"If I were forced to try to compare the operating system players to the different music types, I'd say Microsoft is like any pop music that the braindead masses enjoy. Music with no quality that is just out to make money (Rap is definately included in some of these).
Open Source operating systems are obviously akin to DIY music where they try to bypass the corrupt music industry. Rap is really nothing like Linux. A horrible article, really. =( "
I agree with you wholeheartedly !
It is NOT only a horrible article, it is a CHEAP attempt for the twomobile.com people to gain personal fame by using words like "Linux" or "open-source".
We should NOT let these cheap bastard get away so easily. We should never let anyone degrade the beautiful nature of opensource by dragging us through the shits, be it Rap, Hip-Hop or whatever.
I truly resent what the twomobile.com people have done. I truly resent that the things that I have contributed to the open-source projects (and the many MORE things others have contributed as well) are degraded to the "GANGSTA" level of Rap and/or hip-hop.
We never need to show our "machoness", unlike those "GANGSTAS". We never need to call our female partners "hoe" or "bitch", and we in the open-source movement treat everybody equally, unlike those "GANGSTAS" who think they are "KINGS" and they can "scare" the world with their display of machoness.
Look. I may agree to that principle that you have outlined, but I do not agree to the comparison the twomobile.com people have thrown at us.
We are open-source, we contribute our time, our talent, and our effort to make the world just a littlebit better.
The rap/hip-hop "artists", on the other hand, contribute to the world with the GANSTA image, with drive-by shooting, death, drugs, mayhem.
We the open-source people are NOT like that. We do not believe in kicking, or murdering the people we have disagreement with. We do not believe in displaying our *MACHO* image so to make the world "fear" us.
We don't need anyone to fear us. All we ever want is to make this world just that little bit better.
That is all we are asking.
That isn't much, or is it?
Why do we have to be drag through the shits by the twomobile people, comparing us with those GANSTAS?
I really resent the comparison. I really do.
I understand that the "open-source" thingy is "KEWL" nowadays, that everybody and their mother-in-law wants to be "IN" with us.
I understand that all.
But please, please LET US DO OUR THINGS and please LEAVE US ALONE !
Don't do the CHEAP TRICKS like the twomobile.com has done - we are NOT gangstas, and we have no need to show off our *MACHONESS* and we don't need to spray bullets into our enemies' body.
We don't call our female friends "hoe" or "bitch", we don't "MF" everybody we see, and we do not believe in violence.
I appreciate your "principle" thing, but please, don't use the word "Linux" (and all other open-source projects) in the same sentence with "Rap" or "hip-hop".
We are NOT the same.
We have respects. We respect each others, and we respect our female friends. We are NOT like them, period.
You accuse Signal11 to be a racist, while you said the following:
"I realize that you have no idea what the hell people of African descent sound like,"
Are YOU trying to tell us that people of African descent **MUST** sound like what you think they must sound like, or they cannot claim themselves to he decendents of African people?
By saying that the people of African descend *MUST* do this, or do that, you have become the DE FACTO RACIST in this debate.
People of African descent are PEOPLE, their blood is as RED as the white, yellow or brown folks. They have the right to ACT whatever way they want, and NOBODY, NOT EVEN YOU, can tell them what to do, or how to act, or what "sound" they have to do.
I am sick and tired of people who always think that people with blackskin must love rap/hip-hop "becoz that's their wayz".
BULLSHIT !
Can't people of African descent love classical music?
I mean, what is wrong with Africans playing NICE SOOTHING music?
Jeeeze.
You guys make me sick ! REALLY SICK !!!
And one more thing - if you want rap music, go play your rap music, but NEVER, and I repeat, N*E*V*E*R claim that the Aricans are the one who OWNZ the Rap music.
There are LOTS of different kinds of GANSTAS out there, and the black people do not have the exclusive right to GANSTAism.
Injustice to Linux and open-source !
on
Linux And Hip Hop
·
· Score: 1
I want to protest the injustice the twomobile.com people have done to Linux and all other open-source projects.
The twomobile.com people have NO taste.
Comparing a beautifully crafted piece like Linux,
by people whom have contributed generously their talents for the GOOD OF THE WORLD,
to the crappy hip-hop, and gangster rap
(do you notice that those hip-hop guys can't walk like a normal human being? They have to always walk their "ganster" kind of way? What a lousy image)
is totally UNFAIR to Linux and all other open-source projects.
We should not let tasteless cretins like the twomobile.com people drag us through the mud like this.
I know, I know, the "open-source" theme is "IN", and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, but we should NOT let shitheads like those from the twomobile taking advantage of the "open-source" thing to gain their own 15 second worth of fame.
At the very least, the open-source community has the right to self-respect. All of us who have contributed to open-source projects have diginity, and we will NOT let shits like the twomobile.com people ruin our integrity just because they feel "kewl" to attach "opensource" to themselves.
Lest other say we are an "elite" group, we are not. But we are not GANSTERS either, we are NOT like the rap/hip-hop group who want so much to "impress" the world with their lousy low-class attitude.
I have read a lot of the "rap/hip-hop" is poetic crap. If hip-hop and rap is so "poetic", why do we have so many drive-by alley shooting with those hip-hop/rap blaring at the background?
Gimme a break ! Gimme a fscking break !
You want your "gansta" image, go to hip-hop/rap. You want to contribute your talents to the world, come and contribute it to the many open-source projects. But please, don't equate the two things, for they are NOT the same thing.
The Twomobile.com people have no taste
on
Linux And Hip Hop
·
· Score: 1
"open source coding has been available waay before linux and was available at universities waay before anywhere else. to compare it to a crap mainstream pop culture is degrading at best. and its not just a simple fashion trend."
TWO THUMBS UP !
The twomobile.com people have NO taste.
Comparing a beautifully crafted piece like Linux,
by people whom have contributed generously their talents for the GOOD OF THE WORLD,
to the crappy hip-hop, and gangster rap
(do you notice that those hip-hop guys can't walk like a normal human being? They have to always walk their "ganster" kind of way? What a lousy image)
is totally UNFAIR to Linux and all other open-source projects.
We should not let tasteless cretins like the twomobile.com people drag us through the mud like this.
I know, I know, the "open-source" theme is "IN", and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, but we should NOT let shitheads like those from the twomobile taking advantage of the "open-source" thing to gain their own 15 second worth of fame.
At the very least, the open-source community has the right to self-respect. All of us who have contributed to open-source projects have diginity, and we will NOT let shits like the twomobile.com people ruin our integrity just because they feel "kewl" to attach "opensource" to themselves.
Lest other say we are an "elite" group, we are not. But we are not GANSTERS either, we are NOT like the rap/hip-hop group who want so much to "impress" the world with their lousy low-class attitude.
"Bipedal movement is very hard to pull off. It's also inefficient at low speed, unstable, and complex. If I was making a combat bot, I'd probably stick to quads or wheels--the advantages of bipeds are far outweighed by the complexity imposed in all but a very few situations. (Of course, Murphy dictates that those will be the situations you end up in, but presumably there would be a range of bots available.)"
I do agree with you that in many cases bipedal mode of movement is limited, and I also agree without that there ought to be different bots using different modd to move.
However, what I have pointed out is that the Bipedal mode of movement is NOT impossible. It may be slow now, but it could be faster down the road.
We humans have been used to the bipedal mode perspective for millions of years, and perhaps it would take us another million years or two to get us to be used to other forms of perception - be it spiderlike, or fishlike, or birdlike, or germslike, or whatever mode that we haven't even realize yet.
There is much work to be done, and I say let's start to do it.
I tried to fill in my name but I got an error at http://saveiridium.com/cgi-bin/data when I hit the "Save Iridium!" button.
And I tried to locate an email address to report the error, but there was none on the site. I tried to go to the guessbook and all I got was to the top of the webpage. Then I tried the "livechat' and I got a blank.
Hmmm....
Can someone please point me to a place where I can actually report the error to SOMEBODY?
"a summar of an article may cover the essential facts of an event but leave out responses of those involved statistics etc. it still funtions independently from the complete article."
True, but please don't forget that a nicely done fiction sells itself.
Our reading habits differ, but in general, the way we read fiction is different from the way we read non-fiction.
For non-fiction, the time we re-read them is when we need to find out the details embedded in it.
For fiction, the time we re-read fictions is when we REMEMBER the nice feeling (or horror, or shock) the first time we read it, and we want to RE-EXPERIENCE that feeling.
So, we re-read it.
We may remember a nice fiction we read online, and if it is in print as well, if the fiction is so nice that we do need to re-read it, we will go and purchase a copy.
The thing is that most of the publishers are afraid that people will not buy the printed copy of the book if they have read them online. What the publisher forgot is if they publish trash, NOBODY would want to read them in the first place.
The thing is that if they (the publishers) concentrate on publishing GOOD fictions, they wouldn't have afraid people not buying the books, because the more people read them online, the more people will remember the stories, and the more of them will want a printed copy of it.
Sure, there are some cheapskates that would download the whole thing and print it on their own printers, but then, if those people really know how to calculate, they would find that it is cheaper and easier for them to just buy a copy from the bookstores.
The moral of the whole deal to the publishers is - publish GOOD STUFFS and you won't have to afraid people not buying the books you print.
"The problem with a virtual body is that it will never replace the capabilities of an infantry soldier."
Very true !
But then, the exo-skeleton droids with human inside will not be as agile as the infantry soldier either.
Both the virtual body and the exo-droid will be used as something in between an infantry soldier and a tank.
A droid will be more agile than a tank, and more powerful than an infantry soldier. Places where the tank is a sitting duck, droids (or mech) would be there.
"Not necessarily... the proposal doesn't say anything about it being a completely self-contained environment."
Well... the proposal may not say so, but then, it _is_ a proposal after all.
The final product may have much more than what the proposal has proposed - for the final product has to take into account how to sustain the living ocndition of the human operator inside, *IF* you put a human operator inside, that is.
And the final product has to deal with the adverse condition those exo-droids would be in operation - in the cold artic area, in the hot desert, above ground, or under water, protection from not only the elements but also protection against bio- and/or chemical warfare.
Those are things that have to be taken into consideration, if you want to put a human being inside the exo-droid.
"It's tough to get the balance right for a walker, without being in it or being suspended and thrown around to mimic the slave's movements in a remote control center."
If I am not wrong, the Japanese have already demonstrated a bipadeled "walker droid" capable of climbing stairs.
It is not perfect yet, but then, the droid has much resemblance to human shape.
`It doesn't have to be a "BOOM" kind of self-destruct - all the "self-destruct sequence" needs to do is to shut down the droid, in case interruption or hijaaking is detected and can not be prevented.'
"But then you've lost your mech. All the bad guys would have to do is create a burst of static long enough for the comunications to time-out and sudenly your entire army has shut itself down. You going to send some guy out there to do a hard reboot on all of them?"
You got a point.
Perhaps the droid should be equipped with AI to detect the difference between signal-jamming and signal-intrution.
In case of jamming that you have outlined above, the AI should be able to take over, and take appropriate evasive/contigency measure - just don't ask me what those measures are right now, I don't have a clue - but maybe the measure depends on what type of mission those exo-droids are sent out to accomplish.
That way, if the bad guys want to jam the signals, they can jam it, but the mech will still carry out their function.
"An operator inside of an exoskeleton has several advantages that your typical remote-control model lacks."
And it has several of disadvantages too.
A. An android will not get emotional. That is, an android will not be disturbed by his girlfriends being "shagged" by another man, or his mother-in-laws' keeping tab on his bedroom behavior or whatever.
An android will just do whatever it is ordered to.
B. An android will not take coffee break.
C. An android will not need pay hike, and it will not strike if the working condition is not ideal.
There wouldn't be an android branch of AFL-CIO.:)
D. An android will not become a spy for a foreign and perhaps potentially hostile regime.
E. If an android is "killed", it is just a broken machine. Just like your old XT which is not working anymore - you just throw it in the trash.
Now let's take at the advantages you have pointed out -
"First is more control and depth of input. A person inside of one these would have depth perception, periphrial vision, and (assuming the machine's not too loud) audio. Also, being inside allows for more control over how the input is managed (eye movements, etc.)
Unless the human inside the droid has a direct "open-window" interface to the outside - the human operator inside the exo-droid will "see" and "hear" through the video camera(s) and microphone(s) mounted outside. Perception-wise, it is no different from a human operator in remote location, controlling the exo-droid via virtual-reality.
If there is an "open-window" interface for the operator, then the human operator inside the exo-droid will be vulnerable to bio and/or chemical attacks.
If you insulate the operator from such a thing, then, the operator will have to "perceive" the world out there like I have just outlined above.
The "eye-movement" detector that you mentioned could be used in the remotely-controlled virtual-reality settings as well.
"Second, a human being, as an operator, will be able to handel an exoskeleton far more intuitivly than a remote-virtual body. This will result in far less training than would otherwise be needed. We all know how to work a body."
True, if you put a human being inside the exo-droid, the "handling aspect" will be more intuitive, but, the human-operator will also have to face with everything that the "intuitive" things brings - including the direct blow if the droid falls down, and so on, and so forth.
But, if you think that putting a human being inside the exo-droid will mean a more responsive droid, I don't think so.
Imagine yourself without cloth on, and then, imagine yoruself with many layers of clothes on. Tell me in which case do you feel more agile, or easier to move about?
A person inside an exo-droid will be feeling like a person with VERY, VERY THICK cloths on. You can't move as easily, you don't feel that you are as agile as before, and each and every movement you make will be a chore.
Whether or not putting a human being inside the exo-droid, the droid will not be as agile as a living thing, at least not in the level of technology we have today.
"Third, you gotta admit, it's pretty damn cool. It feeds out monkey-egos to personally be able to pick up the car/steel beam/whatever. You just can't get that kind of rush via remote..."
True, the feeling would be awesome. But then, what we need is a tool that do heavy lifting and something that can do dangerous work for us, we need no egoistic operators acting like robocop, wrecking havoc to the ordinary citizens.:)
Actually, making an exo-droid with a human being INSIDE is MORE complicated than making it without a living human inside.
You see, if you need to put a human inside the exo-droid, you need to keep that guy/gal alive ! That will mean you need to put in life-supporting systems, like air-circulation, temperature control, shock-absorbing devices, water and all the other kind of things. You even need to have two bags - one for urine, the ohter one for feces - so that human doesn't need to come out of the thing too often.
Without the space needed for the human body, and without the space needed for all the life-support system, the xeo-droid-sans-human will be more compact, and be more agile and more stronger.
You mentioned AI - actually, the AI needed for such a droid is not that much - although the current stage of AI development hasn't yet reached the level for a self-awareness AI, it is not that far away.
Plus, if the exo-droid is to be "controlled" or "complemented" by virtual-reality - that is, a human being in remote place can control it virtually, not that much AI is needed after all.
I do recognize the flaws you have outlined. But there are solutions over the flaws.
Frequency wise, you don't have to be stuck onto ONE frequency alone. You can use multiple frequencies, and you can do "frequency hopping", much like the cellphone does.
And you can combine that with encryption and all other sort of detection devices, to minimized (and yes, I reckon that the risk will NEVER be obliviated) interruption or hijaaking.
One more thing, the exo-droid can be equipped with a self-destruct device, much like the rockets - when something is terribly wrong, self-destruct !
It doesn't have to be a "BOOM" kind of self-destruct - all the "self-destruct sequence" needs to do is to shut down the droid, in case interruption or hijaaking is detected and can not be prevented.
Exoskeleton means something hard (skeleton) outside with softbody inside - which means, for every exo to work, a human must be inside operate it.
If the purpose of the exo is to do heavy-lifting and/or other tough/dangerous stuffs, putting a human inside still mean if accident happens, someone will get hurt, or may even die.
My own proposal -
Why not make a remote-virtual body instead?
Instead of putting a LIFE human being at the place of work, why not use the virtual reality technology into work, and operate the exo-droid virtually - via remote control.
That way, the exo-droid can do all types of things, including stepping on landmines, without having the operator risking injuries.
I came in late and the page is already "closed". Looks like the ISP "Best" or whatever isn't that good - they close down page access just when it starts to get interesting.
Can anyone please post the original content of that page? I'd love to know the details.
"Getting kids excited about learning is the wave of the future!"
But getting kids excited about the Windoze environment, IMVHO, is not a healthy trend.
The Lego CAD is but a subset of autocad, which, incidentally, don't run in Linux or FreeBSD or any other OSS environment. The Autodesk product runs on Mac and M$ Windoze.
I suspect that Microsoft purposefully leaks out that "pirated" version of Win2001.
You see, the "pirated version" that was leaked out was in the BINARY FORM - that is, NO SOURCE CODE INCLUDED.
And we know W2k has 65K+ bugs in it, even after - according to M$'s own propaganda machine - the "rigorous testing of over 750,000 beta testers", and now perhaps, M$ is leaking out the W2K+1 to let MORE beta-testers to dig out the bugs those "750,000 testers" have obviously failed to do.
I do not believe the "pirated copy" story - for if the W2K+1 is a "pirated copy" then it ought to come with its souce code.
But then, that is only my opinion, and I have been proven to be wrong before.:)
The distros may go different ways, find different niches (HA, embedded, ez-to-use, etc.,) but as long as they use the kernel maintained by Linus, they all share the same ENGINE that drives the whole movement.
It is like Linus and the kernel team have developed an all purpose engine. The distro people use the engine and put different accessories on it.
Some distros use the engine and make it an oversized lawn mower. Some use it to power a mobile library. Some put the engine into a security wagon. Some try it in F1 chassis and see if it is powerful enough, and so on.
IBM, by successfully putting Linux on its 390 mainframe, has shown the world that the Linux Kernel is powerful enough to carry out such a feat.
The linux-cluster people, on the other hand, have proven that the Linux Kernel can be configured to be a cray replacement.
The embedded folks, on the other hand, will try to squeeze the Kernel into powering everything from refregerator to factory automation.
And there are more and more types of new applications for the Linux Kernel, and that only shows that the Linux Kernel is a GOOD THING [TM], with a ROBUST DESIGN [TM], and the more things Linux goes into, the less fields M$ can claims as its own.
One day, the Linux Kernel will be used on satellites, and after that, Linux will be used on other space-endeavor, and who knows? China is heading towards its own space program, and perhaps they would be the first one who put Linux into outerspace.
Attitude may be important, but it is not everything.
What the people online lacks the most is TIME. We are living on the age of information explosion, that we have no time to look into each and every piece of news items, and we need someone to summarize what is important for us - if we feel that something is important enough, we will go and dig out the whole article.
At least at that aspect, the online newspaper in one way or another is trying to do it. But they have done it wrong - instead of GENEROUSLY giving us the summary, they leave out IMPORTANT bits of info, (I know why they do that, because they want us to access their site), making many subscribers of those news service feeling frustrated - because on one hand, something _might_ be important, but then, the "summaries" that had been sent to us didn't give us enough clue if the article is indeed important or not.
I believe that if one day, someone will genuinely give us a true summary, and not leave out hooks trying to do us in, then the subscribers would feel that they are not "cheated".
I have seen so many online e-business startup, and the one common blunder that they have made is they have forgotten the basic tenet of MARKETING - that the only thing that is important in the whole scheme of thing is to SATISFY your customer.
Once you can satisfy what your customer WANTS (and not necessary what they need), you will get repeat purchases (or service render, or contractual agreements, and so on), but most online startups, including the online newspapers and now online publishing (even the so-called e-books are making the same blunder) is that they did not put the "CUSTOMER SATISFACTION" as the GOAL of their operation.
Some of the e-business operations that I have tried out have tried to answer the "customer satisfaction" question, but unfortunately, what they do is they do that kinda like an afterthought.
A successful company, no matter if it is online or offline, must satisfy the wants of the customers, or there won't be repeat purchases. Many offline businesses have succeeded in this respect, in various degrees, but online, most do not understand how to satisfy the online folks.
Perhaps that "attitude" thing Jon was alluding to mean just that - HOW TO SATISFY THE INTERNAUTS - but I still do not think that it is an attitude thing, it is just that we do not have as much time as the offline people to look carefully over each and every single item, and we often make our decision right there and then. One click and things is done.
My only hope is someone with marketing/psychological background can come up ways to satisfy the online people. Do not waste more of our time, and waste more of those e-business startup's capital, to do the useless "Come and see us, and waste your time here for nothing" schemes.
Remember, the online people often do not have plenty of time to look over the things you have to sell us. Give us what you one, and package them in a way that we can understand what you are tying to sell, in 8 seconds or less.
Yes, EIGHT SECONDS or less.
That's the AVERAGE time we will allow to be wasted in any website. If the website can't get our attention in the first eight seconds we spent there, we most likely will go to other places.
A challenge to the e-business folks - can you not only get our attention, but give us something of value, in eight seconds or less?
If you can do that, you will be successful. If you can't, don't waste your money, and we will thank you for not wasting our time.
Slashdot Mirror
"If I were forced to try to compare the
operating system players to the different
music types, I'd say Microsoft is like any
pop music that the braindead masses enjoy.
Music with no quality that is just out to
make money (Rap is definately included in
some of these).
Open Source operating systems are obviously
akin to DIY music where they try to bypass
the corrupt music industry. Rap is really
nothing like Linux. A horrible article,
really. =( "
I agree with you wholeheartedly !
It is NOT only a horrible article, it is a CHEAP attempt for the twomobile.com people to gain personal fame by using words like "Linux" or "open-source".
We should NOT let these cheap bastard get away so easily. We should never let anyone degrade the beautiful nature of opensource by dragging us through the shits, be it Rap, Hip-Hop or whatever.
I truly resent what the twomobile.com people have done. I truly resent that the things that I have contributed to the open-source projects (and the many MORE things others have contributed as well) are degraded to the "GANGSTA" level of Rap and/or hip-hop.
We never need to show our "machoness", unlike those "GANGSTAS". We never need to call our female partners "hoe" or "bitch", and we in the open-source movement treat everybody equally, unlike those "GANGSTAS" who think they are "KINGS" and they can "scare" the world with their display of machoness.
Man, I just can't tell you how furious I am.
Look. I may agree to that principle that you have outlined, but I do not agree to the comparison the twomobile.com people have thrown at us.
We are open-source, we contribute our time, our talent, and our effort to make the world just a littlebit better.
The rap/hip-hop "artists", on the other hand, contribute to the world with the GANSTA image, with drive-by shooting, death, drugs, mayhem.
We the open-source people are NOT like that. We do not believe in kicking, or murdering the people we have disagreement with. We do not believe in displaying our *MACHO* image so to make the world "fear" us.
We don't need anyone to fear us. All we ever want is to make this world just that little bit better.
That is all we are asking.
That isn't much, or is it?
Why do we have to be drag through the shits by the twomobile people, comparing us with those GANSTAS?
I really resent the comparison. I really do.
I understand that the "open-source" thingy is "KEWL" nowadays, that everybody and their mother-in-law wants to be "IN" with us.
I understand that all.
But please, please LET US DO OUR THINGS and please LEAVE US ALONE !
Don't do the CHEAP TRICKS like the twomobile.com has done - we are NOT gangstas, and we have no need to show off our *MACHONESS* and we don't need to spray bullets into our enemies' body.
We don't call our female friends "hoe" or "bitch", we don't "MF" everybody we see, and we do not believe in violence.
I appreciate your "principle" thing, but please, don't use the word "Linux" (and all other open-source projects) in the same sentence with "Rap" or "hip-hop".
We are NOT the same.
We have respects. We respect each others, and we respect our female friends. We are NOT like them, period.
You accuse Signal11 to be a racist, while you said the following:
"I realize that you have no idea what the
hell people of African descent sound like,"
Are YOU trying to tell us that people of African descent **MUST** sound like what you think they must sound like, or they cannot claim themselves to he decendents of African people?
By saying that the people of African descend *MUST* do this, or do that, you have become the DE FACTO RACIST in this debate.
People of African descent are PEOPLE, their blood is as RED as the white, yellow or brown folks. They have the right to ACT whatever way they want, and NOBODY, NOT EVEN YOU, can tell them what to do, or how to act, or what "sound" they have to do.
I am sick and tired of people who always think that people with blackskin must love rap/hip-hop "becoz that's their wayz".
BULLSHIT !
Can't people of African descent love classical music?
I mean, what is wrong with Africans playing NICE SOOTHING music?
Jeeeze.
You guys make me sick ! REALLY SICK !!!
And one more thing - if you want rap music, go play your rap music, but NEVER, and I repeat, N*E*V*E*R claim that the Aricans are the one who OWNZ the Rap music.
There are LOTS of different kinds of GANSTAS out there, and the black people do not have the exclusive right to GANSTAism.
I want to protest the injustice the twomobile.com people have done to Linux and all other open-source projects.
The twomobile.com people have NO taste.
Comparing a beautifully crafted piece like Linux,
by people whom have contributed generously
their talents for the GOOD OF THE WORLD,
to the crappy hip-hop, and gangster rap
(do you notice that those hip-hop guys can't
walk like a normal human being? They have to
always walk their "ganster" kind of way? What
a lousy image)
is totally UNFAIR to Linux and all other open-source projects.
We should not let tasteless cretins like the twomobile.com people drag us through the mud like this.
I know, I know, the "open-source" theme is "IN", and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, but we should NOT let shitheads like those from the twomobile taking advantage of the "open-source" thing to gain their own 15 second worth of fame.
At the very least, the open-source community has the right to self-respect. All of us who have contributed to open-source projects have diginity, and we will NOT let shits like the twomobile.com people ruin our integrity just because they feel "kewl" to attach "opensource" to themselves.
Lest other say we are an "elite" group, we are not. But we are not GANSTERS either, we are NOT like the rap/hip-hop group who want so much to "impress" the world with their lousy low-class attitude.
I have read a lot of the "rap/hip-hop" is poetic crap. If hip-hop and rap is so "poetic", why do we have so many drive-by alley shooting with those hip-hop/rap blaring at the background?
Gimme a break ! Gimme a fscking break !
You want your "gansta" image, go to hip-hop/rap. You want to contribute your talents to the world, come and contribute it to the many open-source projects. But please, don't equate the two things, for they are NOT the same thing.
"open source coding has been available waay
before linux and was available at
universities waay before anywhere else.
to compare it to a crap mainstream pop
culture is degrading at best. and its not
just a simple fashion trend."
TWO THUMBS UP !
The twomobile.com people have NO taste.
Comparing a beautifully crafted piece like Linux,
by people whom have contributed generously
their talents for the GOOD OF THE WORLD,
to the crappy hip-hop, and gangster rap
(do you notice that those hip-hop guys can't
walk like a normal human being? They have to
always walk their "ganster" kind of way? What
a lousy image)
is totally UNFAIR to Linux and all other open-source projects.
We should not let tasteless cretins like the twomobile.com people drag us through the mud like this.
I know, I know, the "open-source" theme is "IN", and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, but we should NOT let shitheads like those from the twomobile taking advantage of the "open-source" thing to gain their own 15 second worth of fame.
At the very least, the open-source community has the right to self-respect. All of us who have contributed to open-source projects have diginity, and we will NOT let shits like the twomobile.com people ruin our integrity just because they feel "kewl" to attach "opensource" to themselves.
Lest other say we are an "elite" group, we are not. But we are not GANSTERS either, we are NOT like the rap/hip-hop group who want so much to "impress" the world with their lousy low-class attitude.
Many years ago, I read in a scientific journal that there was/were some people talking about "White Holes" - the opposite of black holes.
IIRC, there was some talk about the relationship between cosmic string and "White Holes". Personally I find it interesting.
I wonder if there is any development on the "White Hole" front? Has anyone prove the existence of "White Holes"?
Expiring mind is waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the answer - if there ever any.
:)
Here is my own proposal to enhance the AOL keyboard -
It will take three more button to make
the AOL keyboard truly unique.
Button 1: Sucks !
Button 2: Sucks even more !
Button 3: Mother of all suckers button !
Now AOL can start selling their enhance button during the Halloween.
"Bipedal movement is very hard to pull off.
It's also inefficient at low speed,
unstable, and complex. If I was making a
combat bot, I'd probably stick to quads or
wheels--the advantages of bipeds are far
outweighed by the complexity imposed in all
but a very few situations. (Of course,
Murphy dictates that those will be the
situations you end up in, but presumably
there would be a range of bots available.)"
I do agree with you that in many cases bipedal mode of movement is limited, and I also agree without that there ought to be different bots using different modd to move.
However, what I have pointed out is that the Bipedal mode of movement is NOT impossible. It may be slow now, but it could be faster down the road.
We humans have been used to the bipedal mode perspective for millions of years, and perhaps it would take us another million years or two to get us to be used to other forms of perception - be it spiderlike, or fishlike, or birdlike, or germslike, or whatever mode that we haven't even realize yet.
There is much work to be done, and I say let's start to do it.
I tried to fill in my name but I got an error at http://saveiridium.com/cgi-bin/data when I hit the "Save Iridium!" button.
And I tried to locate an email address to report the error, but there was none on the site. I tried to go to the guessbook and all I got was to the top of the webpage. Then I tried the "livechat' and I got a blank.
Hmmm....
Can someone please point me to a place where I can actually report the error to SOMEBODY?
Thank you.
"but also protectoin against bio- and/or
chemical warfare."
"or they could just put the same amount of
protection they give soldiers going into
battle against bio/chem warfare... a mask."
A mask maybe enough back in World War One, but not now.
Nerve gas and bio-agents can gets into one's body through the skin.
You do have to wear moon-suit like thing to protect you.
"a summar of an article may cover the
essential facts of an event but leave
out responses of those involved statistics
etc. it still funtions independently
from the complete article."
True, but please don't forget that a nicely done fiction sells itself.
Our reading habits differ, but in general, the way we read fiction is different from the way we read non-fiction.
For non-fiction, the time we re-read them is when we need to find out the details embedded in it.
For fiction, the time we re-read fictions is when we REMEMBER the nice feeling (or horror, or shock) the first time we read it, and we want to RE-EXPERIENCE that feeling.
So, we re-read it.
We may remember a nice fiction we read online, and if it is in print as well, if the fiction is so nice that we do need to re-read it, we will go and purchase a copy.
The thing is that most of the publishers are afraid that people will not buy the printed copy of the book if they have read them online. What the publisher forgot is if they publish trash, NOBODY would want to read them in the first place.
The thing is that if they (the publishers) concentrate on publishing GOOD fictions, they wouldn't have afraid people not buying the books, because the more people read them online, the more people will remember the stories, and the more of them will want a printed copy of it.
Sure, there are some cheapskates that would download the whole thing and print it on their own printers, but then, if those people really know how to calculate, they would find that it is cheaper and easier for them to just buy a copy from the bookstores.
The moral of the whole deal to the publishers is - publish GOOD STUFFS and you won't have to afraid people not buying the books you print.
There are a lot of "geewheeze" out there about this supposingly new morphing thingy, but nobody is talking about the OVERHEAD !
If something has to be translated (even optimized) from a form to another form, there ought to be overhead for that something.
So, who can tell me about the OVERHEAD incurred?
"The problem with a virtual body is that
it will never replace the capabilities
of an infantry soldier."
Very true !
But then, the exo-skeleton droids with human inside will not be as agile as the infantry soldier either.
Both the virtual body and the exo-droid will be used as something in between an infantry soldier and a tank.
A droid will be more agile than a tank, and more powerful than an infantry soldier. Places where the tank is a sitting duck, droids (or mech) would be there.
"Not necessarily... the proposal doesn't
say anything about it being a
completely self-contained environment."
Well... the proposal may not say so, but then, it _is_ a proposal after all.
The final product may have much more than what the proposal has proposed - for the final product has to take into account how to sustain the living ocndition of the human operator inside, *IF* you put a human operator inside, that is.
And the final product has to deal with the adverse condition those exo-droids would be in operation - in the cold artic area, in the hot desert, above ground, or under water, protection from not only the elements but also protection against bio- and/or chemical warfare.
Those are things that have to be taken into consideration, if you want to put a human being inside the exo-droid.
"It's tough to get the balance right for
a walker, without being in it or being
suspended and thrown around to mimic the
slave's movements in a remote control
center."
If I am not wrong, the Japanese have already demonstrated a bipadeled "walker droid" capable of climbing stairs.
It is not perfect yet, but then, the droid has much resemblance to human shape.
`It doesn't have to be a "BOOM" kind of
self-destruct - all the "self-destruct
sequence" needs to do is to shut down
the droid, in case interruption or
hijaaking is detected and can not be
prevented.'
"But then you've lost your mech. All the bad
guys would have to do is create a burst of
static long enough for the comunications to
time-out and sudenly your entire army has
shut itself down. You going to send some
guy out there to do a hard reboot on all
of them?"
You got a point.
Perhaps the droid should be equipped with AI to detect the difference between signal-jamming and signal-intrution.
In case of jamming that you have outlined above, the AI should be able to take over, and take appropriate evasive/contigency measure - just don't ask me what those measures are right now, I don't have a clue - but maybe the measure depends on what type of mission those exo-droids are sent out to accomplish.
That way, if the bad guys want to jam the signals, they can jam it, but the mech will still carry out their function.
"An operator inside of an exoskeleton has
several advantages that your typical
remote-control model lacks."
And it has several of disadvantages too.
A. An android will not get emotional. That is,
an android will not be disturbed by his
girlfriends being "shagged" by another man,
or his mother-in-laws' keeping tab on his
bedroom behavior or whatever.
An android will just do whatever it is
ordered to.
B. An android will not take coffee break.
C. An android will not need pay hike, and it
will not strike if the working condition is
not ideal.
There wouldn't be an android branch of
AFL-CIO.
D. An android will not become a spy for a
foreign and perhaps potentially hostile
regime.
E. If an android is "killed", it is just a
broken machine. Just like your old XT which
is not working anymore - you just throw it
in the trash.
Now let's take at the advantages you have pointed out -
"First is more control and depth of input.
A person inside of one these would have
depth perception, periphrial vision, and
(assuming the machine's not too loud) audio.
Also, being inside allows for more control
over how the input is managed (eye
movements, etc.)
Unless the human inside the droid has a direct "open-window" interface to the outside - the human operator inside the exo-droid will "see" and "hear" through the video camera(s) and microphone(s) mounted outside. Perception-wise, it is no different from a human operator in remote location, controlling the exo-droid via virtual-reality.
If there is an "open-window" interface for the operator, then the human operator inside the exo-droid will be vulnerable to bio and/or chemical attacks.
If you insulate the operator from such a thing, then, the operator will have to "perceive" the world out there like I have just outlined above.
The "eye-movement" detector that you mentioned could be used in the remotely-controlled virtual-reality settings as well.
"Second, a human being, as an operator,
will be able to handel an exoskeleton
far more intuitivly than a remote-virtual
body. This will result in far less
training than would otherwise be needed.
We all know how to work a body."
True, if you put a human being inside the exo-droid, the "handling aspect" will be more intuitive, but, the human-operator will also have to face with everything that the "intuitive" things brings - including the direct blow if the droid falls down, and so on, and so forth.
But, if you think that putting a human being inside the exo-droid will mean a more responsive droid, I don't think so.
Imagine yourself without cloth on, and then, imagine yoruself with many layers of clothes on. Tell me in which case do you feel more agile, or easier to move about?
A person inside an exo-droid will be feeling like a person with VERY, VERY THICK cloths on. You can't move as easily, you don't feel that you are as agile as before, and each and every movement you make will be a chore.
Whether or not putting a human being inside the exo-droid, the droid will not be as agile as a living thing, at least not in the level of technology we have today.
"Third, you gotta admit, it's pretty damn
cool. It feeds out monkey-egos to
personally be able to pick up the
car/steel beam/whatever. You just can't
get that kind of rush via remote..."
True, the feeling would be awesome. But then, what we need is a tool that do heavy lifting and something that can do dangerous work for us, we need no egoistic operators acting like robocop, wrecking havoc to the ordinary citizens.
Actually, making an exo-droid with a human being INSIDE is MORE complicated than making it without a living human inside.
You see, if you need to put a human inside the exo-droid, you need to keep that guy/gal alive ! That will mean you need to put in life-supporting systems, like air-circulation, temperature control, shock-absorbing devices, water and all the other kind of things. You even need to have two bags - one for urine, the ohter one for feces - so that human doesn't need to come out of the thing too often.
Without the space needed for the human body, and without the space needed for all the life-support system, the xeo-droid-sans-human will be more compact, and be more agile and more stronger.
You mentioned AI - actually, the AI needed for such a droid is not that much - although the current stage of AI development hasn't yet reached the level for a self-awareness AI, it is not that far away.
Plus, if the exo-droid is to be "controlled" or "complemented" by virtual-reality - that is, a human being in remote place can control it virtually, not that much AI is needed after all.
I do recognize the flaws you have outlined. But there are solutions over the flaws.
Frequency wise, you don't have to be stuck onto ONE frequency alone. You can use multiple frequencies, and you can do "frequency hopping", much like the cellphone does.
And you can combine that with encryption and all other sort of detection devices, to minimized (and yes, I reckon that the risk will NEVER be obliviated) interruption or hijaaking.
One more thing, the exo-droid can be equipped with a self-destruct device, much like the rockets - when something is terribly wrong, self-destruct !
It doesn't have to be a "BOOM" kind of self-destruct - all the "self-destruct sequence" needs to do is to shut down the droid, in case interruption or hijaaking is detected and can not be prevented.
Exoskeleton means something hard (skeleton) outside with softbody inside - which means, for every exo to work, a human must be inside operate it.
If the purpose of the exo is to do heavy-lifting and/or other tough/dangerous stuffs, putting a human inside still mean if accident happens, someone will get hurt, or may even die.
My own proposal -
Why not make a remote-virtual body instead?
Instead of putting a LIFE human being at the place of work, why not use the virtual reality technology into work, and operate the exo-droid virtually - via remote control.
That way, the exo-droid can do all types of things, including stepping on landmines, without having the operator risking injuries.
What do you think?
Bummer !
I came in late and the page is already "closed". Looks like the ISP "Best" or whatever isn't that good - they close down page access just when it starts to get interesting.
Can anyone please post the original content of that page? I'd love to know the details.
Thanks in advance !!
"Getting kids excited about learning
is the wave of the future!"
But getting kids excited about the Windoze environment, IMVHO, is not a healthy trend.
The Lego CAD is but a subset of autocad, which, incidentally, don't run in Linux or FreeBSD or any other OSS environment. The Autodesk product runs on Mac and M$ Windoze.
I suspect that Microsoft purposefully leaks out that "pirated" version of Win2001.
You see, the "pirated version" that was leaked out was in the BINARY FORM - that is, NO SOURCE CODE INCLUDED.
And we know W2k has 65K+ bugs in it, even after - according to M$'s own propaganda machine - the "rigorous testing of over 750,000 beta testers", and now perhaps, M$ is leaking out the W2K+1 to let MORE beta-testers to dig out the bugs those "750,000 testers" have obviously failed to do.
I do not believe the "pirated copy" story - for if the W2K+1 is a "pirated copy" then it ought to come with its souce code.
But then, that is only my opinion, and I have been proven to be wrong before.
You are right.
Linux as the kernel, does not fork.
The distros may go different ways, find different niches (HA, embedded, ez-to-use, etc.,) but as long as they use the kernel maintained by Linus, they all share the same ENGINE that drives the whole movement.
It is like Linus and the kernel team have developed an all purpose engine. The distro people use the engine and put different accessories on it.
Some distros use the engine and make it an oversized lawn mower. Some use it to power a mobile library. Some put the engine into a security wagon. Some try it in F1 chassis and see if it is powerful enough, and so on.
IBM, by successfully putting Linux on its 390 mainframe, has shown the world that the Linux Kernel is powerful enough to carry out such a feat.
The linux-cluster people, on the other hand, have proven that the Linux Kernel can be configured to be a cray replacement.
The embedded folks, on the other hand, will try to squeeze the Kernel into powering everything from refregerator to factory automation.
And there are more and more types of new applications for the Linux Kernel, and that only shows that the Linux Kernel is a GOOD THING [TM], with a ROBUST DESIGN [TM], and the more things Linux goes into, the less fields M$ can claims as its own.
One day, the Linux Kernel will be used on satellites, and after that, Linux will be used on other space-endeavor, and who knows? China is heading towards its own space program, and perhaps they would be the first one who put Linux into outerspace.
Jon said mentioned "attitude", I beg to disagree.
Attitude may be important, but it is not everything.
What the people online lacks the most is TIME. We are living on the age of information explosion, that we have no time to look into each and every piece of news items, and we need someone to summarize what is important for us - if we feel that something is important enough, we will go and dig out the whole article.
At least at that aspect, the online newspaper in one way or another is trying to do it. But they have done it wrong - instead of GENEROUSLY giving us the summary, they leave out IMPORTANT bits of info, (I know why they do that, because they want us to access their site), making many subscribers of those news service feeling frustrated - because on one hand, something _might_ be important, but then, the "summaries" that had been sent to us didn't give us enough clue if the article is indeed important or not.
I believe that if one day, someone will genuinely give us a true summary, and not leave out hooks trying to do us in, then the subscribers would feel that they are not "cheated".
I have seen so many online e-business startup, and the one common blunder that they have made is they have forgotten the basic tenet of MARKETING - that the only thing that is important in the whole scheme of thing is to SATISFY your customer.
Once you can satisfy what your customer WANTS (and not necessary what they need), you will get repeat purchases (or service render, or contractual agreements, and so on), but most online startups, including the online newspapers and now online publishing (even the so-called e-books are making the same blunder) is that they did not put the "CUSTOMER SATISFACTION" as the GOAL of their operation.
Some of the e-business operations that I have tried out have tried to answer the "customer satisfaction" question, but unfortunately, what they do is they do that kinda like an afterthought.
A successful company, no matter if it is online or offline, must satisfy the wants of the customers, or there won't be repeat purchases. Many offline businesses have succeeded in this respect, in various degrees, but online, most do not understand how to satisfy the online folks.
Perhaps that "attitude" thing Jon was alluding to mean just that - HOW TO SATISFY THE INTERNAUTS - but I still do not think that it is an attitude thing, it is just that we do not have as much time as the offline people to look carefully over each and every single item, and we often make our decision right there and then. One click and things is done.
My only hope is someone with marketing/psychological background can come up ways to satisfy the online people. Do not waste more of our time, and waste more of those e-business startup's capital, to do the useless "Come and see us, and waste your time here for nothing" schemes.
Remember, the online people often do not have plenty of time to look over the things you have to sell us. Give us what you one, and package them in a way that we can understand what you are tying to sell, in 8 seconds or less.
Yes, EIGHT SECONDS or less.
That's the AVERAGE time we will allow to be wasted in any website. If the website can't get our attention in the first eight seconds we spent there, we most likely will go to other places.
A challenge to the e-business folks - can you not only get our attention, but give us something of value, in eight seconds or less?
If you can do that, you will be successful. If you can't, don't waste your money, and we will thank you for not wasting our time.