The headline makes it sound like the police searched his car, but the article doesn't say that.
Assuming there was no search and the officer simply asked him why the car was radioactive and was satisfied with the explanation, this sounds like an example of the system working.
I'm actually very impressed that these detectors are widely deployed and sensitive enough to pick this up.
I find your claim a somewhat incredible. How did they know when these companies were coming? And then how did they cause traffic disruptions? Did the residents take turns parking on the road for hours on end? Did they fake car accidents? That seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, with considerable risk of police intervention, just to reduce tourist traffic on a nearby highway. What is your source for this information?
Totally false. I single person with a rover could have done in a day what spirit has done during it's whole mission.
Well, sending a person is dramatically more expensive. So maybe compare to 50 rovers?
A human could have driven Spirits entire path in a day on something no fast than a golf cart.
Well what the heck does the human have to do with that, then? Why not put the rover on the golf cart? The rovers have the best drive system possible with the power and weight constraints of the mission.
Humans can fix broken or flaky equipment.
Maybe? If you send them the spares and a clean room to work in?
Yes, if you give humans better equipment than the robots, plus the additional costs of a life support system and a ride home, they can do a better job. How is that surprising?
There is only one fundamental limitation with the robots -- the latency of the speed of light making tele-operation inconvenient. But that's not such a huge deal. The robots just have to be a little smarter about navigating on their own. And they already are.
Oh get off it. You're just being a contrary to the point of hyperbole. And you're completely wrong. Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone "This rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy consumption of humans and 200 times the worldwide electrical generating capacity, or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes."
Wikipedia also says that all nuclear testing amounted to 510 megatons of energy released. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield I don't know how that related to all "all explosives ever detonated", but assuming that is the total, then it would take a hurricane ~1,000 minutes to match the energy. You were off by a factor of at minimum 1,000 with your hyperbole.
Now, disregarding that, you're simply wrong that we can't influence hurricanes. It's simple math. If the water 100m below the surface if 5 degrees cooler, and we clearly understand how every change in water surface temperature influences hurricane strength, you can easily calculate how much energy we need to expand to pump that water up and how long it will stay there before convecting back down, etc... You can come up with a straightforward figure for how many joules our fleet needs to expend, and judging by this patent, it's not an astronomical figure.
Stop spouting this whole "noble nature" myth. Humans got to be a successful, spacefaring civilization by engineering the hell out of our environment. Our water system, the land, etc. This is just the next step.
Indeed, the original article has been updated with an editor's note now to indicate that it does not apply to US citizens. The summary needs to be clarified.
This is an excellent suggestion. If you can pull the curtain aside and take the magic out of the world, it can help the person put things into perspective.
This is clearly a transitional measure, and not a concerted effort to hide communications from mandated records keeping procedures as Bush and Palin are accused of.
It shouldn't have just been denied an oral presentation, it should have been caught by the program committee and never reviewed. You can't read 3 sentences of that abstract without knowing that it's garbage.
Presumably someone DID review this and deny it an oral, but didn't follow up with the program committee to make sure it was pulled entirely.
I've never been to a conference which pity accepts papers. CVPR, a IEEE conference on computer vision, has a 25% acceptance rate for posters. I think this paper is quite an embarrassment to IEEE.
Good point, although the recruit-a-friend EXP bonus works even with free, trial accounts (which are capped at level 20) and ceases to work on any account at level 60.
So in total, you could argue that this is a shell game to make you pay for an experience bonus, but it's only going to matter for a level range that is perhaps 1/3rd or 1/4th of the leveling process.
I actually really enjoy the leveling process in WoW. I can't imagine how it used to be in EQ, where you would just camp one spot in a dungeon and repeatedly pull respawns.
50% extra experience gain = "Only Fluff Items"? Giving a player with more money a competitive advantage with the core gameplay mechanism is "Only Fluff Items"?
Blizzard rewards from Blizzcon, Collector's editions, or card games are "Only Fluff Items". This crosses a terrible line.
Exact same thing? I didn't complain about the vanity aspects of what Sony is selling, and I won't complain about it from Blizzard either.
The bonuses that Blizzard gives players from things like Blizzcon or Collector's editions don't change the gameplay at all. What Sony is selling is something that actually changes the gameplay and gives you an advantage over other players.
So, they're intentionally making the game a grindfest so that they make more money? How can anyone argue that isn't asinine? You buy the game, you pay a subscription fee, but it's only REALLY fun if you pay 10 dollars every 4 hours.
Assuming that 1 tonne = 1000kg, this machine requires approximately 1 kilowatt hour of electricity to remove 10kg of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. How efficient is this?
"For home energy use, carbon dioxide emissions vary widely from state-to-state and from day-to-day. The national average is about 1.3 pounds of carbon dioxide for every kilowatt-hour of electricity used in your home."
Not bad. If it really works, you can redirect 10 to 15% of your electricity to achieve Carbon neutrality.
Current technology does not only make use of visible light. Efficiency is measured in terms of all incoming irradiance, which includes some UV and some Infrared.
I thought multi-layered solar cells which captured increasingly high energy photos were common. I thought there were clearly understood theoretical limits on conversion efficiency, and that it would not be remotely possible to get 500 times more light absorption than currently achieved. I'm extremely skeptical.
The publication is supposed to contain enough information to recreate the results.
Question 4 on the SIGGRAPH review form - "4. Could the work be reproduced by one or more skilled graduate students? Are all important algorithmic or system details discussed adequately? Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear?"
If you or a company wants it bad enough, the information is there, unless the review process failed (which does happen).
This wasn't a SIGGRAPH paper but the ability to reproduce results is none-the-less a standard prerequisite for academic publication.
It's certainly not as convenient as releasing source code, but that's sometimes a big challenge for an academic researcher because the last thing they want is to have to support buggy, poorly documented research code for random people on the internet.
I must misunderstand something. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductor) says
"The simplest method to measure the electrical resistance of a sample of some material is to place it in an electrical circuit in series with a current source I and measure the resulting voltage V across the sample. The resistance of the sample is given by Ohm's law as R = V/I. If the voltage is zero, this means that the resistance is zero and that the sample is in the superconducting state."
So, no voltage implies no resistance implies superconductivity. But the reverse isn't true? We have a cable that has superconductivity yet still has voltage?
What you're asking for is ill-defined, but much sought after.
A reasonable descriptor which produces distances that seem somewhat correlated with human perception would indeed be Antonio Torralba and Aude Oliva's gist descriptor.
Jeff Hinton worked with them, you really think they're plagiarizing him? That claim doesn't even make sense, this is a novel research domain. A big part of science is taking people's ideas, reproducing them, and applying them to novel domains. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
This research involves the use of one of the largest image databases seen in computer vision. It shows that you can do extremely rapid scene matching for databases of this scale. No, that's not obvious no matter what you think. This image data is fairly high dimensional.
This research says something about the space of likely scenes and it might be a key enabling technology to a lot of the heavily data driven computer vision and computer graphics approaches popping up lately.
Slashdot Mirror
The headline makes it sound like the police searched his car, but the article doesn't say that.
Assuming there was no search and the officer simply asked him why the car was radioactive and was satisfied with the explanation, this sounds like an example of the system working.
I'm actually very impressed that these detectors are widely deployed and sensitive enough to pick this up.
I find your claim a somewhat incredible. How did they know when these companies were coming? And then how did they cause traffic disruptions? Did the residents take turns parking on the road for hours on end? Did they fake car accidents? That seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, with considerable risk of police intervention, just to reduce tourist traffic on a nearby highway. What is your source for this information?
Wind turbines, even under favorable circumstances, don't produce even enough power to manufacture wind turbines. [citation needed]
I'll second that endorsement. PDAnet is pretty slick. Tethers through USB or Bluetooth (although bluetooth is much harder to configure).
Totally false. I single person with a rover could have done in a day what spirit has done during it's whole mission.
Well, sending a person is dramatically more expensive. So maybe compare to 50 rovers?
A human could have driven Spirits entire path in a day on something no fast than a golf cart.
Well what the heck does the human have to do with that, then? Why not put the rover on the golf cart? The rovers have the best drive system possible with the power and weight constraints of the mission.
Humans can fix broken or flaky equipment.
Maybe? If you send them the spares and a clean room to work in?
Yes, if you give humans better equipment than the robots, plus the additional costs of a life support system and a ride home, they can do a better job. How is that surprising?
There is only one fundamental limitation with the robots -- the latency of the speed of light making tele-operation inconvenient. But that's not such a huge deal. The robots just have to be a little smarter about navigating on their own. And they already are.
The text is warped and obfuscated. Look at example captchas -- do you really think the geometric swirls were in the source documents?
Oh get off it. You're just being a contrary to the point of hyperbole. And you're completely wrong.
Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
"This rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy consumption of humans and 200 times the worldwide electrical generating capacity, or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes."
Wikipedia also says that all nuclear testing amounted to 510 megatons of energy released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield
I don't know how that related to all "all explosives ever detonated", but assuming that is the total, then it would take a hurricane ~1,000 minutes to match the energy. You were off by a factor of at minimum 1,000 with your hyperbole.
Now, disregarding that, you're simply wrong that we can't influence hurricanes. It's simple math. If the water 100m below the surface if 5 degrees cooler, and we clearly understand how every change in water surface temperature influences hurricane strength, you can easily calculate how much energy we need to expand to pump that water up and how long it will stay there before convecting back down, etc... You can come up with a straightforward figure for how many joules our fleet needs to expend, and judging by this patent, it's not an astronomical figure.
Stop spouting this whole "noble nature" myth. Humans got to be a successful, spacefaring civilization by engineering the hell out of our environment. Our water system, the land, etc. This is just the next step.
Indeed, the original article has been updated with an editor's note now to indicate that it does not apply to US citizens. The summary needs to be clarified.
This is an excellent suggestion. If you can pull the curtain aside and take the magic out of the world, it can help the person put things into perspective.
This is clearly a transitional measure, and not a concerted effort to hide communications from mandated records keeping procedures as Bush and Palin are accused of.
It shouldn't have just been denied an oral presentation, it should have been caught by the program committee and never reviewed. You can't read 3 sentences of that abstract without knowing that it's garbage.
Presumably someone DID review this and deny it an oral, but didn't follow up with the program committee to make sure it was pulled entirely.
I've never been to a conference which pity accepts papers. CVPR, a IEEE conference on computer vision, has a 25% acceptance rate for posters. I think this paper is quite an embarrassment to IEEE.
Good point, although the recruit-a-friend EXP bonus works even with free, trial accounts (which are capped at level 20) and ceases to work on any account at level 60.
So in total, you could argue that this is a shell game to make you pay for an experience bonus, but it's only going to matter for a level range that is perhaps 1/3rd or 1/4th of the leveling process.
I actually really enjoy the leveling process in WoW. I can't imagine how it used to be in EQ, where you would just camp one spot in a dungeon and repeatedly pull respawns.
50% extra experience gain = "Only Fluff Items"? Giving a player with more money a competitive advantage with the core gameplay mechanism is "Only Fluff Items"?
Blizzard rewards from Blizzcon, Collector's editions, or card games are "Only Fluff Items". This crosses a terrible line.
Exact same thing? I didn't complain about the vanity aspects of what Sony is selling, and I won't complain about it from Blizzard either.
The bonuses that Blizzard gives players from things like Blizzcon or Collector's editions don't change the gameplay at all. What Sony is selling is something that actually changes the gameplay and gives you an advantage over other players.
So, they're intentionally making the game a grindfest so that they make more money? How can anyone argue that isn't asinine? You buy the game, you pay a subscription fee, but it's only REALLY fun if you pay 10 dollars every 4 hours.
Assuming that 1 tonne = 1000kg, this machine requires approximately 1 kilowatt hour of electricity to remove 10kg of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. How efficient is this?
From http://www.glumac.com/section.asp?catid=140&subid=152&pageid=564
"For home energy use, carbon dioxide emissions vary widely from state-to-state and from day-to-day. The national average is about 1.3 pounds of carbon dioxide for every kilowatt-hour of electricity used in your home."
Not bad. If it really works, you can redirect 10 to 15% of your electricity to achieve Carbon neutrality.
Your math is right, but it has nothing to do with the summary or article, which both say "500 times".
Current technology does not only make use of visible light. Efficiency is measured in terms of all incoming irradiance, which includes some UV and some Infrared.
However, there's only so much that makes it through our atmosphere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_transmittance_or_opacity.jpg
I thought multi-layered solar cells which captured increasingly high energy photos were common. I thought there were clearly understood theoretical limits on conversion efficiency, and that it would not be remotely possible to get 500 times more light absorption than currently achieved. I'm extremely skeptical.
The publication is supposed to contain enough information to recreate the results.
Question 4 on the SIGGRAPH review form -
"4. Could the work be reproduced by one or more skilled graduate students? Are all important algorithmic or system details discussed adequately? Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear?"
If you or a company wants it bad enough, the information is there, unless the review process failed (which does happen).
This wasn't a SIGGRAPH paper but the ability to reproduce results is none-the-less a standard prerequisite for academic publication.
It's certainly not as convenient as releasing source code, but that's sometimes a big challenge for an academic researcher because the last thing they want is to have to support buggy, poorly documented research code for random people on the internet.
I must misunderstand something. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductor) says
"The simplest method to measure the electrical resistance of a sample of some material is to place it in an electrical circuit in series with a current source I and measure the resulting voltage V across the sample. The resistance of the sample is given by Ohm's law as R = V/I. If the voltage is zero, this means that the resistance is zero and that the sample is in the superconducting state."
So, no voltage implies no resistance implies superconductivity. But the reverse isn't true? We have a cable that has superconductivity yet still has voltage?
Read the papers then
http://people.csail.mit.edu/torralba/tinyimages/
What you're asking for is ill-defined, but much sought after.
A reasonable descriptor which produces distances that seem somewhat correlated with human perception would indeed be Antonio Torralba and Aude Oliva's gist descriptor.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/torralba/code/spatialenvelope/
It's become quite popular in computer vision and computer graphics for scene matching.
Yeah, what a trivial test environment, their "All pictures on Flickr" database. That's so narrow.
Jeff Hinton worked with them, you really think they're plagiarizing him? That claim doesn't even make sense, this is a novel research domain. A big part of science is taking people's ideas, reproducing them, and applying them to novel domains. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
This research involves the use of one of the largest image databases seen in computer vision. It shows that you can do extremely rapid scene matching for databases of this scale. No, that's not obvious no matter what you think. This image data is fairly high dimensional.
This research says something about the space of likely scenes and it might be a key enabling technology to a lot of the heavily data driven computer vision and computer graphics approaches popping up lately.