Well, none of this thing really mimicks a human. Our stability is 100% due to muscular action under balanced tension, not static mechanical linkages that maintain orientation regardless of force.
But, what they have is a good platform for making something that can modulate its stability without a lot of computation.
But, it's somewhat less impressive than your average strandbeest.
Common misconception. Back in the 50s, when those songs were written, everyone was gay. The world has changed a lot since then.
Re:We're going to need a new human-value paradigm
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
"If you have land, you have means to meet your needs."
You won't have land, at least not farmable land, because it's all owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which right now uses gigantic machines to allow a single farm-worker to work 500x the land a man and his mule could farm 150 years ago (and infrastructural improvements to make about 50% more land farmable). Replace the driver of the machine with a robot, and it's all over for your idea of land being vitality.
You will have a cubicle in a stack, and the key thereto. And a landlord. That's your future.
No, the evidence from the Mythbusters showed that we wander in either direction. No consistency.
They were convinced they were on track to their target the whole time, but somtimes went left, sometimes went right, sometimes both, sometimes making loops only a few meters in diameter.
Fact is, without eyes or ears, we don't know we're veering from a straight path.
If it weren't for a recent episode of Mythbusters that showed that humans need external directional cues to maintain their own guidance (otherwise we wander and circle without realizing it) I'd say I want to see this thing work on just two legs. But to work on two legs it would need external guidance, which would eliminate the untethered, unpowered aspect.
So instead I'll say: okay, now make one that has a simple motor that can walk up that slope indefinitely.
Most of those non-mechanical jobs require more intelligence than most of the population has. You can't just throw people at them. You have to throw very carefully chosen people at them.
Uh, no. Even living in a 1st-world country doesn't guarantee you a place at anything. It just guarantees you a front-row seat to watching the moneyed class pass by in their carriages.
As long as we apportion money preferably to those who have the most "productivity", and apportion resources preferably to those who have the most money, the "leisure time" afforded to those who have no productivity, hence no money, will not be enjoyable. It will be a misery of begging and starvation. It's not just capitalism v. socialism, it's a total revision of economy to exclude the concept of productivity as valued. The alternative is to accept billions of starving beggars as the natural order (despite the fact that money is as unnatural a thing as there is).
We're going to need a new human-value paradigm
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
Our reliance on money and the value of work as a means of apportioning resources will have to change, once humans no longer have work to do.
Because the alternative is that people who own computers and robots will receive all the money, and billions who do not will have no means to acquire food, shelter, clothing, medicine, communications, transportation...
That is the obvious endgame to our current system.
How can biological/biochemical entities that interface human brains to a field that mediates telekinetic and telepathic action at a distance not be hard sci-fi?
The Force was fun fantasy when it could have been anything. It turned dopey when it was explained. And it wasn't nearly as much fun as the Babel Fish, which was fun because it exists to mock such science-warping exposition.
Our ability to apprehend lawbreakers nominally stops at our borders. Our law, like everyone else's, applies to everyone, everywhere. If anyone commits a crime, as defined by American law, anywhere in the world that harms America or Americans, then America has the right to request extradition. Now, in many cases the country harboring the criminal will simply say "we don't agree with that law or the punishment you set for it. Go away." In fact, it's usually so obvious we don't even ask. But in the case of an incident in which American foreign policy and security are put at grave risk, other countries are likely to pay a little more heed to the request. Especially if they expect reciprocal courtesy for similar acts committed against them when we happen to find the perp in our jurisdiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, none of this thing really mimicks a human. Our stability is 100% due to muscular action under balanced tension, not static mechanical linkages that maintain orientation regardless of force.
But, what they have is a good platform for making something that can modulate its stability without a lot of computation.
But, it's somewhat less impressive than your average strandbeest.
I think we're supposed to assume that since she's female, she's less likely to be a greedy parasite.
Unfortunately, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have forever destroyed that stereotype.
It remains to be seen if Ms. Rometty is human as well as success-oriented.
have you seen her?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/10/25/virginia-rometty-named-next-ibm-chief/
if that doesn't get the fapping noises going in your basement lair, you're no kind of nerd
If she was all that mediocre, she'd already have been CEO at HP.
Common misconception. Back in the 50s, when those songs were written, everyone was gay. The world has changed a lot since then.
"If you have land, you have means to meet your needs."
You won't have land, at least not farmable land, because it's all owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which right now uses gigantic machines to allow a single farm-worker to work 500x the land a man and his mule could farm 150 years ago (and infrastructural improvements to make about 50% more land farmable). Replace the driver of the machine with a robot, and it's all over for your idea of land being vitality.
You will have a cubicle in a stack, and the key thereto. And a landlord. That's your future.
It's staying almost perfectly on course. Throw in a turning imbalance in each step, though, and I doubt that would happen.
Actually, they kinda suck at science, except for the simple fact that they test things and trust their evidence.
I'd like to see them do a little more of the math, then test their math against their evidence, too.
Er, I think they fixed the ankle just to simplify the thing. Shouldn't be impossible to replace it with a pantograph and get a similar result.
No, the evidence from the Mythbusters showed that we wander in either direction. No consistency.
They were convinced they were on track to their target the whole time, but somtimes went left, sometimes went right, sometimes both, sometimes making loops only a few meters in diameter.
Fact is, without eyes or ears, we don't know we're veering from a straight path.
Which makes a lot of sense, looking at it now.
If it weren't for a recent episode of Mythbusters that showed that humans need external directional cues to maintain their own guidance (otherwise we wander and circle without realizing it) I'd say I want to see this thing work on just two legs. But to work on two legs it would need external guidance, which would eliminate the untethered, unpowered aspect.
So instead I'll say: okay, now make one that has a simple motor that can walk up that slope indefinitely.
that obsoletes the rich.
Most of those non-mechanical jobs require more intelligence than most of the population has. You can't just throw people at them. You have to throw very carefully chosen people at them.
Henry Ford hired a hundred thousand people, constructing entire towns to house them, because his assembly line, while fast, was still 100% manual.
He may have out-competed his compatriots in entrepreneurship, but he did so by out-competing them for workers as well as customers.
What this article is about is obsoleting the workers while retaining the customers. Something Henry Ford didn't do until much later.
So, this is not the counterexample you're looking for.
Uh, no. Even living in a 1st-world country doesn't guarantee you a place at anything. It just guarantees you a front-row seat to watching the moneyed class pass by in their carriages.
As long as we apportion money preferably to those who have the most "productivity", and apportion resources preferably to those who have the most money, the "leisure time" afforded to those who have no productivity, hence no money, will not be enjoyable. It will be a misery of begging and starvation. It's not just capitalism v. socialism, it's a total revision of economy to exclude the concept of productivity as valued. The alternative is to accept billions of starving beggars as the natural order (despite the fact that money is as unnatural a thing as there is).
Our reliance on money and the value of work as a means of apportioning resources will have to change, once humans no longer have work to do.
Because the alternative is that people who own computers and robots will receive all the money, and billions who do not will have no means to acquire food, shelter, clothing, medicine, communications, transportation...
That is the obvious endgame to our current system.
HomePlug is usable, but it's comparatively underpowered. Good wireless speeds are now 300-450 mbps.
Any chance they'll start geeking out over the WNDR4000?
It'd be fun to hack it onto mine myself, but it would also be a lot of time I don't have.
Oh, I suppose I could stop reading /.
And I suppose I would, once I bricked my router...
Yup. Postulate the existence of a field capable of mediating, it, then propose a method of interacting with it.
No different from warp drive or subspace radio.
Except those aren't lame excuses for the effect they cause.
How can biological/biochemical entities that interface human brains to a field that mediates telekinetic and telepathic action at a distance not be hard sci-fi?
The Force was fun fantasy when it could have been anything. It turned dopey when it was explained. And it wasn't nearly as much fun as the Babel Fish, which was fun because it exists to mock such science-warping exposition.
Our ability to apprehend lawbreakers nominally stops at our borders. Our law, like everyone else's, applies to everyone, everywhere. If anyone commits a crime, as defined by American law, anywhere in the world that harms America or Americans, then America has the right to request extradition. Now, in many cases the country harboring the criminal will simply say "we don't agree with that law or the punishment you set for it. Go away." In fact, it's usually so obvious we don't even ask. But in the case of an incident in which American foreign policy and security are put at grave risk, other countries are likely to pay a little more heed to the request. Especially if they expect reciprocal courtesy for similar acts committed against them when we happen to find the perp in our jurisdiction.
what's stopping them from publishing what they have?
The inabilty to monetize it.
Nor is it a sprout.
Discuss.
I'm tired of explaining this, but I keep having to:
You don't have to be in the US, nor an American, to break American law.
(Now will follow a flood of naive counterclaims about how law works, all of which will be wrong if they try to contradict that statement.)