It doesn't run on Windows unless there's been a CE port to the M16C microcontroller.
In any case, many robots don't require ANY operating system at all, and when they do, a lightweight RTOS often gets the job done. Personally, I avoid building stuff that requires anything as heavyweight as Windows, Linux or any other "real" OS.
The only real advantage of using a full fledged OS is that you might have certain kinds of hardware support that might otherwise be unavailable with something more limited. If you absolutely must do any heavyweight computing (vision processing, voice processing) on board, a real OS and the tools that come with it can be handy, but I try to offload this stuff as much as I can.
I've found that for any robot that needs to get around in the real world, lot's and lot's of available inputs for sensors combined with low power consumption seems to be key to success, rather than a big CPU and a relatively bloated OS.
... you're just going to love the relay-based video accelerator...
Overcomes my anti-lego prejudice
on
Lego Segway
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
in a big way.
I have to admit that is incredibly cool, especially given that he's done it with a couple of cheap optical rangers. I considered something like this with a small piezo gyro (made for model helicopter usage) -- but it hadn't occured to me that this might be workable with optical rangers. Some of the Sharp units only run around $12.00 apiece. I smell a new project coming on...
Very likely the security reports mentioned about Linux also included any that were present on the applications that came with Linux, so how can you exclude security problems with pre-installed Microsoft applications. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I would no more include past problems with Bind, Apache or WU-FTPD when evaluating Linux security than I would MS-Office when discussing Windows security. Nowhere have I said that I feel windows is particularly more or less secure than Linux -- In fact, using BugTraq reports as a basis for comparison is a fairly clueless means of comparing OSs for relative security. Not to put too fine a a point on it, but comparing "Linux" to "Windows" is itself a meaningless exercise, since the two are not equivalent in any sense.
The bottom line is that (as mentioned elsewhere) the weakest link in any system from a security standpoint is the operator of the system, period. If you want to make any kind of meaningful comparison, compare Windows against a particular distibution of Linux with an emphasis on securability. How easy is it to secure the system? How effective are the means provided? Then you might have a study worth reading.
I'd say that they miss to point out that Microsofts Office suite combined with VBA scripting
These aren't exactly a part of the operating system, though, are they? Any poorly set up system will be vulnerable. I'm no huge fan of MS's bloated products and crappy license arrangements, but I mean, really...
Don't believe me? I found this site: search.wipo.int [wipo.int] which lists at least some of the AOL domains that have been repo-ed by AOL
A lot of these are also DENIALS of AOLs petitions. This usually seems to be the case when WIPO finds that the allegedly infringing domain has is actually being used for something. Under the WIPO guidlines, AOLs attempt to take your domain should have been denied. Trademark infringement is actually another matter, though. WIPO considers possible infrigement, but infrigement alone shouldn't get the complaintant's request approved.
Just out of curiosity, did you ever end up going before WIPO? How did things pan out?
As it turns out, there is significant work from the scientific community that supports your position, although it has been repressed by the Secular Humanist Academic Establishment.
A summary of this work can be found in the documentary, "Caveman" by noted paleontologist and Christian, Dr. Ringo Starr.
However, with the the maturity of operating systems, many of them now include device drivers, APIs, objects and other goodies that insulate the average programmer from the hassle of issues like latency. So my question is, other than good academic study, would it pay for the rest of us to spend the $$ on such a book?
The above generally doesn't apply to anyone doing serious embedded work with small and midrange microcontrollers. Often an operating system is thin to non-existent on these platforms. Some of the lower-range parts may have a 2-byte hardware stack, 28 bytes of RAM and maybe 512 bytes of program memory. Obviously, you won't be doing much sophisticated numerical work on these smallest of microcontrollers, but for more midrange parts, I've found this book to be a godsend.
It's been submitted by a few people, but deemed insufficiently interesting by the editors. The slashdotting would be interesting -- would the wheels go before the internet connection?
Mine can be controlled from the web as well, has a snappier paint job, and implements "graceful degradation" every few days when it looses a wheel. See the sig...
... until they come out with the miniature Talladega track, complete with realistic infield and scale model naked, drunken rednecks with shotguns that really fire.
The main problem with this approach is
that it's a little awkward for those of us who frequently receive (non-spam) email from strangers. I get a lot of these.
There are a number of people who use your method, but automate it, which is a better way to go but still a bit awkward. Incoming emails not on the reply list generate a reply requesting the original sender to go to a web page, which allows them to enter themselves on the contact list automatically. Conceivably, the URL can contain a "web bug" that merely requires the sender to visit the link to have the add happen automatically. (Of course, some SPAM filters will block email containg web bugs...)
The best results I've seen personally involve spamassassin, which cuts my incoming volume from about 70spams/day to 1 spam every 3 or 4 days. Highly recommended for perl/procmail-capable platforms.
All of this of course, only adresses the problem at the level of the individual user. The larger problem is not likely to be solved by any means short of legislation.
Whats the use of eliminating data cables if you still have power cables?
But just up the power of the transmitter to a gigawatt or so, and then you might have something! Safetey, schmaftey!
Once we're all wearing those lead-lined trousers and codpieces everything will be perfectly safe.
I've plowed through many a $3-5 fantasy book and have never seen such publishing problems. What gives nowadays?
I just completed my first book (co-completed, actually), and according to a couple of old-timers who did other work on the series the quality of compositors has really gone down in recent years. We got lucky and got a pretty good one, but apparently competent compositors are really getting hard to come by -- at least at the prices publishers are willing to pay.
Of course, there is such a thing as author review. Ultimately, a lot of these problems really rest with the author failing to do an adequate job of reviewing the final draft.
I hope this was in jest since a simple look up [bartleby.com] returns chapter and verse Ecc 3:8.
If I were really stupid enough to confuse Kansas and Ecclesiastes, would I have been able to use or even spell the word "misattribution" correctly? But reviewing my earlier post, it was probably my use of the word "dude" that threw you off. Not to worry -- common mistake
Slashdot Mirror
In any case, many robots don't require ANY operating system at all, and when they do, a lightweight RTOS often gets the job done. Personally, I avoid building stuff that requires anything as heavyweight as Windows, Linux or any other "real" OS.
The only real advantage of using a full fledged OS is that you might have certain kinds of hardware support that might otherwise be unavailable with something more limited. If you absolutely must do any heavyweight computing (vision processing, voice processing) on board, a real OS and the tools that come with it can be handy, but I try to offload this stuff as much as I can.
I've found that for any robot that needs to get around in the real world, lot's and lot's of available inputs for sensors combined with low power consumption seems to be key to success, rather than a big CPU and a relatively bloated OS.
... you're just going to love the relay-based video accelerator...
I have to admit that is incredibly cool, especially given that he's done it with a couple of cheap optical rangers. I considered something like this with a small piezo gyro (made for model helicopter usage) -- but it hadn't occured to me that this might be workable with optical rangers. Some of the Sharp units only run around $12.00 apiece. I smell a new project coming on...
I wonder how the NYU system would manage with multiple users? Can the "alternating bars" system be adjusted for more than a single user at a time?
...is just a few years away. On the upside, GE should render those "add three inches..." spams pretty much obsolete for my grandchildren.
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I would no more include past problems with Bind, Apache or WU-FTPD when evaluating Linux security than I would MS-Office when discussing Windows security. Nowhere have I said that I feel windows is particularly more or less secure than Linux -- In fact, using BugTraq reports as a basis for comparison is a fairly clueless means of comparing OSs for relative security. Not to put too fine a a point on it, but comparing "Linux" to "Windows" is itself a meaningless exercise, since the two are not equivalent in any sense.
The bottom line is that (as mentioned elsewhere) the weakest link in any system from a security standpoint is the operator of the system, period. If you want to make any kind of meaningful comparison, compare Windows against a particular distibution of Linux with an emphasis on securability. How easy is it to secure the system? How effective are the means provided? Then you might have a study worth reading.
These aren't exactly a part of the operating system, though, are they? Any poorly set up system will be vulnerable. I'm no huge fan of MS's bloated products and crappy license arrangements, but I mean, really...
A lot of these are also DENIALS of AOLs petitions. This usually seems to be the case when WIPO finds that the allegedly infringing domain has is actually being used for something. Under the WIPO guidlines, AOLs attempt to take your domain should have been denied. Trademark infringement is actually another matter, though. WIPO considers possible infrigement, but infrigement alone shouldn't get the complaintant's request approved.
Just out of curiosity, did you ever end up going before WIPO? How did things pan out?
A summary of this work can be found in the documentary, "Caveman" by noted paleontologist and Christian, Dr. Ringo Starr.
There is no such skewering of Intel and the gaming industry in the book AFAIK.
Hats off to PG.
The above generally doesn't apply to anyone doing serious embedded work with small and midrange microcontrollers. Often an operating system is thin to non-existent on these platforms. Some of the lower-range parts may have a 2-byte hardware stack, 28 bytes of RAM and maybe 512 bytes of program memory. Obviously, you won't be doing much sophisticated numerical work on these smallest of microcontrollers, but for more midrange parts, I've found this book to be a godsend.
The book is not aimed at PC users.
I can now report that the wheels indeed went (several times) before the internet connection, which has yet to go.
It's been submitted by a few people, but deemed insufficiently interesting by the editors. The slashdotting would be interesting -- would the wheels go before the internet connection?
Mine can be controlled from the web as well, has a snappier paint job, and implements "graceful degradation" every few days when it looses a wheel. See the sig...
Regrettably, that would detract from the realism...
That would be worth paying for.
I couldn't agree with you more. How many more Chinese peasants have to die before the madness ends?
Two other words: lunchbreak/porn
It's just so 1995.
There are a number of people who use your method, but automate it, which is a better way to go but still a bit awkward. Incoming emails not on the reply list generate a reply requesting the original sender to go to a web page, which allows them to enter themselves on the contact list automatically. Conceivably, the URL can contain a "web bug" that merely requires the sender to visit the link to have the add happen automatically. (Of course, some SPAM filters will block email containg web bugs...)
The best results I've seen personally involve spamassassin, which cuts my incoming volume from about 70spams/day to 1 spam every 3 or 4 days. Highly recommended for perl/procmail-capable platforms.
All of this of course, only adresses the problem at the level of the individual user. The larger problem is not likely to be solved by any means short of legislation.
Like bluetooth, the idea is really to eliminate data cables, not do networking as such (although bluetooth did support that whole "scatternet" thing.
Think of it as IrDA for people who aim poorly...
But just up the power of the transmitter to a gigawatt or so, and then you might have something! Safetey, schmaftey! Once we're all wearing those lead-lined trousers and codpieces everything will be perfectly safe.
I just completed my first book (co-completed, actually), and according to a couple of old-timers who did other work on the series the quality of compositors has really gone down in recent years. We got lucky and got a pretty good one, but apparently competent compositors are really getting hard to come by -- at least at the prices publishers are willing to pay.
Of course, there is such a thing as author review. Ultimately, a lot of these problems really rest with the author failing to do an adequate job of reviewing the final draft.
If I were really stupid enough to confuse Kansas and Ecclesiastes, would I have been able to use or even spell the word "misattribution" correctly? But reviewing my earlier post, it was probably my use of the word "dude" that threw you off. Not to worry -- common mistake
Um... I did spell that correctly, right?
I'm sorry, but I believe it was the 70's rock group, Kansas, that actually said this.
Either that or this Ecclesiastes dude just totally ripped them off...