is a small concern however if it's a single consumer they will return to the original OS for most gaming, and if it's for a bigger operation it's not hard to price the console high enough that the pc equivalent will cost less and have more options. Also as much as Linux is gaining momentum it's something that will scare your average and majority of consumers, so it's really only the geeks your stopping; and as sony has learnt the hard way they are people you want on your side spreading good reviews and pushing the product, instead of hacking the network and general badmouthing.
How about not suing the customers, and allowing an other OS to be installed for the life of the product not just the first 6 months.
Same with me it's not that hard to install another os and customising Linux is also pretty easy these days. My point is rather than lose customers like us completely why not allow us to use it however we want and as little or as much as we want. Microsoft doesn't make that much less money if we only use it occasionally (it would probably result in less sales from the market place, but i'm never going to buy much software any way), and what they lose in additional sales they would make up in word of mouth and market share. I agree about Apple and MS pandering to people and can only see it hurting the companies.
MS knows that once linux really starts to take hold anywhere at all they are in danger everywhere.
I'm not so sure, the majority of Linux geeks have windows installed aswell. I reckon the real way to success would be to embrace linux, hell they should provide there own version and make dual booting easy. Then majority of people will use windows most of the time, but the semi geeks won't feel too trapped and the hardcores still get exposer. If MS wants market share silly lock downs won't get them there, making a compelling new device with the great functions and features will; something like installing the kinect inside a phone maybe.
This is the problem with democracy you get to vote but don't get to vote on what gets voted on (if that makes any sense) it's the illusion of control.
There will be plenty of research as well, you cant just start pumping out robots.
Janitors are sanitary engineers.
$50 000 isn't that hard to come up with. If i saved most of my money for a year i could have about that much, and if an online course gave me the skills to create and run the equipment (given a market for the product) i could get setup with my own business quite easily and never have to go to uni. I'm not really sure about the market on semiconductors but i just finished an online ai class if i can turn that knowledge into products for under $100 000 (a couple of years saving while i'm planning) then i'm set.
What do they mean, is mossad going to start conducting credit card fraud themselves in foreign countries?
lawyers, money, greed, marketing, loose morals, closed controlled expensive source vs free open source.