In Europe, there are plenty of Mercedes rental cars and taxis.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they are not a prestige brand. That ARE a prestige brand. It's just that you can hire them, and some countries have better quality taxis than others.
The gullwing doors, however, really look like a stupid idea. Sure, they look great, but I would be surprised if they are anything but inconvenient unless you have lots of parking space.
On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.
Because half the trouble with vacuuming is cleaning up all the stuff that you don't want vacuumed up in the first place.
You have to do that either way. But you might find the kids are keener to tidy up for the robot than for you.
Sure you could just suck up all the Lego bricks in the vacuum, but something going to clog it, and then it won't be picking up anything.
With the Roomba, that does happen. And the brick either doesn't get swept up, gets into the hopper, or jams the brush, and so stops the Roomba, awaiting your attention. At worst the vaccing won't be completed that day, and will get done tomorrow instead.
Either way, no big deal.
This is the same problem that I have with dishwashers. By the time you sufficiently rinsed the dishes that you're assured that the dishwasher won't leave any food on the dish which will be there forever after it's baked on by the dry cycle, you might as well have washed the dishes by hand.
They have been commonly used for industrial vacuums and central vacs before Dyson came around.
I'm aware of those and neither is what we're talking about here.
He may have some patents on implementation variations but the real reason why the competition waited is because the home appliance industry is slow to adapt to "new" technologies if they can continue to sell old products for a profit.
Completely wrong. Companies like Hoover and Electrolux were losing massive market share to Dyson, and as soon as Dyson's patents expired, they released their own competitors.
We shouldn't have to depend on that kind of goodwill from a company that might one day be motivated to limit the freedom of users...
We don't. The code will always be free to use at the state it was when the company chose to stop contributing. That can't be taken away. Now if no one else can be bothered to pick it up from there to continue developing it, then no one has room to complain that they aren't getting any more updated versions.
I can tell you, I've branched an open source project before, fixed some bugs, and released it for my company without merging back the changes. Why? Because my boss felt it would be a competitive advantage. So every once in a while I did a merge. No big deal, the software community at large lost, but I got paid.
The software community hasn't lost anything. They simply haven't gained access to the work your employer paid for. And why should they? Especially if your employer's hunch is right that other's might use it to compete with him.
Macs let you sudo any time an application requests, which is pretty much the same as Windows. Even an admin account in windows will at least force you to click through if an application wants to make admin privileged changes.
OSX does more than make you "click through". Privileged operations require a password.
Ah , of course! *Obviously* anyone who comes up with a new dryer and connects it to the plumbing is the #1 go-to man to develop bleeding edge AI!
You do realise Dyson doesn't do all the invention personally? That researching in AI involves hiring AI researchers, not working out the AI himself. Hence this news story - investing in a university to have them do some of the required research.
Watch out all those teams at MIT and Harvard
As opposed to the teams at Imperial College London that Dyson is investing in? Hope they read past the first sentence of a summary.
He's not that good at inventing new stuff; none of his flagship products (the cyclone vacuum, the Air Blade dryer, the bladeless fan) were invented by him.
Oh FFS, why are slashdotters so deluded about what inventions are and what inventors do. No product inventor creates something from first principles. They all use existing technology. It's how that technology is applied to something new that makes an invention.
Dyson made the first bagless cyclone vac. If you think that's not true, you have to explain why the other vac companies had to wait for the expiration of Dyson't patents before they could make their competitor bagless cyclone vacs.
Making the first bagless cyclone vac is invention. Regardless of the fact that elements of it existed in other devices before.
So there's only two types of home? 60,000 sq. ft. mansion, and 600 sq. ft. urban condos.
600 sq. ft. urban condos made of ersatz materials can easily vacuum the damn place ourselves in 5 minutes
2 sq. foot per second? Including getting around all the furniture? I don't think so. Heck, getting the vac out, uncoiling the wire, moving the wire to various sockets, and then coiling it and putting the vac away is going to take half of your 5 minutes.
Roomba have proved that the day to day vacuuming is more easily, and more thoroughly done by a robot. They are reasonably popular.
(I say more thoroughly done because they go under the sofa and table, which wouldn't get done in a day to day manual vac.)
Dyson's problem is that they must have a cyclone, as that is their thing. And that's too big to go many places the Roomba goes. And it's more expensive. So the only way they are going to be successful is if they make their robotic vac better in other ways. Hence they want one that intelligently plans it's route, rather than wanders aimlessly.
But that is not DR since those accelerometers can account for set and drift, and by definition that is inertial navigation.
Again, inertial navigation uses gyros. This doesn't.
And since you are quoting from Wiki: "An inertial navigation system (INS) is a navigation aid that uses a computer, motion sensors (accelerometers) and rotation sensors (gyroscopes) to continuously calculate via dead reckoning the position, orientation, and velocity (direction and speed of movement) of a moving object without the need for external references."
a) Gyros required. b) Even Inertial Nav is a form of dead reckoning.
As a pilot
...you are misapplying what you know of plane navigation systems.
is not, imho, DR because the the nav system in the car is constantly updating a position based upon speed and direction of travel.
And that's why it IS dead reckoning. Because that is the definition of dead reckoning.
So what? The poster didn't say Android didn't do it.
But as to which did it first, that was iOS. How do I know? Because iOS was using Skyhook Wireless for location in the very first iPhone. And iPhone launched before any Android devices.
You raise the topic of gyros, when they are not mentioned in TFS or TFA. So forget that.
Accelerometers simply enable the estimated speed and direction to be kept up to date. And using that to update position is dead reckoning, as we have both described.
Finally the company themselves call the product 3D Automotive Dead Reckoning. So how the fuck can the summary title be wrong? You think you know what their technology is better than the company do themselves?
IIRC the 'Tomtom' that I used to use at work would do the same thing, only of course it didnt need the capability near as often, but you could drive through a long tunnel with it and still show actual position until the signal re-established at the other end.
The dedicated sat-navs tend to just assume that you are continuing at the same speed on the same road. Than give up after a period of time.
OK. But it's not "for me". I know what create means. The reason I'm not digging up links is because it's not important enough to me to prove to you what it means.
As were both finding it tiresome lets drop it. Last post from me.
I'm not too worried if you continue to be unaware of the connotations of the word create, and how it differs from make. One can lead a horse to water, but one can't make him drink.
Slashdot Mirror
In Europe, there are plenty of Mercedes rental cars and taxis.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they are not a prestige brand. That ARE a prestige brand. It's just that you can hire them, and some countries have better quality taxis than others.
The gullwing doors, however, really look like a stupid idea. Sure, they look great, but I would be surprised if they are anything but inconvenient unless you have lots of parking space.
On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.
Because half the trouble with vacuuming is cleaning up all the stuff that you don't want vacuumed up in the first place.
You have to do that either way. But you might find the kids are keener to tidy up for the robot than for you.
Sure you could just suck up all the Lego bricks in the vacuum, but something going to clog it, and then it won't be picking up anything.
With the Roomba, that does happen. And the brick either doesn't get swept up, gets into the hopper, or jams the brush, and so stops the Roomba, awaiting your attention. At worst the vaccing won't be completed that day, and will get done tomorrow instead.
Either way, no big deal.
This is the same problem that I have with dishwashers. By the time you sufficiently rinsed the dishes that you're assured that the dishwasher won't leave any food on the dish which will be there forever after it's baked on by the dry cycle, you might as well have washed the dishes by hand.
Either you have OCD, or a bad dishwasher.
They have been commonly used for industrial vacuums and central vacs before Dyson came around.
I'm aware of those and neither is what we're talking about here.
He may have some patents on implementation variations but the real reason why the competition waited is because the home appliance industry is slow to adapt to "new" technologies if they can continue to sell old products for a profit.
Completely wrong. Companies like Hoover and Electrolux were losing massive market share to Dyson, and as soon as Dyson's patents expired, they released their own competitors.
Godwin trap.
We shouldn't have to depend on that kind of goodwill from a company that might one day be motivated to limit the freedom of users...
We don't. The code will always be free to use at the state it was when the company chose to stop contributing. That can't be taken away. Now if no one else can be bothered to pick it up from there to continue developing it, then no one has room to complain that they aren't getting any more updated versions.
I can tell you, I've branched an open source project before, fixed some bugs, and released it for my company without merging back the changes. Why? Because my boss felt it would be a competitive advantage. So every once in a while I did a merge. No big deal, the software community at large lost, but I got paid.
The software community hasn't lost anything. They simply haven't gained access to the work your employer paid for. And why should they? Especially if your employer's hunch is right that other's might use it to compete with him.
And therein lies the real difference: GPL is against proprietary software, it aims to provide free software to everyone.
And is thus against programmers making a living from their coding.
What, that's the only fact you can see? How small minded of you.
Macs let you sudo any time an application requests, which is pretty much the same as Windows. Even an admin account in windows will at least force you to click through if an application wants to make admin privileged changes.
OSX does more than make you "click through". Privileged operations require a password.
Yeah, no amount of facts will get those back. So we might as well ignore the facts.
Ah, the Dalek problem.
Ah , of course! *Obviously* anyone who comes up with a new dryer and connects it to the plumbing is the #1 go-to man to develop bleeding edge AI!
You do realise Dyson doesn't do all the invention personally? That researching in AI involves hiring AI researchers, not working out the AI himself. Hence this news story - investing in a university to have them do some of the required research.
Watch out all those teams at MIT and Harvard
As opposed to the teams at Imperial College London that Dyson is investing in? Hope they read past the first sentence of a summary.
He's not that good at inventing new stuff; none of his flagship products (the cyclone vacuum, the Air Blade dryer, the bladeless fan) were invented by him.
Oh FFS, why are slashdotters so deluded about what inventions are and what inventors do. No product inventor creates something from first principles. They all use existing technology. It's how that technology is applied to something new that makes an invention.
Dyson made the first bagless cyclone vac. If you think that's not true, you have to explain why the other vac companies had to wait for the expiration of Dyson't patents before they could make their competitor bagless cyclone vacs.
Making the first bagless cyclone vac is invention. Regardless of the fact that elements of it existed in other devices before.
So there's only two types of home? 60,000 sq. ft. mansion, and 600 sq. ft. urban condos.
600 sq. ft. urban condos made of ersatz materials can easily vacuum the damn place ourselves in 5 minutes
2 sq. foot per second? Including getting around all the furniture? I don't think so. Heck, getting the vac out, uncoiling the wire, moving the wire to various sockets, and then coiling it and putting the vac away is going to take half of your 5 minutes.
Roomba have proved that the day to day vacuuming is more easily, and more thoroughly done by a robot. They are reasonably popular.
(I say more thoroughly done because they go under the sofa and table, which wouldn't get done in a day to day manual vac.)
Dyson's problem is that they must have a cyclone, as that is their thing. And that's too big to go many places the Roomba goes. And it's more expensive. So the only way they are going to be successful is if they make their robotic vac better in other ways. Hence they want one that intelligently plans it's route, rather than wanders aimlessly.
The trick is actually to use both GPS _and_ WiFi.
For sure. And that came in the iPhone 3G. And I've just checked, and that also predated all Android phones.
But that is not DR since those accelerometers can account for set and drift, and by definition that is inertial navigation.
Again, inertial navigation uses gyros. This doesn't.
And since you are quoting from Wiki:
"An inertial navigation system (INS) is a navigation aid that uses a computer, motion sensors (accelerometers) and rotation sensors (gyroscopes) to continuously calculate via dead reckoning the position, orientation, and velocity (direction and speed of movement) of a moving object without the need for external references."
a) Gyros required.
b) Even Inertial Nav is a form of dead reckoning.
As a pilot
...you are misapplying what you know of plane navigation systems.
is not, imho, DR because the the nav system in the car is constantly updating a position based upon speed and direction of travel.
And that's why it IS dead reckoning. Because that is the definition of dead reckoning.
Android has been doing this for eons.
So what? The poster didn't say Android didn't do it.
But as to which did it first, that was iOS. How do I know? Because iOS was using Skyhook Wireless for location in the very first iPhone. And iPhone launched before any Android devices.
You raise the topic of gyros, when they are not mentioned in TFS or TFA. So forget that.
Accelerometers simply enable the estimated speed and direction to be kept up to date. And using that to update position is dead reckoning, as we have both described.
Finally the company themselves call the product 3D Automotive Dead Reckoning. So how the fuck can the summary title be wrong? You think you know what their technology is better than the company do themselves?
IIRC the 'Tomtom' that I used to use at work would do the same thing, only of course it didnt need the capability near as often, but you could drive through a long tunnel with it and still show actual position until the signal re-established at the other end.
The dedicated sat-navs tend to just assume that you are continuing at the same speed on the same road. Than give up after a period of time.
Huh? That's exactly what dead reckoning is. Repeatedly estimating where you are given a known start point, and your direction and speed from there.
Some apps, like Navitime, let you navigate on foot inside stations where there is no GPS signal using it.
Huh? Can you show me which Navitime app does this? Because none of the apps on their website claims to.
Android phones have had the ability to use dead reckoning for years now too.
I doubt it, as the accuracy of position on the map is very poor.
OK. But it's not "for me". I know what create means. The reason I'm not digging up links is because it's not important enough to me to prove to you what it means.
As were both finding it tiresome lets drop it. Last post from me.
I'm not too worried if you continue to be unaware of the connotations of the word create, and how it differs from make. One can lead a horse to water, but one can't make him drink.