People sometimes say "well, it worked with DVD and VHS!" That's because DVD was an ENTIRELY different technology...no rewinding, perfect still images, clear and focused slow-mo, chapter selections, extra features, multiple language and audio, etc.
While I do believe that all those features are ultimately why DVD was seen as worth the upgrade, it's also worth pointing out that it did look better than VHS without you having to buy anything but the DVD player.
No real new features except a superior picture, and you only get that if you buy a brand new television too. That's a much tougher sell no matter how you slice it.
Not to nitpick, but the article title should have been more along the lines of "Most distant naked-eye event recorded", since gamma rays themselves are not visible.
It's not the gamma rays they're talking about, but the afterglow caused by gas heated by the gamma rays, and this afterglow is partly in the visible spectrum, and was in fact visible with the naked eye (magnitude between 5 and 6, which is at the edge of unaided human vision). The title is completely correct.
"No other known object or type of explosion could be seen by the naked eye at such an immense distance," said Swift science team member Stephen Holland of Goddard. "If someone just happened to be looking at the right place at the right time, they saw the most distant object ever seen by human eyes without optical aid."
Uh, you should be glad that word is there, because if it wasn't, you'd have no defense if you were caught accidentally using someone else's router. As it is, you can base your defense on the fact that you weren't aware it wasn't your host's router, and depending on circumstances it shouldn't be that hard to make the case. For example if you used any kind of automatic network detection and it chose the neighbor's AP, that's not really your fault.
Cold is not a thing, it is the absence of something (heat). Heat, on the other hand, exists, and enters from all directions.
Uh-huh. And every circuit analysis problem you've ever done you got wrong, because the mobile charge carriers are actually the electrons and the positive charges don't go anywhere, but you always calculate the current as though it is the positive charge that is moving.
It's a polarity issue, and other than the sign of the vectors it is completely equivalent.
So, lets say this eventually becomes a common technology (doubtful, but lets pretend). When do we get to stop calling them 'super'conductors?
Never, because the physics of super conductors is different from regular conductors, and regular conductors are never going away. There are many, many circumstances where having resistance is necessary, and for that you need a plain-ol' conductor. Also I think we're safe from creeping-superlative-itis because you pretty much can't get more "super" than "effectively zero resistance".
And what's so hard about remembering all the types of DOS memory? "Conventional" was the kind that you never had enough of to launch your games. "Extended" memory was a baroque and stupid way of accessing all the extra memory you had that the chip couldn't address directly. "Expanded" memory was the same thing, only different. "Upper" memory was the memory your chip could address but refused to let your games use. And lastly "high" memory is when you were editing your config.sys autoexec.bat to get more conventional memory but you got distracted thinking about how funny it would be if.bat files were like, actually bats that flew around in your computer, and you forgot what the line was you just deleted, and your game never runs again.
Rats. Though at least hypothetically, it seems like it would be easier to design a containment for a high-pressure superconductor that requires minimal energy to maintain versus a low-pressure one. You can design a pressure vessel such that the pressure only escapes via small known locations (any valve or seal), whereas cold always escapes in all directions. So there still may be practical advantages to this discovery.
Though in any event characterizing the behavior of high-pressure materials is valuable.
That should give plenty of time for the tech rags to post glowing reviews of how it revolutionizes computing, solves world hunger, and cures male pattern baldness. Likewise, it will give Slashdot plenty of time to report that it makes computers crash, steals peoples' wallets, has sex with their dogs, and sets their house on fire.
Well they're actually both true.
Vista revolutionizes computing by crashing so much you stop using your computer! Vista solves world hunger by stealing rich people's wallets! Vista cures male pattern baldness by having sex with your dog!
Okay, I know for a fact that last one doesn't work. But the others might be true!
I don't think many people are going to pay 200,000 euros for a 15 minute long vomit comet ride.
No, because there's no way I or many people could afford that even if they thought it was worth every Euro-cent. But at a quite substantial but at least feasible cost of say $20k US, personally I'd start saving up the coin. And if the small number of people willing to pay EU 200k allows further cost reductions, it may happen.
The fundamental problem is that all these private space ships only have a fraction of the energy required to achieve orbital flight.
No shit. Which means that the odds of the cost for a sub-orbital "vomit comet" ride dropping to where many middle-class people could afford it is a lot better than the odds that a true orbital flight will be affordable for your average -- as opposed to extremely -- rich person.
There's nothing wrong with also developing technologies to achieve orbit cheaper. It's just that is a much longer-term goal because the problem is much harder. Look at the history of space flight, and the expectations that arose from it. We'd already be living in off-world colonies by now, every sci-fi author thought based on a reasonable projection of our development rate. Yet reality didn't match the dreams, and as of today there's no way that you can even get to space unless you're one of a select few.
Given that history and current reality, I have a new, fairly realistic, and to my mind completely amazing goal: I, Chris Burke, will see earth from space before I die.
You can stay on the ground if that's not cool enough for you. That some people don't think it "counts" won't detract from my awe one bit. Go ahead and wait on your space elevator. We'll see which of our dreams comes true.
.. but four and a half g's in deceleration, even shortly, would run the risk of a red out for those not inclined to physical fitness.
Eh... I doubt it. If you're sitting up when the craft is level, then when its rocketing towards space you'll be lying on your back. 4.5 gees isn't all that much in that direction. While others pointed out that rollercoasters have more gees, clearly it's going to be a much longer experience what with the craft traveling at least a hundred kilometers instead of half a mile. But orientation is going to make all the difference.
Fighter pilots don't have to wear their g-suits to stop them from blacking out simply from the plane's forward acceleration. The suits are there for when the pilot pulls a sharp upward turn or other maneuver, which means the g-forces would tend to make their blood flow down from their head and pool in their feet. This is what makes the pilot pass out, and is why the suits compress the legs and abdomen to counter the g-force and keep blood up in the chest and head.
Unlike zero-g flights today which have to dive then climb repeatedly and would thus experience some "downward" gees, I'm pretty sure these are going to pretty much be a single arc in which case I doubt g forces will present a serious problem. Certainly I expect that unlike a roller coaster there is going to have to be some kind of physical before they'll let you on the craft for liability purposes, and given that you are moderately healthy I bet you'd be fine.
1) Companies can't magically increase their production capacity on a whim. Life isn't SimCity, you can't just plop down a Factory and have it start producing parts immediately. It costs a large amount of money and a large amount of time to create this capacity. When you're building something complex like an automobile which requires components from a multitude of suppliers, this is infinitely more true, and you don't even have the ability to control whether they decide to increase capacity or not.
2) Hype means nothing if it can't be converted into sales. Hype is only useful when the item itself cannot be purchased and interest must be maintained until it can -- Segway is a good example. Once the product is actually in the market, sacrificing a sale for the "hype" of the item being hard to find is a losing proposition because anyone who becomes enamored of the product due to this "hype" is not going to be able to actually buy one, and anyone who was already on board with buying it may become disillusioned with the product. Trading a sale for "hype" is a bad idea.
3) You're insane if you think either Toyota or Nintendo are deliberately limiting supply when there are already people lining up waiting to buy one. They are production limited, and they have zero reason to want to be limited, but that is just the reality.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about "weak" AI, the practical side of machine learning and decision making algorithms. Look at our best robots -- Asimo, the RoboCup, even industrial machinery controllers -- and you'll find systems that operate between passably and impressively in their particular controlled environment, but are fairly useless outside it. Even RoboCup -- soccer playing robots -- only works because all the robots are essentially the same, and the ball and nets are constant, easily identified objects, and the objectives of the match are well defined.
That's what I'm saying, it would work, but it'd have to be a completely controlled environment without the physical creativity of BattleBots. That would still be a cool thing to see, but it would push the competition almost entirely into the realm of programming. Which isn't as much of a spectator sport, even if geeks like us still think it's awesome.
using detailed radar or video analysis you can search for fast moving parts since most weapons will be fast movine, then automatically evade what appears to be the range of motion of said moving part. sure it's more complex than a roomba but it's not impossible.
And until it moved, it would have no idea it was a weapon, and when it stopped moving, it'd lose the weapon, unless it was programmed with algorithms to identify that particular kind of weapon.
Of course it's not impossible to do all this at some point, and it will be sweet. Like I said, I'm not assuming "strong" AI which we may never create because we don't even know what it would look like, it's more "weak" AI that is really a matter of engineering and algorithms. I just don't see that we are there yet. For now, I think the radio-controlled but creatively designed "robot" combat is cooler, because not only do you see innovative designs and ideas for ways to build robots, there's room for skilled and adaptive piloting to make a difference.
When your battle bot can battle even somewhat autonomously, then I'll watch.
We're not even close to being able to have an AI that would be able to adapt to a new opponent with a new weapon system or form of motion. We've been able to make decent autonomous robots that operate in a strictly controlled environment where they can be programmed to expect everything that can happen -- e.g. robots that play soccer, now toss a football at one, or make the floor like a mogul ski slope, and see what it does. Heck, a lot of AIs go completely mental when faced with unknown stimulus.
So given the practical realities of AI today, you'd essentially have to get rid of all the engineering and design aspects of the robots, and basically have a standard robot so that you could make the necessary assumptions about what enemies it would face. Not that this kind of thing isn't interesting -- I always loved programming crobots which had only one robot with standard abilities. It's just that practically speaking you have to choose between software engineering and hardware engineering, and at this point I just think unique human-controlled fighting machines is more exciting.
"All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there. And Enceladus, don't land there either. Or on Titan. And don't even think about Io. Phoebe is right out. In fact why don't you monkey bastards just stay on your own little rock and its moon. Damn kids mucking up the solar system..."
A lot of people hold as a mantra this notion that the truth is always somewhere in between. Its not.
Not always, but in this case it clearly is.
But the situation now is quite clear, and is not a symmetric one:
Just because you've introduced a third option of "symmetry" does not mean this is any better than those who can see only in terms of the false dichotomy of absolute right and wrong. So the sides are not equally balanced. Thus the scale must tip entirely in one direction?
Israel is not occupying in any meaningful way the territories from which the fire comes from.
Israel controls the tax money the Palestinian government collects, they control the roads and supplies that enter the territory, they control whether their buildings stand as they feel free to enter with a column of tanks and bulldozers when they wish to. They occupy the territories in every meaningful way. The only way they don't control it in the non-meaningful way of not choosing to live in that hellhole themselves.
Israel has gone for long periods of time without responding to that fire (negating any claims that this is a "cycle". Its not a cycle, Hamas fired at Israel without responses for long periods of time).
When were these periods? At any point in time where the ceasefires and peace accords were not in affect, Palestine was subject to bulldozings and rocket attacks. Just because they don't attack the next day, and instead wait a month to plan an attack, does not make it not a "cycle".
Israel finally broke after 7 years of daily fire, and the upgrading of the missiles used by the Palestinians.
Really, I don't know what you're talking about here. They have attacked Palestine repeatedly in the past 7 years, and prior to the latest intifada were not being attacked by rockets. Do the rockets not count if they are launched by an attack helicopter?
In this case, the truth is not somewhere in between, Hamas apologists are wrong, and Israel is simply defending itself.
And let me guess, anyone who does not agree that Israel is "simply" defending itself and is completely free of blame for current actions is in fact a Hamas apologist?
Aha! So it's not just the Ploxmire awards, it's a review of the specious "research" the whalers conduct in order to continue hunting whales. These crucial words were left out of the summary, and makes it seem even more ridiculous. Makes much more sense now, and explains why whales are involved, and they won't bother with sloths and sea sponges. It's sort of a more gruesome version of Canadian lottery quizzes.
I automatically assumed that's what it was. The intent behind the 'research' jumped right out at me and bit me on the nose.
Before you start blabbing about Ghandi and the power of non-violent resistance, let's get something clear: there is a MASSIVE difference between fighting a foe who actually cares about being humane, and fighting a foe who'll do anything to achieve your annihilation. Ghandi facing the Brits was the former, which is why it worked. The Jews facing the Nazi's was the latter, which is why it didn't. I'll leave it to you to figure out which camp the Pallies fall into.
Well not that there aren't significant differences between the situations, nor is this to imply that Ghandi's methods would automatically work, but I think you are a little mistaken as to why Ghandi's methods worked. For one, the foe in this cas was not significantly concerned with being humane outside their own island. The British Empire was famously brutal in its handling of occupied lands.
A big part of the reason why Ghandi's methods worked is because standing behind Ghandi were a large number of men who would have been perfectly willing to take up arms had the British acted against Ghandi. Instead of facing a non-violent uprising, they could have been facing a very violent one. It was as much a cost-benefit analysis as it was the Brit's superior morality that drove their decisions.
It's somewhat similar to the U.S. military's actions in Iraq. Why did we spend the lives of so many marines going door to door in Falluja, instead of carpet bombing the city into the ground? Because we're nice guys who don't want to hurt civilians? I guess, in theory. More likely because if we had, instead of facing a city that had risen up against us, we'd have been facing an entire country and not even the Green Zone would have been remotely safe.
Even if they don't like to say that's what they're doing, smart people in the military do actually consider more than just the enemies they will kill; they think about the enemies they're going to create.
Nobody, for some reason, can admit that BOTH are wrong, and probably share equal blame in the matter.
No, lots of people can and do -- though the "blame" part is a red herring in the sense that it doesn't matter whether one side is more at fault than the other. It's cause and effect -- if you shoot at somebody, they're going to shoot back, and it doesn't matter if you're only shooting at them because they were shooting at you. Same with the whole notion of who shot first. As if that matters at this point; it's a self-perpetuating cycle of violence and we already have generations of people who weren't even around when those shots were fired.
Anyway, plenty of people can admit that both are wrong and need to take responsibility for stopping the violence. They're called "moderates".
The problem is that all the people who have chosen one side as being Right and Good(tm) only hear the part where you say that their side is wrong, and that automatically makes you one of Them(tm), who sympathizes with those who are Wrong and Evil(tm).
It's a problem of extremism. People who can only comprehend things in terms of absolute Good and Evil, who think only one side can be Wrong and the other side is thus Right and thus anything the Right side does to the Wrong side is automatically Good. These people are called "extremists". And while not all of them actually participate in violence, the have extremist views just the same.
I blame the company being bought and moving from Kalamazoo MI to Nashville TN. I have no idea if this actually correlates with any change in the company's legal strategies, nevertheless I maintain that it is true.
Yeah, I thought they were very good as well. Quite informative, to the extent that he could be. I think the people questioning the quality of the answers needs to first consider the quality of the questions and their relevance to this interview. Ask a question that he can't answer and well the answer is going to stink.
1. Do something about the wedge/flipper bots. There are plenty of methods to deal with them that don't involve a simple ban on the design type. But trust me when I say that BattleBots was being done in by what appeared to be a never ending supply of squat cheese wedges.
I think the best way to deal with it is just for the bots to evolve. There were plenty of wedge-resistant bots showing up in later seasons, and it doesn't necessarily have to dictate the entire design. A lot of bot makers were too into making the kind of bot they wanted to make, without worrying about its vulnerabilities. If your bot is vulnerable to a simple wedge, then that's a pretty big problem.
I do remember some of the stronger flipper bots (Torro was one iirc, there were other designs from the same group in other weight classes) causing major problems, simply because with the power of their hydraulic flipper even wedge-resistant bots that could operate inverted had a hard time after being tossed five feet into the air repeatedly.
2.1: Let the damned things fight. The course doesn't need to be 'extreme' and deadly. Sure, put in a few obstacles but don't turn the course into a third opponent. Nothing like watching a good battle only to see one opponent DQ'd after some goofy piece of scenery flips over for no reason.
I kind of disagree. I think the biggest problem with at least the BattleBots arena was that the hazards weren't potent enough. Those little saws wouldn't do much damage and would only flip over the most top-heavy of bots. The only ones that had a reasonable chance of causing damage were the screws on the edges. So you'd have one bot that was a "control" type of bot, and would essentially be able to cart the other bot around the arena, and hold it over the saws which would do... nothing. Pretty disappointing for what otherwise appeared to be the superior bot/driver combination.
If you want to liken it to UFC, think of it being like a submission hold... except because your opponent is metal, squeezing them in a full nelson while pressing their face into the mat isn't very effective.
Slashdot Mirror
People sometimes say "well, it worked with DVD and VHS!" That's because DVD was an ENTIRELY different technology...no rewinding, perfect still images, clear and focused slow-mo, chapter selections, extra features, multiple language and audio, etc.
While I do believe that all those features are ultimately why DVD was seen as worth the upgrade, it's also worth pointing out that it did look better than VHS without you having to buy anything but the DVD player.
No real new features except a superior picture, and you only get that if you buy a brand new television too. That's a much tougher sell no matter how you slice it.
Not to nitpick, but the article title should have been more along the lines of "Most distant naked-eye event recorded", since gamma rays themselves are not visible.
It's not the gamma rays they're talking about, but the afterglow caused by gas heated by the gamma rays, and this afterglow is partly in the visible spectrum, and was in fact visible with the naked eye (magnitude between 5 and 6, which is at the edge of unaided human vision). The title is completely correct.
"No other known object or type of explosion could be seen by the naked eye at such an immense distance," said Swift science team member Stephen Holland of Goddard. "If someone just happened to be looking at the right place at the right time, they saw the most distant object ever seen by human eyes without optical aid."
Uh, you should be glad that word is there, because if it wasn't, you'd have no defense if you were caught accidentally using someone else's router. As it is, you can base your defense on the fact that you weren't aware it wasn't your host's router, and depending on circumstances it shouldn't be that hard to make the case. For example if you used any kind of automatic network detection and it chose the neighbor's AP, that's not really your fault.
Cold is not a thing, it is the absence of something (heat). Heat, on the other hand, exists, and enters from all directions.
Uh-huh. And every circuit analysis problem you've ever done you got wrong, because the mobile charge carriers are actually the electrons and the positive charges don't go anywhere, but you always calculate the current as though it is the positive charge that is moving.
It's a polarity issue, and other than the sign of the vectors it is completely equivalent.
So, lets say this eventually becomes a common technology (doubtful, but lets pretend). When do we get to stop calling them 'super'conductors?
.bat files were like, actually bats that flew around in your computer, and you forgot what the line was you just deleted, and your game never runs again.
Never, because the physics of super conductors is different from regular conductors, and regular conductors are never going away. There are many, many circumstances where having resistance is necessary, and for that you need a plain-ol' conductor. Also I think we're safe from creeping-superlative-itis because you pretty much can't get more "super" than "effectively zero resistance".
And what's so hard about remembering all the types of DOS memory? "Conventional" was the kind that you never had enough of to launch your games. "Extended" memory was a baroque and stupid way of accessing all the extra memory you had that the chip couldn't address directly. "Expanded" memory was the same thing, only different. "Upper" memory was the memory your chip could address but refused to let your games use. And lastly "high" memory is when you were editing your config.sys autoexec.bat to get more conventional memory but you got distracted thinking about how funny it would be if
Rats. Though at least hypothetically, it seems like it would be easier to design a containment for a high-pressure superconductor that requires minimal energy to maintain versus a low-pressure one. You can design a pressure vessel such that the pressure only escapes via small known locations (any valve or seal), whereas cold always escapes in all directions. So there still may be practical advantages to this discovery.
Though in any event characterizing the behavior of high-pressure materials is valuable.
Well I have yet to find a game that isn't "wine compatible" in that sense, so there should be no problems!
Gah! We're only number 14?! But I've been working SO HARD! Come on people, we have to pick up the slack.
That should give plenty of time for the tech rags to post glowing reviews of how it revolutionizes computing, solves world hunger, and cures male pattern baldness. Likewise, it will give Slashdot plenty of time to report that it makes computers crash, steals peoples' wallets, has sex with their dogs, and sets their house on fire.
Well they're actually both true.
Vista revolutionizes computing by crashing so much you stop using your computer!
Vista solves world hunger by stealing rich people's wallets!
Vista cures male pattern baldness by having sex with your dog!
Okay, I know for a fact that last one doesn't work. But the others might be true!
I don't think many people are going to pay 200,000 euros for a 15 minute long vomit comet ride.
No, because there's no way I or many people could afford that even if they thought it was worth every Euro-cent. But at a quite substantial but at least feasible cost of say $20k US, personally I'd start saving up the coin. And if the small number of people willing to pay EU 200k allows further cost reductions, it may happen.
The fundamental problem is that all these private space ships only have a fraction of the energy required to achieve orbital flight.
No shit. Which means that the odds of the cost for a sub-orbital "vomit comet" ride dropping to where many middle-class people could afford it is a lot better than the odds that a true orbital flight will be affordable for your average -- as opposed to extremely -- rich person.
There's nothing wrong with also developing technologies to achieve orbit cheaper. It's just that is a much longer-term goal because the problem is much harder. Look at the history of space flight, and the expectations that arose from it. We'd already be living in off-world colonies by now, every sci-fi author thought based on a reasonable projection of our development rate. Yet reality didn't match the dreams, and as of today there's no way that you can even get to space unless you're one of a select few.
Given that history and current reality, I have a new, fairly realistic, and to my mind completely amazing goal: I, Chris Burke, will see earth from space before I die.
You can stay on the ground if that's not cool enough for you. That some people don't think it "counts" won't detract from my awe one bit. Go ahead and wait on your space elevator. We'll see which of our dreams comes true.
.. but four and a half g's in deceleration, even shortly, would run the risk of a red out for those not inclined to physical fitness.
Eh... I doubt it. If you're sitting up when the craft is level, then when its rocketing towards space you'll be lying on your back. 4.5 gees isn't all that much in that direction. While others pointed out that rollercoasters have more gees, clearly it's going to be a much longer experience what with the craft traveling at least a hundred kilometers instead of half a mile. But orientation is going to make all the difference.
Fighter pilots don't have to wear their g-suits to stop them from blacking out simply from the plane's forward acceleration. The suits are there for when the pilot pulls a sharp upward turn or other maneuver, which means the g-forces would tend to make their blood flow down from their head and pool in their feet. This is what makes the pilot pass out, and is why the suits compress the legs and abdomen to counter the g-force and keep blood up in the chest and head.
Unlike zero-g flights today which have to dive then climb repeatedly and would thus experience some "downward" gees, I'm pretty sure these are going to pretty much be a single arc in which case I doubt g forces will present a serious problem. Certainly I expect that unlike a roller coaster there is going to have to be some kind of physical before they'll let you on the craft for liability purposes, and given that you are moderately healthy I bet you'd be fine.
1) Companies can't magically increase their production capacity on a whim. Life isn't SimCity, you can't just plop down a Factory and have it start producing parts immediately. It costs a large amount of money and a large amount of time to create this capacity. When you're building something complex like an automobile which requires components from a multitude of suppliers, this is infinitely more true, and you don't even have the ability to control whether they decide to increase capacity or not.
2) Hype means nothing if it can't be converted into sales. Hype is only useful when the item itself cannot be purchased and interest must be maintained until it can -- Segway is a good example. Once the product is actually in the market, sacrificing a sale for the "hype" of the item being hard to find is a losing proposition because anyone who becomes enamored of the product due to this "hype" is not going to be able to actually buy one, and anyone who was already on board with buying it may become disillusioned with the product. Trading a sale for "hype" is a bad idea.
3) You're insane if you think either Toyota or Nintendo are deliberately limiting supply when there are already people lining up waiting to buy one. They are production limited, and they have zero reason to want to be limited, but that is just the reality.
you are assuming that the AI is a true AI,
No, I'm not. I'm talking about "weak" AI, the practical side of machine learning and decision making algorithms. Look at our best robots -- Asimo, the RoboCup, even industrial machinery controllers -- and you'll find systems that operate between passably and impressively in their particular controlled environment, but are fairly useless outside it. Even RoboCup -- soccer playing robots -- only works because all the robots are essentially the same, and the ball and nets are constant, easily identified objects, and the objectives of the match are well defined.
That's what I'm saying, it would work, but it'd have to be a completely controlled environment without the physical creativity of BattleBots. That would still be a cool thing to see, but it would push the competition almost entirely into the realm of programming. Which isn't as much of a spectator sport, even if geeks like us still think it's awesome.
using detailed radar or video analysis you can search for fast moving parts since most weapons will be fast movine, then automatically evade what appears to be the range of motion of said moving part. sure it's more complex than a roomba but it's not impossible.
And until it moved, it would have no idea it was a weapon, and when it stopped moving, it'd lose the weapon, unless it was programmed with algorithms to identify that particular kind of weapon.
Of course it's not impossible to do all this at some point, and it will be sweet. Like I said, I'm not assuming "strong" AI which we may never create because we don't even know what it would look like, it's more "weak" AI that is really a matter of engineering and algorithms. I just don't see that we are there yet. For now, I think the radio-controlled but creatively designed "robot" combat is cooler, because not only do you see innovative designs and ideas for ways to build robots, there's room for skilled and adaptive piloting to make a difference.
When your battle bot can battle even somewhat autonomously, then I'll watch.
We're not even close to being able to have an AI that would be able to adapt to a new opponent with a new weapon system or form of motion. We've been able to make decent autonomous robots that operate in a strictly controlled environment where they can be programmed to expect everything that can happen -- e.g. robots that play soccer, now toss a football at one, or make the floor like a mogul ski slope, and see what it does. Heck, a lot of AIs go completely mental when faced with unknown stimulus.
So given the practical realities of AI today, you'd essentially have to get rid of all the engineering and design aspects of the robots, and basically have a standard robot so that you could make the necessary assumptions about what enemies it would face. Not that this kind of thing isn't interesting -- I always loved programming crobots which had only one robot with standard abilities. It's just that practically speaking you have to choose between software engineering and hardware engineering, and at this point I just think unique human-controlled fighting machines is more exciting.
"All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there. And Enceladus, don't land there either. Or on Titan. And don't even think about Io. Phoebe is right out. In fact why don't you monkey bastards just stay on your own little rock and its moon. Damn kids mucking up the solar system..."
A lot of people hold as a mantra this notion that the truth is always somewhere in between. Its not.
Not always, but in this case it clearly is.
But the situation now is quite clear, and is not a symmetric one:
Just because you've introduced a third option of "symmetry" does not mean this is any better than those who can see only in terms of the false dichotomy of absolute right and wrong. So the sides are not equally balanced. Thus the scale must tip entirely in one direction?
Israel is not occupying in any meaningful way the territories from which the fire comes from.
Israel controls the tax money the Palestinian government collects, they control the roads and supplies that enter the territory, they control whether their buildings stand as they feel free to enter with a column of tanks and bulldozers when they wish to. They occupy the territories in every meaningful way. The only way they don't control it in the non-meaningful way of not choosing to live in that hellhole themselves.
Israel has gone for long periods of time without responding to that fire (negating any claims that this is a "cycle". Its not a cycle, Hamas fired at Israel without responses for long periods of time).
When were these periods? At any point in time where the ceasefires and peace accords were not in affect, Palestine was subject to bulldozings and rocket attacks. Just because they don't attack the next day, and instead wait a month to plan an attack, does not make it not a "cycle".
Israel finally broke after 7 years of daily fire, and the upgrading of the missiles used by the Palestinians.
Really, I don't know what you're talking about here. They have attacked Palestine repeatedly in the past 7 years, and prior to the latest intifada were not being attacked by rockets. Do the rockets not count if they are launched by an attack helicopter?
In this case, the truth is not somewhere in between, Hamas apologists are wrong, and Israel is simply defending itself.
And let me guess, anyone who does not agree that Israel is "simply" defending itself and is completely free of blame for current actions is in fact a Hamas apologist?
Aha! So it's not just the Ploxmire awards, it's a review of the specious "research" the whalers conduct in order to continue hunting whales. These crucial words were left out of the summary, and makes it seem even more ridiculous. Makes much more sense now, and explains why whales are involved, and they won't bother with sloths and sea sponges. It's sort of a more gruesome version of Canadian lottery quizzes.
I automatically assumed that's what it was. The intent behind the 'research' jumped right out at me and bit me on the nose.
Before you start blabbing about Ghandi and the power of non-violent resistance, let's get something clear: there is a MASSIVE difference between fighting a foe who actually cares about being humane, and fighting a foe who'll do anything to achieve your annihilation. Ghandi facing the Brits was the former, which is why it worked. The Jews facing the Nazi's was the latter, which is why it didn't. I'll leave it to you to figure out which camp the Pallies fall into.
Well not that there aren't significant differences between the situations, nor is this to imply that Ghandi's methods would automatically work, but I think you are a little mistaken as to why Ghandi's methods worked. For one, the foe in this cas was not significantly concerned with being humane outside their own island. The British Empire was famously brutal in its handling of occupied lands.
A big part of the reason why Ghandi's methods worked is because standing behind Ghandi were a large number of men who would have been perfectly willing to take up arms had the British acted against Ghandi. Instead of facing a non-violent uprising, they could have been facing a very violent one. It was as much a cost-benefit analysis as it was the Brit's superior morality that drove their decisions.
It's somewhat similar to the U.S. military's actions in Iraq. Why did we spend the lives of so many marines going door to door in Falluja, instead of carpet bombing the city into the ground? Because we're nice guys who don't want to hurt civilians? I guess, in theory. More likely because if we had, instead of facing a city that had risen up against us, we'd have been facing an entire country and not even the Green Zone would have been remotely safe.
Even if they don't like to say that's what they're doing, smart people in the military do actually consider more than just the enemies they will kill; they think about the enemies they're going to create.
Nobody, for some reason, can admit that BOTH are wrong, and probably share equal blame in the matter.
No, lots of people can and do -- though the "blame" part is a red herring in the sense that it doesn't matter whether one side is more at fault than the other. It's cause and effect -- if you shoot at somebody, they're going to shoot back, and it doesn't matter if you're only shooting at them because they were shooting at you. Same with the whole notion of who shot first. As if that matters at this point; it's a self-perpetuating cycle of violence and we already have generations of people who weren't even around when those shots were fired.
Anyway, plenty of people can admit that both are wrong and need to take responsibility for stopping the violence. They're called "moderates".
The problem is that all the people who have chosen one side as being Right and Good(tm) only hear the part where you say that their side is wrong, and that automatically makes you one of Them(tm), who sympathizes with those who are Wrong and Evil(tm).
It's a problem of extremism. People who can only comprehend things in terms of absolute Good and Evil, who think only one side can be Wrong and the other side is thus Right and thus anything the Right side does to the Wrong side is automatically Good. These people are called "extremists". And while not all of them actually participate in violence, the have extremist views just the same.
The world needs more moderates.
I blame the company being bought and moving from Kalamazoo MI to Nashville TN. I have no idea if this actually correlates with any change in the company's legal strategies, nevertheless I maintain that it is true.
Yeah, I thought they were very good as well. Quite informative, to the extent that he could be. I think the people questioning the quality of the answers needs to first consider the quality of the questions and their relevance to this interview. Ask a question that he can't answer and well the answer is going to stink.
I agree except for the subtle part.
Besides, the question itself was rated +5, Funny.
So yeah, you were right, and a lot of others just hopped on the "silly greenies" bandwagon.
1. Do something about the wedge/flipper bots. There are plenty of methods to deal with them that don't involve a simple ban on the design type. But trust me when I say that BattleBots was being done in by what appeared to be a never ending supply of squat cheese wedges.
I think the best way to deal with it is just for the bots to evolve. There were plenty of wedge-resistant bots showing up in later seasons, and it doesn't necessarily have to dictate the entire design. A lot of bot makers were too into making the kind of bot they wanted to make, without worrying about its vulnerabilities. If your bot is vulnerable to a simple wedge, then that's a pretty big problem.
I do remember some of the stronger flipper bots (Torro was one iirc, there were other designs from the same group in other weight classes) causing major problems, simply because with the power of their hydraulic flipper even wedge-resistant bots that could operate inverted had a hard time after being tossed five feet into the air repeatedly.
2.1: Let the damned things fight. The course doesn't need to be 'extreme' and deadly. Sure, put in a few obstacles but don't turn the course into a third opponent. Nothing like watching a good battle only to see one opponent DQ'd after some goofy piece of scenery flips over for no reason.
I kind of disagree. I think the biggest problem with at least the BattleBots arena was that the hazards weren't potent enough. Those little saws wouldn't do much damage and would only flip over the most top-heavy of bots. The only ones that had a reasonable chance of causing damage were the screws on the edges. So you'd have one bot that was a "control" type of bot, and would essentially be able to cart the other bot around the arena, and hold it over the saws which would do... nothing. Pretty disappointing for what otherwise appeared to be the superior bot/driver combination.
If you want to liken it to UFC, think of it being like a submission hold... except because your opponent is metal, squeezing them in a full nelson while pressing their face into the mat isn't very effective.
What's all that Google "Web 2.0" stuff running on again?
On the desktop, sure -- and maybe that's all he meant, of course I didn't RTFA -- but in general? No, Linux is going to be relevant for a long time.