The front page makes no mention of embedded software. Instead it talks about "commanding robots" and shows an example of connecting from a linux desktop over a serial cable. This is not "embedded".
And why is trasporting people so much nobler than giving them a thrill? Why is dying for the cause or 'trasporting people' more acceptable than dying for 'making people's lifes happier'?
I guess your answer to "what is the meaning of life" is quite opposite to mine.
25EUR/month. Only cap is the LTE is throttled to 50Mbps, and price doesn't include foreign calls or SMS. But I guess you/your grandmother don't live in their service area, as pretty much evey carrier here has a similar offer, and its impossible to miss the ads.
Beacuse those who understand or know history fail to teach the rest of us? Or at least provide a link.
No - the wikipedia article doesn't relly teach us why it failed. Besides it being obvioulsy a bad idea. Bad ideas have thrived earlier - what made the clipper chip idea different from any other bad idea that passes to a law?
Most companies nowadays recognise that developers are far more productive with at least 2 monitors. Where I work we all have 2 dell monitors attached to a laptop docking station for our company issue laptop so we can actually use 3 screens
Not quite true. Any perceived increase in productivity is greatly offset by me trying to fine-tune the scripts that handle the screens when docking and undocking, and the docking station showing all 5 (!! HDMI, DVI, VGA and 2xDP) video outputs as "DP2", and cloning the output between them. Yes, I am running Linux. No, this is not 1999. Thankyou Lenovo & Intel.
I bet (before reading TFA) that the system started to oscillate. (i.e. Hinder one from falling in, and its chance of falling in becomes less than the others - so rush to the other to hinder it. Then repeat.)
Then I watched the video - it didn't get even to that point. Or then it did start oscillate, but the feedback was given too soon (I am going to help this human - ergo the others chances are now worse).
I was confused. What happened here. Why is this "research" done, or reported on/.? Then I realized: the "news" here is that robots are programmed by humans. This is certainly not news for nerds. But seems it is news for non-nerds. And that is "stuff that matter".
If ROS is the operating system (I'm assuming the userland from context, never heard of this before now) and Linux is the kernel, then what does an "android version" even mean? Its not evident from TFAs.
And what the heck have the robots been running on up till now? x86-windows?
Now, just now, we have caught a bully in the action. Please don't spoil the moment.
What he did - i.e. reversed the role from victim to bully makes him a hero for all who are bullied. But no less a bully.
How he did it was a bit over the top. But that is irrelevant, as bullies always are over the top. At least from the victims' viewpoint.
I sincerely hope both parties learned their lessons. But I also know half of his victims hadn't even realized they had gone too far. Just like he himself didn't notice. I don't envy the judge's task of determining what is "justice" here.
I always thought it was US propaganda, actually. Nobody seems to care about blockading Cuba, and even the US government trades with Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base).
A bicyclist shows that they're going to turn right and the car 'blacklists' the area left of the bicycle.
Ah, but not all cyclists behave like that. The car should also blacklist the right side in consideration for those cyclist who actually signal and turn the same way.
Can you really think that learning to think critically is less important than rote facts here?
No. And that is just the strawman I've seen over and over again. Teaching the scientific process is trivial. Learning the accumulated data it has given us is not. Focus where it is due. Nobody (that I have seen) is suggesting not to teach the process aswell.
If schools aren't allowed to teach evolution because some people consider it a "religious or political"
Again, the strawman. Why could the facts of evolution not be taught? They look pretty overwhelming to me, and even if taught without any interpretations. That is the beauty of science. Any crackpot ideas die on their own accord, if "political or religious" interpretations are not allowed. If an idiot kid does draw the wrong conclusions from the evidence its their loss - and you just argued for their right to do so.
Seems to be 100% flames above. But what is so wrong with the suggestion:
focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.
A school's idea is to give a general understanding to the students in things. Since there has ben a huge amount of science done over the past few milennia, isn't it only natural that these researched facts get the focus rather than the process? The other way round means making everyone re-invent the wheel, leading to them learing about that particular "wheel" ony and missing the big picture.
Understanding the scientific process is essential, but that is not something one can really teach above a pretty basic level. It follows automatically for anyone who even tries to think at all. Sure, there are in-depth topics like error margins on your Amp-meter or ethical questions in medicine. But focusing on such matter over the accumulation of facts is a complete waste of students' time. At least untill they reach university levels.
The last part of prohibiting religious or political interpretation of facts is just plain good manners, and essential in any conversation with an american. Of course, it could be just me that never have heard a non-political argument on the climate denialists part, nor a non-religious interpretation of facts suggesting creationism.
So what is the fuss here? The above comments are full of strawman, smokescreen and ad hominem arguments. Did I miss the one that answers my doubts?
Slashdot Mirror
The front page makes no mention of embedded software. Instead it talks about "commanding robots" and shows an example of connecting from a linux desktop over a serial cable.
This is not "embedded".
some sort of sexual adventure
a.k.a. "marriage"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dors_Venabili
No its not.
Especially if you are a Luxembourg-based company.
Seems it actually was:
http://here.com/usa/stockholm/map=41.08509,-74.51112,13/title=Stockholm
http://here.com/usa/stockholm/map=47.02584,-68.16322,13/title=Stockholm
Or could Stockholm http://here.com/59.333685,18.1037361,11,0,0,normal.day sue them for pirating?
And why is trasporting people so much nobler than giving them a thrill? Why is dying for the cause or 'trasporting people' more acceptable than dying for 'making people's lifes happier'?
I guess your answer to "what is the meaning of life" is quite opposite to mine.
Or Wednesday will win? /.?
Why is this on article on
In case anyone is intersted, this slideset gives a nice overview of this "WWII tech".
http://www.ursanav.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/news/UrsaNav%20ILA-40%20eLoran%20System%20Definition%20%26%20Signal%20Specification%20Tutorial.pdf
25EUR/month.
Only cap is the LTE is throttled to 50Mbps, and price doesn't include foreign calls or SMS.
But I guess you/your grandmother don't live in their service area, as pretty much evey carrier here has a similar offer, and its impossible to miss the ads.
"Dos version for MAC, Linux users ... Will be released on end of Oct."
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/samsungssd/downloads.html?CID=AFL-hq-mul-0813-11000279/
Let me guess - the source for that firmware patch is stored on a Samsung EVO 840 disk?
Beacuse those who understand or know history fail to teach the rest of us? Or at least provide a link.
No - the wikipedia article doesn't relly teach us why it failed. Besides it being obvioulsy a bad idea. Bad ideas have thrived earlier - what made the clipper chip idea different from any other bad idea that passes to a law?
A-ha!
The nVidia rendering surely didn't take the reflection of these mirrors into account when rendering this "proof"!
It is a hoax! q.e.d.
Most companies nowadays recognise that developers are far more productive with at least 2 monitors. Where I work we all have 2 dell monitors attached to a laptop docking station for our company issue laptop so we can actually use 3 screens
Not quite true. Any perceived increase in productivity is greatly offset by me trying to fine-tune the scripts that handle the screens when docking and undocking, and the docking station showing all 5 (!! HDMI, DVI, VGA and 2xDP) video outputs as "DP2", and cloning the output between them.
Yes, I am running Linux. No, this is not 1999.
Thankyou Lenovo & Intel.
"He was shaken by an unwelcome insight. Lives did not add as integers. They added as infinities."
(Lois McMaster Bujold, Borders of Infinity)
I bet (before reading TFA) that the system started to oscillate.
(i.e. Hinder one from falling in, and its chance of falling in becomes less than the others - so rush to the other to hinder it. Then repeat.)
Then I watched the video - it didn't get even to that point.
Or then it did start oscillate, but the feedback was given too soon (I am going to help this human - ergo the others chances are now worse).
I was confused. What happened here. Why is this "research" done, or reported on /.? Then I realized: the "news" here is that robots are programmed by humans.
This is certainly not news for nerds. But seems it is news for non-nerds. And that is "stuff that matter".
This.
And "999 users" plus "nothing is uploaded anywhere else so it would be pretty hard to hack".
What can I say - CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
In 64 bit, C++ std::string up to 22 chars in size don't allocate any memory
The compiler I tried with does.
Would you have a link that explains this? And which compiler is this clever?
If ROS is the operating system (I'm assuming the userland from context, never heard of this before now) and Linux is the kernel, then what does an "android version" even mean? Its not evident from TFAs.
And what the heck have the robots been running on up till now? x86-windows?
Because they always are.
Now, just now, we have caught a bully in the action. Please don't spoil the moment.
What he did - i.e. reversed the role from victim to bully makes him a hero for all who are bullied. But no less a bully.
How he did it was a bit over the top. But that is irrelevant, as bullies always are over the top. At least from the victims' viewpoint.
I sincerely hope both parties learned their lessons. But I also know half of his victims hadn't even realized they had gone too far. Just like he himself didn't notice. I don't envy the judge's task of determining what is "justice" here.
I always thought it was US propaganda, actually. Nobody seems to care about blockading Cuba, and even the US government trades with Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base).
Perl surely. And 4 lines of that is anything but "simple".
A bicyclist shows that they're going to turn right and the car 'blacklists' the area left of the bicycle.
Ah, but not all cyclists behave like that. The car should also blacklist the right side in consideration for those cyclist who actually signal and turn the same way.
I saw, I considered, I LOL'd.
It would be interesting to get an idea what the effect is.
Can you really think that learning to think critically is less important than rote facts here?
No. And that is just the strawman I've seen over and over again.
Teaching the scientific process is trivial. Learning the accumulated data it has given us is not. Focus where it is due. Nobody (that I have seen) is suggesting not to teach the process aswell.
If schools aren't allowed to teach evolution because some people consider it a "religious or political"
Again, the strawman. Why could the facts of evolution not be taught? They look pretty overwhelming to me, and even if taught without any interpretations.
That is the beauty of science. Any crackpot ideas die on their own accord, if "political or religious" interpretations are not allowed. If an idiot kid does draw the wrong conclusions from the evidence its their loss - and you just argued for their right to do so.
Seems to be 100% flames above. But what is so wrong with the suggestion:
focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.
A school's idea is to give a general understanding to the students in things. Since there has ben a huge amount of science done over the past few milennia, isn't it only natural that these researched facts get the focus rather than the process? The other way round means making everyone re-invent the wheel, leading to them learing about that particular "wheel" ony and missing the big picture.
Understanding the scientific process is essential, but that is not something one can really teach above a pretty basic level. It follows automatically for anyone who even tries to think at all. Sure, there are in-depth topics like error margins on your Amp-meter or ethical questions in medicine. But focusing on such matter over the accumulation of facts is a complete waste of students' time. At least untill they reach university levels.
The last part of prohibiting religious or political interpretation of facts is just plain good manners, and essential in any conversation with an american. Of course, it could be just me that never have heard a non-political argument on the climate denialists part, nor a non-religious interpretation of facts suggesting creationism.
So what is the fuss here? The above comments are full of strawman, smokescreen and ad hominem arguments. Did I miss the one that answers my doubts?