I can see the advantages of a small camera, but I don't see the advantages of an iPhone over other platforms, especially since it has a very small aperture and limited exposure control options (especially compared to a small video camera) which means that the lighting must be more difficult - and would probably require lights to be placed in holes and rigs that Mr. Soderbergh describe as not being necessary for the camera.
In an ironic twist, the ad that shows up on the page as I write this for "Panasonic. The Video Camera for Professionals. Film making. Evolved".
Because he had 10 guns and had threatened the school.
The NRA and other gun advocacy groups would be providing lawyers and lawsuits defending the kid's 1st amendment rights to free speech and his 2nd amendment rights to have as many weapons of whatever type he wanted.
You guys protect the gun manufacturers coming and going.
I would think that one of the biggest safety advantages of getting rid of mirrors and having cameras would be eliminating the potential for night-vision blindness from drivers who think they make the road safer by driving with their high beams on all the time.
If the rear view could be shown without the blinding glare of these vehicles, I would consider that a win.
When I did a quick Google search, the claimed increase in drag for side mirrors is 3%-6%.
Let's assume that it's 3%, the car gets 25mpg, the travel life of the average car is 50,000miles and the average cost of gas through this period is $2.50/gal.
With the mirrors, the cost in gas is: (50,000miles / 25miles/gal) * $2.50/gal = $5,000.00
Without the mirrors, the fuel economy goes up to 25.75mpg and the calculation becomes: (50,000miles / 25.75miles/gal) * 2.50 = $4,854.37
Even using the 7% figure in the parent post, the calculation becomes (50,000miles / (25miles/gal & 1.07)) * 2.50 = $4,672.90
While I do understand that any single digit percentage improvement in fuel economy is a big thing for car manufacturers, I'm not sure if the technology can be made cheap enough (even with removing the costs of the mirrors) to be viable and result in an overall reduction in costs for the owner.
Adding technology costs to the basic cost of a vehicle (even though it saves on fuel and other costs) generally does not get car owners excited about the technology.
I'm confused by your argument that not having mirrors makes it harder to move to the shoulder in case of a loss of electrical power. You lose electrical power, your engine will die and you coast to a stop while driving to a shoulder - hopefully other vehicles will notice the change in speed of your car and avoid you.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the technology used in contemporary cars; power steering uses hydraulics and power brakes uses vacuum. Without electrical power, your ignition's dead so you're coming to a stop no matter what. Over the years, I've driven several cars with dead batteries and dead alternators to get them to a mechanic and avoid the towing chargers.
In the future, there may be more electrical/electronic actuators but for basic steering and braking power assist, hydraulics and vacuum will probably be around for decades to come - the technology is known, cheap and reliable.
I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of this technology - as was pointed out what's the advantage of this technology over a $0.50 mirror?
When I RFTA, it seems like the technology is really designed for objects in front of the car, which would actually be an advantage.
This past week, I had my first encounter with a deer - I was driving on a country road at dusk when I saw the deer's eyes glowing from the car's headlights. I can see where they would be a hazard as the deer blended into the background of the road.
If the technology described here could avoid these types of hazards in front of the vehicle (including kids running out into the road), I can see it's value.
For things behind the car, where a simple mirror works very well, not so much.
I have to take issue with basically everything positive said about Microsoft in TFA.
I've been continually losing respect regarding Microsoft's ability to put out a quality product in just about any product space. The only thing I can really say about that isn't totally negative about any of their products is that they haven't made Office (not Office 365) worse.
If I was to look at the number of people who use Bing, I would immediately break them down into two groups: 1) People who's work organizations won't allow them to change any system settings or add any software (including Chrome). 2) People who are too stupid to specify Google as their default search engine.
Cue the ACs that feel that I'm unfairly maligning Microsoft...
Actually, it is like the '90s where schools and teachers are told to bring programming into the classroom and nobody has any idea how to approach the issue.
I can see Javascript being a good way to be introduced to basic programming for the reasons that you state.
The problem with Javascript is it's terrible execution model for catching run time errors (it basically doesn't which makes it harder for students to see and debug their mistakes), it's event driven execution which doesn't work in a way that follows any other model and going from simple programming to even using it in web pages requires a step function in understanding and learning that requires a lot of time.
I agree with a part of your statement, but what's missing is giving students a chance to see what programming is and whether or not they like it/can do well at it.
What's needed are platforms that appeal to all students to at least give programming a try and work at a level that all teachers can support.
I think you're confusing what's easy for you with what it would be for somebody starting out or a public school teacher who's setting up a programming course.
Take a Grade 8 teacher, which is a good age to start programming, who's training specialty is English, French or History, can send an email on a board supplied system, make a powerpoint or word file (or Google equivalent) as well as a FaceBook post on their phone and tell them they now have to setup a Raspberry Pi, support it with the students in the class, learn how to use the file system and now they can start programming.
This isn't a theoretical example, somebody following your line of thought convinced the Toronto District School Board to buy several thousand (I've heard 8,000 and 80,000) Raspberry Pis for grade 1-8 classrooms and, two years later, maybe a couple of dozen of them are now being used.
The only successful thing that was done was to convince teachers and the board that it's hard to teach programming using Raspberry Pis.
My daughter is taking game programming and was struggling with working with Ogre and another graphics engine (I can't remember which one right now) and was struggling to do the builds on Win10.
I pushed her onto Mint and she was able to get up and running in a few hours despite being very nervous about wanting to learn Linux. She's still scared of Ubuntu (my default) but she loves Mint.
I had one myself around the same time. The "red switches" were actually a slider that moved a number of contacts up and down. Depending on how you wired the contacts, they would act is AND, OR, XOR gates and you could put together simple logic functions like decoders, half adders, etc. The output was a number of light bulbs.
Is was as finicky as all hell and not all that well documented. I suspect the poor documentation was due to the fact there wasn't a lot of education depth in the tool - once you figured out how to wire the different gates, that was really all there was to it.
If you're an aspiring Sci-Fi writer, I think the basic first step has become to write a Star Trek/Star Wars as well as (with less numerous) X-Files "canons".
The early books in these were generally pretty readable by pretty good writers but they've proliferated beyond all belief, basically becoming Harlequin Romances for Nerds. Most (used) book stores I go to now have sections devoted to these titles and they're crowding out original Sci-Fi.
I liked the characters and setting of Firefly, but the TV episodes' stories never really grabbed me. There are a few that are memorable but most felt pretty pedestrian to me - maybe a few good books would help move the series forwards.
Nope. Watch the video again, they both seem to be focusing on one pad, as you say, but in the last few seconds the other pad comes into view on one of the feeds.
I wondered about that as well, but if you watch and compare closely, the feeds have a slightly different perspective AND if you follow them all the way down, you'll see that the burns are different and just before landing, you'll see that one of the feeds has the engine burn of the other.
I was somewhat surprised to see that the interface will be JS. I guess it will do the job, but it doesn't seem like a solution that will scale well when the technology goes forwards and more sophisticated graphics capabilities are required.
I have nothing against JavaScript except that it seems to be the default for intelligent operations without any regard to its capabilities, limitations and weirdness.
Could it be because an Android or iOS SDK would exclude Windows, making things awkward for Intel's relationship with Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
a GoPro or small video camera?
I can see the advantages of a small camera, but I don't see the advantages of an iPhone over other platforms, especially since it has a very small aperture and limited exposure control options (especially compared to a small video camera) which means that the lighting must be more difficult - and would probably require lights to be placed in holes and rigs that Mr. Soderbergh describe as not being necessary for the camera.
In an ironic twist, the ad that shows up on the page as I write this for "Panasonic. The Video Camera for Professionals. Film making. Evolved".
Because he had 10 guns and had threatened the school.
The NRA and other gun advocacy groups would be providing lawyers and lawsuits defending the kid's 1st amendment rights to free speech and his 2nd amendment rights to have as many weapons of whatever type he wanted.
You guys protect the gun manufacturers coming and going.
Seriously, what did you think were all those coloured lights in Blade Runner?
I would think that one of the biggest safety advantages of getting rid of mirrors and having cameras would be eliminating the potential for night-vision blindness from drivers who think they make the road safer by driving with their high beams on all the time.
If the rear view could be shown without the blinding glare of these vehicles, I would consider that a win.
When I did a quick Google search, the claimed increase in drag for side mirrors is 3%-6%.
Let's assume that it's 3%, the car gets 25mpg, the travel life of the average car is 50,000miles and the average cost of gas through this period is $2.50/gal.
With the mirrors, the cost in gas is: (50,000miles / 25miles/gal) * $2.50/gal = $5,000.00
Without the mirrors, the fuel economy goes up to 25.75mpg and the calculation becomes: (50,000miles / 25.75miles/gal) * 2.50 = $4,854.37
Even using the 7% figure in the parent post, the calculation becomes (50,000miles / (25miles/gal & 1.07)) * 2.50 = $4,672.90
While I do understand that any single digit percentage improvement in fuel economy is a big thing for car manufacturers, I'm not sure if the technology can be made cheap enough (even with removing the costs of the mirrors) to be viable and result in an overall reduction in costs for the owner.
Adding technology costs to the basic cost of a vehicle (even though it saves on fuel and other costs) generally does not get car owners excited about the technology.
I'm confused by your argument that not having mirrors makes it harder to move to the shoulder in case of a loss of electrical power. You lose electrical power, your engine will die and you coast to a stop while driving to a shoulder - hopefully other vehicles will notice the change in speed of your car and avoid you.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the technology used in contemporary cars; power steering uses hydraulics and power brakes uses vacuum. Without electrical power, your ignition's dead so you're coming to a stop no matter what. Over the years, I've driven several cars with dead batteries and dead alternators to get them to a mechanic and avoid the towing chargers.
In the future, there may be more electrical/electronic actuators but for basic steering and braking power assist, hydraulics and vacuum will probably be around for decades to come - the technology is known, cheap and reliable.
I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of this technology - as was pointed out what's the advantage of this technology over a $0.50 mirror?
When I RFTA, it seems like the technology is really designed for objects in front of the car, which would actually be an advantage.
This past week, I had my first encounter with a deer - I was driving on a country road at dusk when I saw the deer's eyes glowing from the car's headlights. I can see where they would be a hazard as the deer blended into the background of the road.
If the technology described here could avoid these types of hazards in front of the vehicle (including kids running out into the road), I can see it's value.
For things behind the car, where a simple mirror works very well, not so much.
Apparently you've never heard of Windows 10.
Fuggeddaboutit
- Edward "Greasy Wheel" Cordinani Esq. Representing one Anthony Soprano
LOL.
That's been superseded by this week's scandal.
Maybe it should be "Stormy McDougal" - at least for the next few days.
I have to take issue with basically everything positive said about Microsoft in TFA.
I've been continually losing respect regarding Microsoft's ability to put out a quality product in just about any product space. The only thing I can really say about that isn't totally negative about any of their products is that they haven't made Office (not Office 365) worse.
If I was to look at the number of people who use Bing, I would immediately break them down into two groups:
1) People who's work organizations won't allow them to change any system settings or add any software (including Chrome).
2) People who are too stupid to specify Google as their default search engine.
Cue the ACs that feel that I'm unfairly maligning Microsoft...
Actually, it is like the '90s where schools and teachers are told to bring programming into the classroom and nobody has any idea how to approach the issue.
I can see Javascript being a good way to be introduced to basic programming for the reasons that you state.
The problem with Javascript is it's terrible execution model for catching run time errors (it basically doesn't which makes it harder for students to see and debug their mistakes), it's event driven execution which doesn't work in a way that follows any other model and going from simple programming to even using it in web pages requires a step function in understanding and learning that requires a lot of time.
I agree with a part of your statement, but what's missing is giving students a chance to see what programming is and whether or not they like it/can do well at it.
What's needed are platforms that appeal to all students to at least give programming a try and work at a level that all teachers can support.
I think you're confusing what's easy for you with what it would be for somebody starting out or a public school teacher who's setting up a programming course.
Take a Grade 8 teacher, which is a good age to start programming, who's training specialty is English, French or History, can send an email on a board supplied system, make a powerpoint or word file (or Google equivalent) as well as a FaceBook post on their phone and tell them they now have to setup a Raspberry Pi, support it with the students in the class, learn how to use the file system and now they can start programming.
This isn't a theoretical example, somebody following your line of thought convinced the Toronto District School Board to buy several thousand (I've heard 8,000 and 80,000) Raspberry Pis for grade 1-8 classrooms and, two years later, maybe a couple of dozen of them are now being used.
The only successful thing that was done was to convince teachers and the board that it's hard to teach programming using Raspberry Pis.
My daughter is taking game programming and was struggling with working with Ogre and another graphics engine (I can't remember which one right now) and was struggling to do the builds on Win10.
I pushed her onto Mint and she was able to get up and running in a few hours despite being very nervous about wanting to learn Linux. She's still scared of Ubuntu (my default) but she loves Mint.
Just be a candidate for the IOCCC.
I think this is what you're talking about: https://www.pcworld.com/articl...
I had one myself around the same time. The "red switches" were actually a slider that moved a number of contacts up and down. Depending on how you wired the contacts, they would act is AND, OR, XOR gates and you could put together simple logic functions like decoders, half adders, etc. The output was a number of light bulbs.
Is was as finicky as all hell and not all that well documented. I suspect the poor documentation was due to the fact there wasn't a lot of education depth in the tool - once you figured out how to wire the different gates, that was really all there was to it.
I could read a few books based on the Cowboy Bebop characters (before Spike dies, of course).
If you're an aspiring Sci-Fi writer, I think the basic first step has become to write a Star Trek/Star Wars as well as (with less numerous) X-Files "canons".
The early books in these were generally pretty readable by pretty good writers but they've proliferated beyond all belief, basically becoming Harlequin Romances for Nerds. Most (used) book stores I go to now have sections devoted to these titles and they're crowding out original Sci-Fi.
I liked the characters and setting of Firefly, but the TV episodes' stories never really grabbed me. There are a few that are memorable but most felt pretty pedestrian to me - maybe a few good books would help move the series forwards.
Nope. Watch the video again, they both seem to be focusing on one pad, as you say, but in the last few seconds the other pad comes into view on one of the feeds.
They're really close, but they are different.
I wondered about that as well, but if you watch and compare closely, the feeds have a slightly different perspective AND if you follow them all the way down, you'll see that the burns are different and just before landing, you'll see that one of the feeds has the engine burn of the other.
The technology is really awe-inspiring.
As I write this, still no word as to whether or not the core stage landed on the drone ship successfully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Quite amazing to watch the two boosters land simultaneously (at 37:58).
I guess Mr. Musk was sandbagging a bit when he said he would be happy if the pad wasn't destroyed.
Everyone at SpaceX must be very proud, and rightly so.
I was somewhat surprised to see that the interface will be JS. I guess it will do the job, but it doesn't seem like a solution that will scale well when the technology goes forwards and more sophisticated graphics capabilities are required.
I have nothing against JavaScript except that it seems to be the default for intelligent operations without any regard to its capabilities, limitations and weirdness.
Could it be because an Android or iOS SDK would exclude Windows, making things awkward for Intel's relationship with Microsoft?