What you quoted was my response to wisnoskij, who said, "A map gives you a position on a globe." So when you replied to me with "Military grids on a map IS a system", the obvious question is "a system for what?" Given the context of this thread, and the fact this whole story is about global positioning systems, the obvious interpretation of your comment is "Military grids on a map IS a system [that gives you a position on a globe]". If you didn't mean that, then why did you reply in a thread that was about global positioning?
Regardless, the map itself still isn't a "system". It's just a map, no matter how many grid lines you put on it. Given a map, you still need to figure out where you are on the map. That part *in conjunction with a map* is a system for localization. That's even something GPS can help you with!
No, I'm saying what you do with your maps is what I do with my robots. And yes, it's very easy to do better than GPS especially in a city, where there are significant multipath errors. All you need is a laser range finder, some robust perception, and kalman filtering.
Battery life is at 9 hours, enough to get you through the day without recharging. Plus there is a keyboard with an extra battery in it that bring battery life up to ~13 hours. Even with that, the Surface 3 is still thinner and lighter than most laptops.
Remember the requirement was to find your location without GPS, using primarily a map.
No the point was to show a map isn't a "system" to find where you are on the globe. See the start of this thread:
"A map gives you a position on a globe." -> "A map is not a system." -> "Military grids on a map IS a system."
Now you have you map and you have a human making all kinds of measurements, inference, and correlations. Now this kind of task is exactly what my robots do and is a system. Many of the robots I've built don't even use GPS because it's not accurate enough.
So you need the correct map to begin with. That's pretty much cheating, because you're already semi-localized to begin with. That's not a global positioning system, that's a regional positioning system.
If you have the correct map for the area you are in, and you can spot landmarks, or perhaps even an intersection.
So your system is no longer just "a map". You first have to know a general region, then have the appropriate map for that region, then have the ability to identify several landmarks, abstract those landmarks, and then find a correlation on the map between features in the map and the landmark you see in order to localize yourself.
FYI the problem I proposed is known as the "kidnapped robot problem" to us roboticists. It's basically a benchmark for localization problems for robots. You say you would be SOL if you had no idea of your general location, but robots can solve the problem using GPS and some additional perception easily.
So if I kidnap you and drop you out of a plane at a random location in the world with nothing but an atlas of the world, how do you tell me your location to the nearest 10 meters just using a map?
Maybe. When I think of the word "system" it usually implies automation to me. Humans are unreliable, use a lot of intuition, and often give different outputs for the same inputs, so they are usually not a good idea to incorporate into any sort of "system" you want to be reliable and consistent.
GPS specifically refers to the system created by the US military for tracking your position using a bunch of satellites they put up there.
This is only true because before the array of satellites deployed by the US military, there was no other system for finding your global position. With the advent of new technology that does the same thing, GPS should be generalized to refer to any system that does the same, not just one particular system.
But do you? I put myself through undergrad and 6 years of gradschool using all forms of digital ink devices, including the Galaxy Note, which was the smallest and by far the worst device for the purpose. I've seen others with the Note start the semester using them, only to invariably fall back to pen and paper after it gets too cumbersome. The full version of OneNote is a killer application in this area.
Can you please name a single thing or task that can only be done on a 12" tablet; and not on a phone or desktop?
That's easy, handwriting notes in class. As a recent Slashdot story helpfully points out, handwriting notes helps with retention of facts. Even if it didn't, some notes like equations or diagrams cannot easily be typed. Can't do that with a phone or a desktop.
Something I do with my Surface Pro is use it as a ground station for a UAV. You can use a laptop for this purpose, but this requires a lap, or desk. Out in the field while flying, these require either a chair or a table to be carried with us. With the Surface Pro, I can just hold it in one hand and control the UAV with the other. Can't do this with a laptop or desktop or smartphone or 7" tablet or any Android tablet or iPad. Can only do this with a Windows tablet.
For your information, digitisers, pens and styluses are supported on laptops and desktops too.
Oh I know. I've used them for many years. One of the worst things about them is the disconnect between writing on a horizontal table while the viewing surface is vertical. That's why Wacom came up with the Cintiq line, where you write directly on the screen. The amusing thing is, these devices actually cost *more* than an entry Surface Pro, and require you to tether to a desktop.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but Surface Pro 1 and 2 both use an active digitizer with Wacom tech, pressure sensitivity included. The new one uses N-Trig tech, also with pressure sensitivity. These aren't the same stubby styluses you find for Android and iOS.
In my view, content creation is best done with keyboard, mouse and a desktop / laptop. What sort of content can be created with a stylus on a tablet? That's neither the best tools nor the most cost effective.
When is the last time you painted a picture with your keyboard or mouse? People make different content. Obviously the content you make it with a keyboard+mouse, sitting down at a desk, in an office probably.
A 12" tablet cannot do most things possible on a smaller phone or a larger desktop.
And smaller phones and desktop computer can't do things a 12" tablet can. My Cadillac vs. Toyota line was more about the specs of the device. 7" tablets are slow as hell. Surface Pro 3 is the most powerful tablet available. Saying $799 is too much needs qualification. It's too much for a 7" device, but it's enough for a 12" powerhouse.
Microsoft seems a totally confused company at the moment. I bet more than 50% of all tablets are 7" screen size or less.
Because 90% of tablets are used for content consumption. One may say that this is a feedback loop, people consume content, tablets get smaller, so all people can do is consume content.
Microsoft is saying they want to make a tablet that is good for content creation. That's why it's bigger. That's why it comes with a pen. You say 12" is way to big, and I ask for whom? For me, 12" is the size of my paper notebook, and the Surface 3 would work well in that application while a 7" tablet would not. You say $700 is too pricey, but when you compare specs you're talking Cadillac vs. Toyota. People still buy Cadillacs.
It's also the point of diminishing returns. The difference between a 7 hour device and an 8 hour device is huge; you can get through the whole day with one and fall an hour short with the other. 8 to 9 is not as much of a gain. Anything more and you're charging it after work anyway.
You can say that the Surface costs less than the Air, but you cannot say they are the same. Surface includes more tech than the Air. I also left out things like two mics, two cameras (one of which is 5MP while the best on the Air is 720p), gyroscope, accelerometer, magnetometer. Fact is if you want the thinnest, lightest, laptop with the best display, and latest tech, it's not the MacBook Air. Compare the price of the two, but be honest about what you're actually comparing.
It depends on what "serious work" is for you. If you ultimately see no purpose for your work, that's completely fine. But for me and many others, serious work involves standing and writing. Or controlling a computer in the field with no tables available. Or creative type work like drawing. Or scientific/engineering work like solving equations or drawing diagrams.
The MBA is about 1/3 of a pound heavier, with better battery life. Can you handle all 5 ounces?
When the MBA was released, it was 1/3 pound lighter than some laptops. This was its selling point. When I bought my original Surface Pro, it was lighter than my laptop AND allowed me to ditch my iPad. Surface 3 promises the same for an even wider audience.
You see if you can actually notice a difference in resolution from a standard use position.
Funny, this was a standard argument when Apple started releasing retina iPhone and iPads and then MacBook Pros. I can certainly tell the difference between a standard MacBook Pro and a Retina version. I can see pixels on my Surface Pro. Maybe my eyes are just better than yours. And all those pixels are using more battery, yet they still managed to increase the battery life over the previous version.
You take your touch screen & digitizer. Which doesn't work for Office or the classic desktop.
They don't work with Office or the classic desktop? Mind explaining to me how I use both daily on my Surface Pro?
SurfacePro3 - Intel® Core i5, 128 GB and 4 GB of RAM - $999
Extra - Surface Pro Type Cover $129.99
Touch Screen included
Digitizer included
Pen included
2160 x 1440 resolution display included
Total - $1128
MacBook Air - Intel® Core i5, 128 GB and 4 GB of RAM - $899
Keyboard included
Touch screen not available
Digitizer not available
Pen not available
1366 x 768 included. Hi-res display not available
Total - $899
It's 2014. A computer is not just CPU + RAM + HDD anymore. For instance, part of Apple's marketing of the MacBook air was how thin and light it is. Surface Pro 3 is even *thinner and ligher* than the Air. For someone looking for a thin and light device, thinness and lightness is part of the value proposition, and they might be willing to pay more for that.
Slashdot Mirror
What you quoted was my response to wisnoskij, who said, "A map gives you a position on a globe." So when you replied to me with "Military grids on a map IS a system", the obvious question is "a system for what?" Given the context of this thread, and the fact this whole story is about global positioning systems, the obvious interpretation of your comment is "Military grids on a map IS a system [that gives you a position on a globe]". If you didn't mean that, then why did you reply in a thread that was about global positioning?
Regardless, the map itself still isn't a "system". It's just a map, no matter how many grid lines you put on it. Given a map, you still need to figure out where you are on the map. That part *in conjunction with a map* is a system for localization. That's even something GPS can help you with!
No, I'm saying what you do with your maps is what I do with my robots. And yes, it's very easy to do better than GPS especially in a city, where there are significant multipath errors. All you need is a laser range finder, some robust perception, and kalman filtering.
Battery life is at 9 hours, enough to get you through the day without recharging. Plus there is a keyboard with an extra battery in it that bring battery life up to ~13 hours. Even with that, the Surface 3 is still thinner and lighter than most laptops.
Remember the requirement was to find your location without GPS, using primarily a map.
No the point was to show a map isn't a "system" to find where you are on the globe. See the start of this thread:
"A map gives you a position on a globe." -> "A map is not a system." -> "Military grids on a map IS a system."
Now you have you map and you have a human making all kinds of measurements, inference, and correlations. Now this kind of task is exactly what my robots do and is a system. Many of the robots I've built don't even use GPS because it's not accurate enough.
So you need the correct map to begin with. That's pretty much cheating, because you're already semi-localized to begin with. That's not a global positioning system, that's a regional positioning system.
If you have the correct map for the area you are in, and you can spot landmarks, or perhaps even an intersection.
So your system is no longer just "a map". You first have to know a general region, then have the appropriate map for that region, then have the ability to identify several landmarks, abstract those landmarks, and then find a correlation on the map between features in the map and the landmark you see in order to localize yourself.
FYI the problem I proposed is known as the "kidnapped robot problem" to us roboticists. It's basically a benchmark for localization problems for robots. You say you would be SOL if you had no idea of your general location, but robots can solve the problem using GPS and some additional perception easily.
Oh I see now. Then I propose we need to retire Global Positioning System in favor of global positioning system.
So if I kidnap you and drop you out of a plane at a random location in the world with nothing but an atlas of the world, how do you tell me your location to the nearest 10 meters just using a map?
Maybe. When I think of the word "system" it usually implies automation to me. Humans are unreliable, use a lot of intuition, and often give different outputs for the same inputs, so they are usually not a good idea to incorporate into any sort of "system" you want to be reliable and consistent.
Capital letters are used to denote any acronym whether it's a proper noun or not. IMU refers to any inertial measurement unit, for instance.
GPS specifically refers to the system created by the US military for tracking your position using a bunch of satellites they put up there.
This is only true because before the array of satellites deployed by the US military, there was no other system for finding your global position. With the advent of new technology that does the same thing, GPS should be generalized to refer to any system that does the same, not just one particular system.
Cartography produces a map, not a localization.
A map is not a system.
Then it's a "Global Positioning System"... GPS.
But do you? I put myself through undergrad and 6 years of gradschool using all forms of digital ink devices, including the Galaxy Note, which was the smallest and by far the worst device for the purpose. I've seen others with the Note start the semester using them, only to invariably fall back to pen and paper after it gets too cumbersome. The full version of OneNote is a killer application in this area.
Can you please name a single thing or task that can only be done on a 12" tablet; and not on a phone or desktop?
That's easy, handwriting notes in class. As a recent Slashdot story helpfully points out, handwriting notes helps with retention of facts. Even if it didn't, some notes like equations or diagrams cannot easily be typed. Can't do that with a phone or a desktop.
Something I do with my Surface Pro is use it as a ground station for a UAV. You can use a laptop for this purpose, but this requires a lap, or desk. Out in the field while flying, these require either a chair or a table to be carried with us. With the Surface Pro, I can just hold it in one hand and control the UAV with the other. Can't do this with a laptop or desktop or smartphone or 7" tablet or any Android tablet or iPad. Can only do this with a Windows tablet.
For your information, digitisers, pens and styluses are supported on laptops and desktops too.
Oh I know. I've used them for many years. One of the worst things about them is the disconnect between writing on a horizontal table while the viewing surface is vertical. That's why Wacom came up with the Cintiq line, where you write directly on the screen. The amusing thing is, these devices actually cost *more* than an entry Surface Pro, and require you to tether to a desktop.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but Surface Pro 1 and 2 both use an active digitizer with Wacom tech, pressure sensitivity included. The new one uses N-Trig tech, also with pressure sensitivity. These aren't the same stubby styluses you find for Android and iOS.
In my view, content creation is best done with keyboard, mouse and a desktop / laptop. What sort of content can be created with a stylus on a tablet? That's neither the best tools nor the most cost effective.
When is the last time you painted a picture with your keyboard or mouse? People make different content. Obviously the content you make it with a keyboard+mouse, sitting down at a desk, in an office probably.
A 12" tablet cannot do most things possible on a smaller phone or a larger desktop.
And smaller phones and desktop computer can't do things a 12" tablet can. My Cadillac vs. Toyota line was more about the specs of the device. 7" tablets are slow as hell. Surface Pro 3 is the most powerful tablet available. Saying $799 is too much needs qualification. It's too much for a 7" device, but it's enough for a 12" powerhouse.
Microsoft seems a totally confused company at the moment. I bet more than 50% of all tablets are 7" screen size or less.
Because 90% of tablets are used for content consumption. One may say that this is a feedback loop, people consume content, tablets get smaller, so all people can do is consume content.
Microsoft is saying they want to make a tablet that is good for content creation. That's why it's bigger. That's why it comes with a pen. You say 12" is way to big, and I ask for whom? For me, 12" is the size of my paper notebook, and the Surface 3 would work well in that application while a 7" tablet would not. You say $700 is too pricey, but when you compare specs you're talking Cadillac vs. Toyota. People still buy Cadillacs.
It's also the point of diminishing returns. The difference between a 7 hour device and an 8 hour device is huge; you can get through the whole day with one and fall an hour short with the other. 8 to 9 is not as much of a gain. Anything more and you're charging it after work anyway.
You can say that the Surface costs less than the Air, but you cannot say they are the same. Surface includes more tech than the Air. I also left out things like two mics, two cameras (one of which is 5MP while the best on the Air is 720p), gyroscope, accelerometer, magnetometer. Fact is if you want the thinnest, lightest, laptop with the best display, and latest tech, it's not the MacBook Air. Compare the price of the two, but be honest about what you're actually comparing.
It depends on what "serious work" is for you. If you ultimately see no purpose for your work, that's completely fine. But for me and many others, serious work involves standing and writing. Or controlling a computer in the field with no tables available. Or creative type work like drawing. Or scientific/engineering work like solving equations or drawing diagrams.
The MBA is about 1/3 of a pound heavier, with better battery life. Can you handle all 5 ounces?
When the MBA was released, it was 1/3 pound lighter than some laptops. This was its selling point. When I bought my original Surface Pro, it was lighter than my laptop AND allowed me to ditch my iPad. Surface 3 promises the same for an even wider audience.
You see if you can actually notice a difference in resolution from a standard use position.
Funny, this was a standard argument when Apple started releasing retina iPhone and iPads and then MacBook Pros. I can certainly tell the difference between a standard MacBook Pro and a Retina version. I can see pixels on my Surface Pro. Maybe my eyes are just better than yours. And all those pixels are using more battery, yet they still managed to increase the battery life over the previous version.
You take your touch screen & digitizer. Which doesn't work for Office or the classic desktop.
They don't work with Office or the classic desktop? Mind explaining to me how I use both daily on my Surface Pro?
More like...
SurfacePro3 - Intel® Core i5, 128 GB and 4 GB of RAM - $999
Extra - Surface Pro Type Cover $129.99
Touch Screen included
Digitizer included
Pen included
2160 x 1440 resolution display included
Total - $1128
MacBook Air - Intel® Core i5, 128 GB and 4 GB of RAM - $899
Keyboard included
Touch screen not available
Digitizer not available
Pen not available
1366 x 768 included. Hi-res display not available
Total - $899
It's 2014. A computer is not just CPU + RAM + HDD anymore. For instance, part of Apple's marketing of the MacBook air was how thin and light it is. Surface Pro 3 is even *thinner and ligher* than the Air. For someone looking for a thin and light device, thinness and lightness is part of the value proposition, and they might be willing to pay more for that.
They still sell those: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...