You should learn the difference between a single sensor return and a full perception result. Also, look up sensor noise, integration time, classifier inputs and training. Please tell me how you're planning on dealing with rain and snow.
Yes, if it was as simple as a magic sensor that could tell you instantly at max range 1) that the thing is a car (even though you won't see all of it immediately) 2) what its velocity vector is and 3) what its going to do, then yes, things are as simple as you wish they were.
Sure, if you assume no processing time is required to characterize what the sensor sees, and want to slam on the brakes at a minimum of 0.66g's of deceleration the moment anything enters the edge of your perception. That doesn't seem like a viable human-carrying vehicle to me.
Unless they just want the small/low speed vehicle market, their requirements are grossly lacking. For a road-going autonomous vehicle, "dozens of meters" is useless at any real speed. Try ~100 meters as a start and go from there. Otherwise you'll always be outrunning your perception and unable to see anything in time to stop.
Not only that, but in the article he completely dismisses/ignores/pretends-it-doesn't-exist the Toyota unintended acceleration analysis that happened after the NASA folks got their chance. Turns out the NASA folks didn't get everything there was to analyze, and low and behold once all of the info was available: Toyota's engineers did a crap job of safety in their software.
But if CMU wins outright, it will be a clear sign to corporations that using academia as it's main R&D "arm" is bad for business...
This is only the case where corprorations try to cheat academia. Marvell had the option ~10 years ago to license the tech from CMU. They said no and used it anyway.
Basically Marvell desperately need the invention after trying and failing to come up with something that could do the same thing. CMU offered to license it to them. They declined, and then used it anyway. It completely turned around their drive business. So, only 25% of the profits for willful infringement of critical technology that they could have licensed for much less if they'd played fair back in the day doesn't really seem too bad to me.
The size of the award was based on an analysis by Catharine M. Lawton, an intellectual property damages expert who testified on behalf of CMU during the trial along with CMU's technical and industry experts. Ms. Lawton applied several commonly used and court approved methods of determining an appropriate royalty for Marvell's infringement in patent cases. Ms. Lawton's analysis rested on a comparison of Marvell's business and economic circumstances both before and after it started to infringe. Her opinion and application of these accepted methods were based on a detailed analysis of the facts and financial records in the case, as well as the testimony of Dr. Steven McLaughlin, CMU's digital signal processing expert, and Dr. Chris Bajorek, CMU's expert in the hard disk drive industry.
Marvell earned an average revenue of $4.42 per chip and made an average operating profit of $2.16 for each of the more than 2 billion chips sold over more than a decade. Based upon her analysis of all the facts, Ms. Lawton determined that the proper value of the CMU invention was $.50 per chip.
"Their work was done under the auspices of CMU's Data Storage Systems Center, which was formed as a partnership between CMU and certain members of the information storage industry and through which CMU has worked closely with industry partners for decades. The DSSC was formed to and has played a critical role in preserving research and development efforts and jobs in the hard disk drive industry in the United States."
You are correct that the specific breakdown of that 50% is entirely dependent on the percentages agreed upon when the internal invention disclosure was made, and that the assignation of those percentages between the various inventors is not dictated in any particular way by the IP Policy. What is clear, however is that 50% (minus 1/2 of the legal fees) will be distributed amongst to the two inventors.
That said, at CMU, any faculty member who tries to cut his or her grad students out of their invention disclosures will likely soon find him or herself running short on grad students, not to mention liable to be hauled into court for fraud. So there is strong self-interested impetus to make those percentages as correct as possible.
Since these proceeds will qualify as royalties, under CMU's Intelectual Property Policy the school will "only" get 750 million. The other half will go to the two inventors on the patents.
And I'm sure they'll find something to do with it.
So, look. The beta site... the comments section is in ruins. It should function as it already does.
...
Quit whining like little children and ruining the discussion on every single thread. You are damaging your own community with this rubbish. Get over it. Things change, kids. This time, luckily for all of us - for the better (believe it or not).
The comments section IS the site. So how it is being in ruins "better"?
Because Classic is not yet gone. Because the old discussion system is still present, as it should continue to be. Because Slashdot's original nature is still worth arguing for, and all is not yet lost.
If we fail because Dice really wants to destroy those things we value, then so be it. We cannot keep them from driving the site off a cliff if that is where they wish to steer. But it will not be failure through our apathy.
BTW I have seen several accusations of mass down voting. I'm genuinely curious as to how you show that. I've seen several of my own anti-Beta posts rid up and down the moderation ladder today and I can't tell if the down mods are due to corporate influence, or just people who want o read stories without seeing "Fuck Beta"
The problem with proof is that as a user rather than an editor there really isn't any, since we don' t have access to a timeline of mod value over time for each post. However, at the time I looked at this post and its descendents, they were ALLuniformly modded -1 or 0 "off-topic". If I accept as valid the claim that that post was at 5 before it went to the -1 which I observed, then either 6 different mods thought that data was irrelevant, or an editor did it. And I have reason to accept that claim as valid since it is now back up to +4 Informative, where it should be. At the moment I saw the consistency of "off-topic" being applied equally to both the poorly written anti-beta drek and the well-reasoned, insightful anti-beta comments, I became convinced of the accusation which had been made in the comment which led me there. The fact that contemporaneously timothy was the only editor posting stories lends weight to the idea that he would be responsible. It is certainly possible that there are some other hidden overlords who are actually doing the dirty work, but absent knowledge of their existence, I'm led to conclude that it is instead one of the known editors.
Not proof, but substantial statistical evidence bolstered by my own eye-witnessing. Perhaps I should have taken screenshots, but that seems like a bit much.
Sure, we've all seen our share of "___ is killing slashdot, so I'm leaving" comments over the years. Video slashvertisements, other "sponsored content". However, I've never seen quite this level of outrage before.
I don't think slashdot's ever seen this level of outrage. Sure all change is met with some resistance, but this flies in the face of everything most important about the site. Moreover, it has managed to do something I've only ever seen once before - seemingly unite the whole population of slashdot users in a common purpose.
What's astonishing to me is the total lack of response. That the head editor (is that timothy now?) is silently downmodding relevant discussion about the survival of the site, without himself posting anything speaks volumes to me about how the management of slashdot has changed.
Slashdot Mirror
You should learn the difference between a single sensor return and a full perception result. Also, look up sensor noise, integration time, classifier inputs and training. Please tell me how you're planning on dealing with rain and snow.
Yes, if it was as simple as a magic sensor that could tell you instantly at max range 1) that the thing is a car (even though you won't see all of it immediately) 2) what its velocity vector is and 3) what its going to do, then yes, things are as simple as you wish they were.
But they are really, really not.
Sure, if you assume no processing time is required to characterize what the sensor sees, and want to slam on the brakes at a minimum of 0.66g's of deceleration the moment anything enters the edge of your perception. That doesn't seem like a viable human-carrying vehicle to me.
Unless they just want the small/low speed vehicle market, their requirements are grossly lacking. For a road-going autonomous vehicle, "dozens of meters" is useless at any real speed. Try ~100 meters as a start and go from there. Otherwise you'll always be outrunning your perception and unable to see anything in time to stop.
Not only that, but in the article he completely dismisses/ignores/pretends-it-doesn't-exist the Toyota unintended acceleration analysis that happened after the NASA folks got their chance. Turns out the NASA folks didn't get everything there was to analyze, and low and behold once all of the info was available: Toyota's engineers did a crap job of safety in their software.
Full details can be read here.
I can't speak to him being a shill, but he's definitely either misinformed or disingenuous.
I'm sure he's genuinely sorry to hear such criticisms....
Don't you wish you could...
But if CMU wins outright, it will be a clear sign to corporations that using academia as it's main R&D "arm" is bad for business...
This is only the case where corprorations try to cheat academia. Marvell had the option ~10 years ago to license the tech from CMU. They said no and used it anyway.
You should really just read the whole FAQ.
Basically Marvell desperately need the invention after trying and failing to come up with something that could do the same thing. CMU offered to license it to them. They declined, and then used it anyway. It completely turned around their drive business. So, only 25% of the profits for willful infringement of critical technology that they could have licensed for much less if they'd played fair back in the day doesn't really seem too bad to me.
The size of the award was based on an analysis by Catharine M. Lawton, an intellectual property damages expert who testified on behalf of CMU during the trial along with CMU's technical and industry experts. Ms. Lawton applied several commonly used and court approved methods of determining an appropriate royalty for Marvell's infringement in patent cases. Ms. Lawton's analysis rested on a comparison of Marvell's business and economic circumstances both before and after it started to infringe. Her opinion and application of these accepted methods were based on a detailed analysis of the facts and financial records in the case, as well as the testimony of Dr. Steven McLaughlin, CMU's digital signal processing expert, and Dr. Chris Bajorek, CMU's expert in the hard disk drive industry.
Marvell earned an average revenue of $4.42 per chip and made an average operating profit of $2.16 for each of the more than 2 billion chips sold over more than a decade. Based upon her analysis of all the facts, Ms. Lawton determined that the proper value of the CMU invention was $.50 per chip.
From CMU's FAQ on the case:
"Their work was done under the auspices of CMU's Data Storage Systems Center, which was formed as a partnership between CMU and certain members of the information storage industry and through which CMU has worked closely with industry partners for decades. The DSSC was formed to and has played a critical role in preserving research and development efforts and jobs in the hard disk drive industry in the United States."
You are correct that the specific breakdown of that 50% is entirely dependent on the percentages agreed upon when the internal invention disclosure was made, and that the assignation of those percentages between the various inventors is not dictated in any particular way by the IP Policy. What is clear, however is that 50% (minus 1/2 of the legal fees) will be distributed amongst to the two inventors.
That said, at CMU, any faculty member who tries to cut his or her grad students out of their invention disclosures will likely soon find him or herself running short on grad students, not to mention liable to be hauled into court for fraud. So there is strong self-interested impetus to make those percentages as correct as possible.
In fact, they will. CMU's IP Policy is quite clear on this matter. The inventors will get 50% of the proceeds.
Since these proceeds will qualify as royalties, under CMU's Intelectual Property Policy the school will "only" get 750 million. The other half will go to the two inventors on the patents.
And I'm sure they'll find something to do with it.
When they turn off Classic, that's when it will no longer be an organized boycott. Most will simply leave.
Once beta becomes mandatory, it's too late, and those who actually drive the conversations will just leave.
And if that's what Dice wants, that's what they'll get.
In what way is this other than a non-response to the root issue of the comment system being utterly broken?
So, look. The beta site... the comments section is in ruins. It should function as it already does.
...
Quit whining like little children and ruining the discussion on every single thread. You are damaging your own community with this rubbish.
Get over it. Things change, kids. This time, luckily for all of us - for the better (believe it or not).
The comments section IS the site. So how it is being in ruins "better"?
Because Classic is not yet gone. Because the old discussion system is still present, as it should continue to be. Because Slashdot's original nature is still worth arguing for, and all is not yet lost.
If we fail because Dice really wants to destroy those things we value, then so be it. We cannot keep them from driving the site off a cliff if that is where they wish to steer. But it will not be failure through our apathy.
Not if it doesn't include working links...
More than 10 years ago even!
If only Dice had a way to learn from the past...
Wow. That is the clearest indication I've seen yet that there is no chance they are going to back down on this. "User Engagement", my eye.
Thanks for the link.
Wish I had mod points right now...
Messed up the link.
This post is the one which was downmodded along with it's descendants.
BTW I have seen several accusations of mass down voting. I'm genuinely curious as to how you show that. I've seen several of my own anti-Beta posts rid up and down the moderation ladder today and I can't tell if the down mods are due to corporate influence, or just people who want o read stories without seeing "Fuck Beta"
The problem with proof is that as a user rather than an editor there really isn't any, since we don' t have access to a timeline of mod value over time for each post. However, at the time I looked at this post and its descendents, they were ALL uniformly modded -1 or 0 "off-topic". If I accept as valid the claim that that post was at 5 before it went to the -1 which I observed, then either 6 different mods thought that data was irrelevant, or an editor did it. And I have reason to accept that claim as valid since it is now back up to +4 Informative, where it should be. At the moment I saw the consistency of "off-topic" being applied equally to both the poorly written anti-beta drek and the well-reasoned, insightful anti-beta comments, I became convinced of the accusation which had been made in the comment which led me there. The fact that contemporaneously timothy was the only editor posting stories lends weight to the idea that he would be responsible. It is certainly possible that there are some other hidden overlords who are actually doing the dirty work, but absent knowledge of their existence, I'm led to conclude that it is instead one of the known editors.
Not proof, but substantial statistical evidence bolstered by my own eye-witnessing. Perhaps I should have taken screenshots, but that seems like a bit much.
Sure, we've all seen our share of "___ is killing slashdot, so I'm leaving" comments over the years. Video slashvertisements, other "sponsored content". However, I've never seen quite this level of outrage before.
I don't think slashdot's ever seen this level of outrage. Sure all change is met with some resistance, but this flies in the face of everything most important about the site. Moreover, it has managed to do something I've only ever seen once before - seemingly unite the whole population of slashdot users in a common purpose.
What's astonishing to me is the total lack of response. That the head editor (is that timothy now?) is silently downmodding relevant discussion about the survival of the site, without himself posting anything speaks volumes to me about how the management of slashdot has changed.
Taco, wherever you are, you are missed.