It always seemed to me that a good way to avoid getting robotic vehicles stuck would be to have thin, strong arms that go up and out, like cranes, and can simply extend down to lift the body of the robot out of whatever's sticking it. It's a bit of extra stuff, but it makes for an unstickable robot.
I thought about this when I was considering how to make an autonomous RC car that could cross the country without interference. It has to be able to get out of a lot of different things.
Anyone know of links to ways robots unstick themselves?
All those things are things that are to be expected.
Just because a story contains the word "still" doesn't mean it's not news. If the president's plane still hasn't arrived, that's worth reporting. I don't know about you, but this is, to me and the people reading over my shoulder, the most interesting stories on the front page today.
At least it's doing better than Spirit, which last I heard was sliding inexorably into an ominious pit of sand, where it will be slowly digested over a thousand years.
this absolutely fascinating book argues that biological evolution as a mechanism for change has been outstripped by technology, and that the next steps in our evolution will be steps we take ourselves.
I'm not doing it justice with this description, but it makes the case that biological evolution is slow and error-prone and has just barely managed to produce its only creatures capable of higher thought, and that the pace of all kinds of change has been accelerating constantly, and that this is the end game for the biological evolution of the human race.
Like I said, it's a fascinating book. I couldn't put it down, during exam week and while trying to play basketball.
You've developed a high-quality software product and now you need to sell it, but where to begin? DigitalCandle provides the e-commerce mechanism - we'll securely process your customers' credit card, Paypal and purchase order payments for your shareware, with low 10% transaction fees, no minimums and fast payouts.
And with our Level 2 Internet marketing and search engine submission services, we'll make sure your software is on the top shareware download sites and search engines. From website promotion to press release writing, our comprehensive Level 2 marketing services help shareware developers promote their software to the world.
People actually like comics? Could someone tell me why? They can't have the epicness of movies, or the interactivity of games, or the story of books. Not meant as a troll, I just want to know why.
Both my best friend and my girlfriend, extraordinarially cultured people, are really into Sandman, by Neil Gaiman. The good ones apparently like to be called graphic novels, which I guess is a pretty good term. They're intense, long, involved, and very artistic. Or so I'm told.
Oh, and there's Blankets, a sweet and bitersweet story that said GF gave me. Very good, certainly on par with any book of the sort I've read. Though I'm not usually one for the touching-autobiographical-narrative-of-first-love- while-growing-up-among-families-with-issues sort of story.
Anyway, from what I hear, this is an up-and-coming genre. But I'm not sure how much these are the comic books referred to in FCBD.
An odd thing to say; did you read the rest of the quote? It was a point where Freud was saying "this idea of mine isn't always applicable" and I was quoting him on that.
Typical male fascination; Just enough emotion to give reason for extending your saber.
Even Freud admitted that sometimes a lightsaber is just a lightsaber.
Of course, no one knew what he was talking about. Come to think of it, it's kind of weird to see a clinical mention of lightsabers something like half a century before their invention by Lucas. And why on earth has that quote survived? That's seriously pretty weird, man.
I mean, giving this more thought, I'm deeply shaken.
I'm not interested in creating a new mythology to attach to the star wars of my childhood.
But lightsabers, man. Lightsabers are awesome, and I would be honestly happy if this movie just WAS two hours of lightsaber fights punctuated by occasional emotional scenes.
Last night, I read the essay A Philosopher's Day in Court, by Michael Ruse, a philosophy professor and expert in evolution called by the ACLU's legal team to the 1981 challenge of the Arkansas law mandating equal time for creation science and evolution in classrooms. It's an absolutely thrilling read and apparently it was a wonderful debate; they called in all the experts and prepared a beautiful case, putting together all the stuff that's often not available in casual debate. They had experts on radiocarbon dating, biology, the philosophy of science . . . by the time the defendents got to Stephen Jay Gould, the final witness, they didn't even have the energy for half an hour of cross-examination. Gould was terribly disappointed.
It's wonderful to read, a great story of rationality and science triumphing over ignorance and propaganda. The text doesn't seem to be available online, but you should be able to track down the essay. I found it in the collection Science and Creationism, edited by Ashley Montagu, which has a number of other essays -- including a particularly scathing denunciation and call to arms by Isaac Asimov. Great stuff.
(Note: when googling for specific text, I just learned, sometimes the "omitted results" are precisely what you want; the Asimov article only showed up there.)
Clearly, this is an attempt to patent information transfer of an absurdly ordinary kind and we should all run around in circles of indignation without reading the actual patent or having any context whatsoever for the headline, which is as usual inflammatory.
I can't believe he's trying to patent all forms of information transfer on the internet! This is absurd and an example of why IP is wrong or its application corrupt!
To ensure a quick, quiet transaction, the extortionists did what all extortionists (in the physical or online world) do: They exploited the problem of the commons. An ecological principle, the problem of the commons states that people will act in self-interest if it profits them in the short term, even if that act will hurt everyone, including themselves, in the long term. Every act, every threat, every negotiation tactic, every single move extortionists make is designed to make paying the protection fee not only appealing, but in fact, the smartest business decision you can make in the short term, even if you know in the long run that you haven't stopped the problem at all.
Guido and Nuzio! Someone else who recognizes that! Yeah, you don't wanna cross those guys.
I love the world set up in those books.
In this case, I think name-dropping like that is a little less difficult. The internet is a big and easy-to-hide place, and I think the overwhelming majority of gambling sites are NOT involved with organized crime. Though if you can correct me on that, please do.
Never pay If they actually get money, they'll do it again and again. Any measure of success will encourage more of the same behaviour.
Congratulations, you've just solved the problem of successfully responding to a threat. Your solution will always lead to the best outcome and the only reason it's not the route taken by everyone in these situations is that no one has thought about that.
To be fair, you're more right than wrong as far as DoS attacks go. But sometimes websites are actually important; you can probably come up with an example placing financial ruin or even lives at stake.
What I don't understand about the Roland Piquepaille thing is why what anything he does is bad! He says "come look at my site!" instead of directing people elsewhere, even though his blog's content isn't all that spectacular.
How is that different from the entire rest of the internet? An awful lot of blogs link news stories with a bit of commentary and want people to read them. Slashdot submitters are free to submit their own sites. The problem is with slashdot editors accepting fairly dumb submissions. That seems to be the problem. Not that Roland Piquepaille is acting scandalously.
Knowing that he uses 14 character passwords doesn't help you much.
If they're random case-sensitive alpha, knowing the char count brings the time down from 100 units to 98. If he includes numbers and symbols, almost 99. So you chop off 1% of the time. Not "a lot less"
Slashdot Mirror
Not for Spirit and Opportunity. For robots in general.
It always seemed to me that a good way to avoid getting robotic vehicles stuck would be to have thin, strong arms that go up and out, like cranes, and can simply extend down to lift the body of the robot out of whatever's sticking it. It's a bit of extra stuff, but it makes for an unstickable robot.
I thought about this when I was considering how to make an autonomous RC car that could cross the country without interference. It has to be able to get out of a lot of different things.
Anyone know of links to ways robots unstick themselves?
The poster is a repeated troll, not troll reporting as claimed. Ignore.
All those things are things that are to be expected.
Just because a story contains the word "still" doesn't mean it's not news. If the president's plane still hasn't arrived, that's worth reporting. I don't know about you, but this is, to me and the people reading over my shoulder, the most interesting stories on the front page today.
At least it's doing better than Spirit, which last I heard was sliding inexorably into an ominious pit of sand, where it will be slowly digested over a thousand years.
Hey, I'm really interested to see this. I didn't know it was still stuck. This IS news.
this absolutely fascinating book argues that biological evolution as a mechanism for change has been outstripped by technology, and that the next steps in our evolution will be steps we take ourselves.
I'm not doing it justice with this description, but it makes the case that biological evolution is slow and error-prone and has just barely managed to produce its only creatures capable of higher thought, and that the pace of all kinds of change has been accelerating constantly, and that this is the end game for the biological evolution of the human race.
Like I said, it's a fascinating book. I couldn't put it down, during exam week and while trying to play basketball.
He does run a spamming farm, as far as I can tell. Here's the site in his info:
http://www.digitalcandle.com/
So mostly search engine spam.
OP is repeated troll. Those aren't comments on stories.
People actually like comics? Could someone tell me why? They can't have the epicness of movies, or the interactivity of games, or the story of books. Not meant as a troll, I just want to know why.
- while-growing-up-among-families-with-issues sort of story.
Both my best friend and my girlfriend, extraordinarially cultured people, are really into Sandman, by Neil Gaiman. The good ones apparently like to be called graphic novels, which I guess is a pretty good term. They're intense, long, involved, and very artistic. Or so I'm told.
Oh, and there's Blankets, a sweet and bitersweet story that said GF gave me. Very good, certainly on par with any book of the sort I've read. Though I'm not usually one for the touching-autobiographical-narrative-of-first-love
Anyway, from what I hear, this is an up-and-coming genre. But I'm not sure how much these are the comic books referred to in FCBD.
Any of y'all know?
Yes.
An odd thing to say; did you read the rest of the quote? It was a point where Freud was saying "this idea of mine isn't always applicable" and I was quoting him on that.
Typical male fascination; Just enough emotion to give reason for extending your saber.
Even Freud admitted that sometimes a lightsaber is just a lightsaber.
Of course, no one knew what he was talking about. Come to think of it, it's kind of weird to see a clinical mention of lightsabers something like half a century before their invention by Lucas. And why on earth has that quote survived? That's seriously pretty weird, man.
I mean, giving this more thought, I'm deeply shaken.
Hey, honestly:
I'm not interested in creating a new mythology to attach to the star wars of my childhood.
But lightsabers, man. Lightsabers are awesome, and I would be honestly happy if this movie just WAS two hours of lightsaber fights punctuated by occasional emotional scenes.
Lightsabers.
Last night, I read the essay A Philosopher's Day in Court, by Michael Ruse, a philosophy professor and expert in evolution called by the ACLU's legal team to the 1981 challenge of the Arkansas law mandating equal time for creation science and evolution in classrooms. It's an absolutely thrilling read and apparently it was a wonderful debate; they called in all the experts and prepared a beautiful case, putting together all the stuff that's often not available in casual debate. They had experts on radiocarbon dating, biology, the philosophy of science . . . by the time the defendents got to Stephen Jay Gould, the final witness, they didn't even have the energy for half an hour of cross-examination. Gould was terribly disappointed.
It's wonderful to read, a great story of rationality and science triumphing over ignorance and propaganda. The text doesn't seem to be available online, but you should be able to track down the essay. I found it in the collection Science and Creationism, edited by Ashley Montagu, which has a number of other essays -- including a particularly scathing denunciation and call to arms by Isaac Asimov. Great stuff.
(Note: when googling for specific text, I just learned, sometimes the "omitted results" are precisely what you want; the Asimov article only showed up there.)
This isn't an English essay. The Universe isn't asking you for your opinion.
Thank you for that beautiful sentence.
Can you patent the concept of getting idiotic and vague patents on computer concepts?
Or idiotic, vague, and inflammatory slashdot headlines; I'd patent those, but there's WAAAY too much prior art.
Clearly, this is an attempt to patent information transfer of an absurdly ordinary kind and we should all run around in circles of indignation without reading the actual patent or having any context whatsoever for the headline, which is as usual inflammatory.
I can't believe he's trying to patent all forms of information transfer on the internet! This is absurd and an example of why IP is wrong or its application corrupt!
Oops, wrong thread.
l
Yeah, also, TFA discusses that in depth.
http://www.csoonline.com/read/050105/pay_3583.htm
Guido and Nuzio! Someone else who recognizes that! Yeah, you don't wanna cross those guys.
I love the world set up in those books.
In this case, I think name-dropping like that is a little less difficult. The internet is a big and easy-to-hide place, and I think the overwhelming majority of gambling sites are NOT involved with organized crime. Though if you can correct me on that, please do.
Never pay
If they actually get money, they'll do it again and again.
Any measure of success will encourage more of the same behaviour.
Congratulations, you've just solved the problem of successfully responding to a threat. Your solution will always lead to the best outcome and the only reason it's not the route taken by everyone in these situations is that no one has thought about that.
To be fair, you're more right than wrong as far as DoS attacks go. But sometimes websites are actually important; you can probably come up with an example placing financial ruin or even lives at stake.
What I don't understand about the Roland Piquepaille thing is why what anything he does is bad! He says "come look at my site!" instead of directing people elsewhere, even though his blog's content isn't all that spectacular.
How is that different from the entire rest of the internet? An awful lot of blogs link news stories with a bit of commentary and want people to read them. Slashdot submitters are free to submit their own sites. The problem is with slashdot editors accepting fairly dumb submissions. That seems to be the problem. Not that Roland Piquepaille is acting scandalously.
Sure, I had a chat with it yesterday. It apologized for the mosquito.
Unless the works pertain to the target of your parody. In that situation, courts have ruled more often in favor of the parody.
I would like to see references on this; I am inclined to disbelieve it.
Knowing that he uses 14 character passwords doesn't help you much.
If they're random case-sensitive alpha, knowing the char count brings the time down from 100 units to 98. If he includes numbers and symbols, almost 99. So you chop off 1% of the time. Not "a lot less"