Why do researchers keep wasting time on these stupid little robots? There's very little actually learnt from making an autonomous robot. So it's not for science. There's very few products that benefit from this research. So it's not for commercialization. It's basically a hobby and, as this hobbyist has shown, best left to the hobbyists. It always surprises me how little scientists actually work together. By now, all these autonomous robot researchers should have put together a simulation package to do their research in. The mechanical engineers, who just can't help getting their hands dirty, can take the designs that have been tested in simulation and ensure they work in hardware.. thus giving the simulation as much credence as hardware, and yet allowing the reproducability necessary for doing actual science.
a little package called popularity-contest. It sends stats to http://popcon.ubuntu.com/ about what packages people have installed. It's been around since Debian, but Ubuntu install it by default. It's not turned on by default, but it is installed.
Yep. I'll believe there are advances in hybrids happening when you can actually go to a dealer in the US and buy a plugin hybrid without having to mod it yourself.
The cases are filed as Sony vs John Smith ok? I don't know how anyone gets the impression that RIAA is the plantiff in any of these cases.. except, of course, by not reading any of the legal documents.
The ultimate stupidity, however, was that they ended up doing LOR instead of EOR anyway, when the choices were EOR or direct. LOR is harder than EOR cause you need a heavy booster. If they had just used medium lift boosters they could have gone to the Moon a lot earlier.. but they chased the tail of the heavy booster because they wanted to do direct and avoid any need for docking at all. I know hindsight is 20/20, but there were people saying exactly this at the start of the program.. and the russians had already shown that docking wasn't hard. I guess it really comes down to the Collier article. von Braun had made such a great case for building spacecraft in orbit that people couldn't see past that dream to the sensible argument that Apollo should dock together in orbit before heading to the Moon.
EOR is exactly what the russians are now offering with the Soyuz.. it'll only cost you $100 million for a trip around the Moon. Shame they don't have a lander. Shame they didn't do it in the 60s.
Sigh. No, it wouldn't have. All van Braun suggested they do was dock the modules together in Earth orbit before heading off to the Moon. It was docking that the other engineers were afraid of.. They were of the opinion that the mission could be done entirely without docking of any sort. They were wrong. So instead of having a sensible architecture that could result in more and more capable missions to the Moon and the near Earth asteroids, we got the flags and footprints of Apollo.
1. a consumer, if someone hasn't put it in a package, you're not interested. 2. a conformist, if there's no rules to follow, you get confused. 3. not very creative, if we left you in a sandpit by yourself you wouldn't even make castles. 4. a nazi, you can't just let people have their fun without berating them for enjoying things you don't understand.
Ever since van Braun teamed up with Disney to get kids interested in space, NASA has had this tradition of lame "education" programs. The idea is that if you get people enthralled with the idea of space at an early age then you don't need to make any sort of compelling argument as to why we should be bothering with space exploration. When the kids grow up NASA tells em it is all about the science and exploration is just maintained for the intangibles it supplies. Essentially, it's a big bait and switch.
Now, am I the only one who has read Dennis Wingo's MOONRUSH? He not only explains what space exploration should be about (hint: a lot of the resources on earth come solely from ancient meteor impacts.. why not go to the asteroids directly, or to somewhere they are not degraded by geological events?) but he also describes an architecture for doing it that is cheaper than anything NASA ever does and actually makes sense: assembling spacecraft at the ISS and putting another space station (much smaller than the ISS) at the L1 point.
I remember reading about the Apollo era arguments over what was the best way to go to the Moon. van Braun was of the opinion that doing lots of launches to Earth orbit, assembling ships there and then heading off to the Moon was the only sensible option. Other engineers were of the opinion that going direct from the Earth to the Moon was the safest approach and therefore the best option. Of couse, this limits the size of your vessel to something that can fit in a single rocket and be lifted by it directly to the Moon.. and so we ended up with these impractically gigantic rockets that now rust on NASA's lawn. Oh, and in the end they didn't even do a direct flight, they did lunar orbit (if you're going to do lunar orbit you might have well done earth orbit too, where it is actually useful as a staging position).
All in all, NASA is a testimony to what happens when you let nerds manage themselves.. they form endless committees and argue over what colour to paint the bikeshed.
Hardly. I attacked your notion of what "no-one is saying" and got modded down for it. It seems that whenever there is a global warming story the moderation system becomes a censorship system for both sides of the debate. For the record, I don't care what causes global warming. I, like most people, believe that it exists but, I, unlike most people, do not believe that convincing the human race to go live in mud huts is either likely to happen or likely to reverse global warming.
So the question is, what can we do? I believe that large scale technological solutions are the only solutions that will work, but I'd be happy if people were just to ask that question and think about the answers we get.
Oh do fuck off. It has been repeatably stated that we are the cause of global warming. In fact, it continues to be stated, again and again, that if we were all just to reduce our individual green house gas emissions (typically by being big fuckin' hippies) then there would not be any global warming.
At this point you have a derivative of the original GPL'd code. No problem there, you can do anything you like with the code. No.. if you distribute it *then* you are obligated to release your code under the GPL, *but not before*.
meh, the argument for why compilations of public domain "facts" should be considered a copyrightable work is that it is work to compile those facts. Why people can't understand that not all work results in property is beyond me, but there's ya reasoning.
Uh huh. Are you trying to suggest that there is something wrong with this:
1. Take existing code under incompatible license 2. Write new functionality and integrate into your code 3. Test and develop your application until it is "ready" 4. Replace incompatible code with your own code
I mean, if you were talking about using proprietary code in the first step then I could imagine that you might have some kind of argument.. but it's GPL code man.. you're free to do whatever you want with it. Only when you distribute it are you required to place other code that it is based on under the GPL.. and if you remove the GPL licensed code then you have no such responsibility anymore.
Unfortunately the dude fucked up.. everyone does it now and then.
Or done by a Chinese company which Google outsourced to. Isn't that how all corporations do their evil? Outsource it to Evil Inc. Everyone except Microsoft and Enron I guess.
I know it's a big difference. The point is, IBM's lawyers were asked by the court if they fund PJ, they said no. The judge asked if they fund any third party that funds PJ, they said no. They lied and SCO caught it.
Hmm.. Big companies give money to OSDL, who then uses it for a variety of purposes, including paying Linus' salary, and, according to SCO, funding Groklaw.
Being a non-profit, who OSDL gives money to is public information.. so I don't really doubt SCO's claims that OSDL gave money to Groklaw. There's also some claims that the web server that Groklaw runs on is supplied by another non-profit, ibiblio.
IBM donates to both of them.
So yeah, sucks to be dragged into it, but when IBM says they don't give you money either directly or through a third party and they clearly do, well, hell, way to drop the ball guys.
Ok.. let me just say, in some parts of our society (i.e., the working class) this is exactly how things work. You don't give shit to someone you don't know. You never talk down to a lady in public, etc. As for the self regulating of society, yes, this is precisely the way the world works.. one of the primary reasons why the US is so fucked up is that they seem to have forget how to regulate themselves with civility. That's why they're all suing each other all the time.
How old are you? Are you a shutin? What kind of upbringing can you possibly have had if you've never seen the micro-application of violence in society?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do researchers keep wasting time on these stupid little robots? There's very little actually learnt from making an autonomous robot. So it's not for science. There's very few products that benefit from this research. So it's not for commercialization. It's basically a hobby and, as this hobbyist has shown, best left to the hobbyists. It always surprises me how little scientists actually work together. By now, all these autonomous robot researchers should have put together a simulation package to do their research in. The mechanical engineers, who just can't help getting their hands dirty, can take the designs that have been tested in simulation and ensure they work in hardware.. thus giving the simulation as much credence as hardware, and yet allowing the reproducability necessary for doing actual science.
It's not a hybrid.. it's an electric. The brillance of a hybrid is that you can choose which energy source you want to use.
a little package called popularity-contest. It sends stats to http://popcon.ubuntu.com/ about what packages people have installed. It's been around since Debian, but Ubuntu install it by default. It's not turned on by default, but it is installed.
Best time travel movie I've ever seen. Cost of development? $10,000. Seriously.
Yep. I'll believe there are advances in hybrids happening when you can actually go to a dealer in the US and buy a plugin hybrid without having to mod it yourself.
The majority of society are uncreative conformist consumer nazis.. are you trying to suggest the mainstream is somehow better than the fringes?
The cases are filed as Sony vs John Smith ok? I don't know how anyone gets the impression that RIAA is the plantiff in any of these cases.. except, of course, by not reading any of the legal documents.
The ultimate stupidity, however, was that they ended up doing LOR instead of EOR anyway, when the choices were EOR or direct. LOR is harder than EOR cause you need a heavy booster. If they had just used medium lift boosters they could have gone to the Moon a lot earlier.. but they chased the tail of the heavy booster because they wanted to do direct and avoid any need for docking at all. I know hindsight is 20/20, but there were people saying exactly this at the start of the program.. and the russians had already shown that docking wasn't hard. I guess it really comes down to the Collier article. von Braun had made such a great case for building spacecraft in orbit that people couldn't see past that dream to the sensible argument that Apollo should dock together in orbit before heading to the Moon.
EOR is exactly what the russians are now offering with the Soyuz.. it'll only cost you $100 million for a trip around the Moon. Shame they don't have a lander. Shame they didn't do it in the 60s.
Sigh. No, it wouldn't have. All van Braun suggested they do was dock the modules together in Earth orbit before heading off to the Moon. It was docking that the other engineers were afraid of.. They were of the opinion that the mission could be done entirely without docking of any sort. They were wrong. So instead of having a sensible architecture that could result in more and more capable missions to the Moon and the near Earth asteroids, we got the flags and footprints of Apollo.
It's confusing to you because you're:
1. a consumer, if someone hasn't put it in a package, you're not interested.
2. a conformist, if there's no rules to follow, you get confused.
3. not very creative, if we left you in a sandpit by yourself you wouldn't even make castles.
4. a nazi, you can't just let people have their fun without berating them for enjoying things you don't understand.
Chill out.
Ever since van Braun teamed up with Disney to get kids interested in space, NASA has had this tradition of lame "education" programs. The idea is that if you get people enthralled with the idea of space at an early age then you don't need to make any sort of compelling argument as to why we should be bothering with space exploration. When the kids grow up NASA tells em it is all about the science and exploration is just maintained for the intangibles it supplies. Essentially, it's a big bait and switch.
Now, am I the only one who has read Dennis Wingo's MOONRUSH? He not only explains what space exploration should be about (hint: a lot of the resources on earth come solely from ancient meteor impacts.. why not go to the asteroids directly, or to somewhere they are not degraded by geological events?) but he also describes an architecture for doing it that is cheaper than anything NASA ever does and actually makes sense: assembling spacecraft at the ISS and putting another space station (much smaller than the ISS) at the L1 point.
I remember reading about the Apollo era arguments over what was the best way to go to the Moon. van Braun was of the opinion that doing lots of launches to Earth orbit, assembling ships there and then heading off to the Moon was the only sensible option. Other engineers were of the opinion that going direct from the Earth to the Moon was the safest approach and therefore the best option. Of couse, this limits the size of your vessel to something that can fit in a single rocket and be lifted by it directly to the Moon.. and so we ended up with these impractically gigantic rockets that now rust on NASA's lawn. Oh, and in the end they didn't even do a direct flight, they did lunar orbit (if you're going to do lunar orbit you might have well done earth orbit too, where it is actually useful as a staging position).
All in all, NASA is a testimony to what happens when you let nerds manage themselves.. they form endless committees and argue over what colour to paint the bikeshed.
Maybe Microsoft has decided to use lobbying to make Google's business model illegal, that way they don't have to compete with them on their home turf!
Or, ya know, not.
Hardly. I attacked your notion of what "no-one is saying" and got modded down for it. It seems that whenever there is a global warming story the moderation system becomes a censorship system for both sides of the debate. For the record, I don't care what causes global warming. I, like most people, believe that it exists but, I, unlike most people, do not believe that convincing the human race to go live in mud huts is either likely to happen or likely to reverse global warming.
So the question is, what can we do? I believe that large scale technological solutions are the only solutions that will work, but I'd be happy if people were just to ask that question and think about the answers we get.
Oh do fuck off. It has been repeatably stated that we are the cause of global warming. In fact, it continues to be stated, again and again, that if we were all just to reduce our individual green house gas emissions (typically by being big fuckin' hippies) then there would not be any global warming.
Dude, you don't know what you are talking about ok? Stop speaking now.
Fucking Slashdot.
meh, the argument for why compilations of public domain "facts" should be considered a copyrightable work is that it is work to compile those facts. Why people can't understand that not all work results in property is beyond me, but there's ya reasoning.
Yeah, you're on crack if you think that new code you write is a derivative work just because you have read some GPL code.
Uh huh. Are you trying to suggest that there is something wrong with this:
1. Take existing code under incompatible license
2. Write new functionality and integrate into your code
3. Test and develop your application until it is "ready"
4. Replace incompatible code with your own code
I mean, if you were talking about using proprietary code in the first step then I could imagine that you might have some kind of argument.. but it's GPL code man.. you're free to do whatever you want with it. Only when you distribute it are you required to place other code that it is based on under the GPL.. and if you remove the GPL licensed code then you have no such responsibility anymore.
Unfortunately the dude fucked up.. everyone does it now and then.
Or done by a Chinese company which Google outsourced to. Isn't that how all corporations do their evil? Outsource it to Evil Inc. Everyone except Microsoft and Enron I guess.
I know it's a big difference. The point is, IBM's lawyers were asked by the court if they fund PJ, they said no. The judge asked if they fund any third party that funds PJ, they said no. They lied and SCO caught it.
Hmm.. Big companies give money to OSDL, who then uses it for a variety of purposes, including paying Linus' salary, and, according to SCO, funding Groklaw.
Being a non-profit, who OSDL gives money to is public information.. so I don't really doubt SCO's claims that OSDL gave money to Groklaw. There's also some claims that the web server that Groklaw runs on is supplied by another non-profit, ibiblio.
IBM donates to both of them.
So yeah, sucks to be dragged into it, but when IBM says they don't give you money either directly or through a third party and they clearly do, well, hell, way to drop the ball guys.
Ok.. let me just say, in some parts of our society (i.e., the working class) this is exactly how things work. You don't give shit to someone you don't know. You never talk down to a lady in public, etc. As for the self regulating of society, yes, this is precisely the way the world works.. one of the primary reasons why the US is so fucked up is that they seem to have forget how to regulate themselves with civility. That's why they're all suing each other all the time.
How old are you? Are you a shutin? What kind of upbringing can you possibly have had if you've never seen the micro-application of violence in society?
Am I talking to a robot?
I'm not an idiot ok? I don't just smack everyone who offends me. It has to be the right time and place. It's all about context.
So tell me, in your part of the world, is it usual for two men, after beating the shit out of each other, to go for a beer? Or at least shake hands?
The problem is where a civilized duel is treated as "brawling".
People love to be non-violent these days.. which really means they prefer to have other people do their violence for them.