Acceleration IS position and speed. Seriously, did you give the smallest bit of thought before you wrote that?
I guess you never studied physics? Acceleration, speed (more correctly, velocity) and position are all different concepts. Velocity is the rate of change of position. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. You can be accelerating and have zero velocity, for example. Eg, throw a ball into the air, and it is continually accelerating under gravity at 9.8 m/sec. But if you throw it straight up then there is a moment at the top of the trajectory where its velocity is zero.
In the video, the arm is moving to the left of screen, and then it starts accelerating to the right. For the first second or so of this acceleration, the velocity of the arm is to the left, while the acceleration is to the right.
there appears to be some delay between the movements on the steering wheel and the sudden, mechanised lurches of the robot arm. This is particularly noticeable at 00:51 into the video, where the driver veers left then right, only for his movements to be mimicked by the arm approximately a second later.
I'm not sure that is true. At the incident at 00:51, the arm is moving to the left of picture, and then suddenly starts moving to the right. It is the acceleration that counts, not the position or speed. The sudden acceleration from moving left to moving right appears to happen right on the moment the driver turns the wheel; the fact that it takes the arm some time to move to the right of picture is irrelevant.
And think of the value for money - the development cost and launch cost of such a rescue vehicle versus the cost of a single Progress mission. Unless accidents like this happened really frequently, the cost of a rescue vehicle would vastly outweigh the advantages.
Not in Oz. Historically, religion has been quite distant from politics - yes, we have our resident right-wing religious nutjob (currently that position is taken by Steve Fielding, and before him, Brian Harridene), but even then, it is only really in the last couple of years that religion has started to become mainstream in politics, which is BAD and hopefully will now stop.
When I was growing up, I always knew Brian Harridene as the resident wingnut (he came from the same state as me too), but it was only much later that I realized he was staunch Catholic, before then I had no idea he was religious at all. Of course in hindsight it put all his past rhetoric and bloodymindedness in perspective, but I don't remember him ever explicitly invoking religion in an interview, for example, and I don't think he ever used religion to excuse bad behavior (unlike Tony Blair, who infamously tried to blame his mistakes in Iraq on God, and of course every US president since at least Reagan, who invoke God as a crutch for absolutely everything).
99% of the material covered by the filter is likely to be legal anyway, and the remaining 1% of actual child porn etc isn't the kind of stuff that you typically get by accident. But even if this does happen by accident, the presence of the filter might actually help your defence. There are at least a few judges in Oz that are quite tech savvy. Court cases involving the filter might get very interesting, for example I can imagine a workable defence of "I didn't know that document contained illegal material, if it was illegal then the filter should have stopped it, therefore I'm not guilty". This would be particularly hilarious if it was received by email or P2P;-)
I've been to Australia and talked to some people who run ISPs there...
Very interesting. Can you remember which ISP's? it is very curious, because while many of the large ISP's are going along with it because they don't want to upset the Government, many of their own technical people, and some smaller ISP's, have come out firmly against it.
So "should" arguments are irrelevant when compared with the actual mental states of the people who are there. They are the ones making the filter
No, the people making the filter are not ISP's, it is ACMA.
enforcing the filter,
Ok, that is probably the ISP, but not through choice.
prosecuting those who are found to have content they shouldn't and had to go around the filter to get it.
That would be the police, who are generally clueless. But as far as I know there is no suggestion that circumventing the filter will be illegal. The vast bulk of "Refused Classification" material that the filter will trap is not, in fact, illegal to possess, and if anyone can work around the filter and get at this stuff then there is nothing that the authorities can do about it.
Come to think of it, I do have some pictures of the Venus de Milo on the laptop right now, so maybe I should answer "Yes"?
No, unlike the USA, Australia doesn't subscribe to a paranoid fear of naked breasts. If it was in an explicitly erotic pose then perhaps it might hit some soft-core porn classification, but it would have to be quite provocative. Unless it is in a sexual context, bare breasts are fine.
It is quite funny, in the periodic "laugh at those crazy Americans and their breast hysteria" segment on the Australian TV news, they have no hesitation in showing the details up close, in prime time.
Of course, Australia is quite middle-of-the-road here. In Scandinavia you'll often see full frontal (male as well as female) nudity on prime time TV. Some cultures have a better grasp of the difference between nakedness and sex than others.
Ignore the GP. The situation in Australia, with a "Refused Classification" status that is in a no-mans land of being not illegal but cannot be bought, shown publically etc is quite bizarre and probably unique in the civilized world.
Eh... it may not be illegal to posess [sic] but I suspect that it is illegal to import without a license
Huh what? Sorry, but I think you have not thought this through. Exactly what do you think you need a license for? Naked photos of your wife or girlfriend? Really? Why don't you do a bare minimum of research, or even apply some common sense, before you 'suspect' things on a public discussion board.
Regardless of the government's hysterical raving about internet filtering it is worth noting that it has always been the case that any publication that has not been given a certification by the Australian Government's Office of Film and Literature Classifaction is technically illegal - porn or otherwise.
Please stop spreading myths, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. RC material is generally not illegal to possess. Listen to Steven Conroy sometime, whenever he is asked a question about this he goes off on a long spiel about how RC material is not available in shops, can't rent it at the video store, etc etc which is all a distraction so he can avoid having to admit that it isn't actually illegal.
Refused Classification ("RC") material is legal in most states and territories, except for material that falls under the definition of child porn. See here, for example, for more details, and stop spreading crap info!
Finally, joke about Windows all you want... if you do a default installation of Windows and you don't install any additional drivers or software, it is extremely stable and will just sit there for ages happy to do nothing but tick away.
Yeah, the problems only come when you try to use the keyboard or mouse.
Such a central patent court could also validate software patents via caselaw (as the German Supreme Court recently did with the Microsoft FAT patent).
No, no, it isn't a general validation of software patents. The German legal system follows Civil Law, not Common Law. That is, the results of previous court cases are not binding on later cases. A subsequent court is bound only to follow statutory law, and has no obligation to take into consideration previous case law. This is quite different to the Common Law of the British tradition, where case law does indeed set a binding precent that affects later rulings.
But if that fourth point is already inside the gamut, how does it make the gamut larger?
That doesn't make sense. If the 4th point is inside the 3-point gamut, then you don't have a 4-point gamut, because the 4th coordinate is completely redundant. You still have a 3-point gamut, but every color has multiple representations in the 4 coordinates.
What the hell does that even mean? 3+1 is 4, so what's the difference? 3+1 and 4?
I expect it was short-hand for taking a 3-point gamut and adding a 4th point. The reason being, that you can use the 4th point to extend the gamut. You don't have to extend the gamut, eg in CMYK, the K coordinate doesn't add any information not already in the CMY coordinates (in principle at least; in practice the K value is the amount of black ink to use and that is used since it is hard to generate good blacks from cyan+magenta+yellow ink, but that is the only purpose of the 4th K coordinate). But the point is you always can increase the gamut if you want to, by adding one more coordinate.
CMYK isn't a 4-color gamut. The K value represents black, which is equivalent to 1,1,1 in CMY color-space. CMYK is used for color printing because it is hard to reproduce good quality black from combinations of cyan,yellow and magenta ink. See Wikipedia for details.
Yes, most people only have 3 color receptors. But human eyes are very non-linear, and can differentiate quite a few colors (especially yellows,greens,oranges) outside the range of linear RGB.
Ok, but you are being really picky. I think that it IS true that if you gave me any 3-color gamut, I could add a 4th color (keeping everything else about the representation constant, such as bits per channel etc) and produce colors outside the range of the 3-color gamut.
Obviously, if it was a color that RGB could produce then there wouldn't be any point making a special color channel with it. You should read up on the color gamut and learn a bit about the limitations of RGB.
"Codes" is a common and long-standing jargon word in several significant sub-fields of CS, notably high performance and scientific computing. If you are unfamiliar with it, then you are simply betraying your own ignorance.
You can sit there all day and say what if this and what if that. It means nothing.
Sure, it is pointless to go back and forth like that. My only comment is that the internets are full of Americans begging for charity as the bank repossesses their house to pay their health bills. That is practically unheard of anywhere else. I don't think there is any justifiable claim that outcomes at the 'top end' of town are comparatively better in the USA either. Anyway, for those who can afford to pay, for most nation's health systems they can always go to a private doctor or hospital. This is certainly true in the UK.
Are any of those options actually any good? What happens if you can't afford it, or your insurance provider finds a 'loophole' and tells you your not covered?
I know you people are brought up to somehow have an inbuilt distrust of the "Guvmint", but at some point it comes down to a choice: do you want to be a slave to an unelected industrialist, or do you want to actually vote, and (at least in principle) have a say in how your healthcare is run?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you never studied physics? Acceleration, speed (more correctly, velocity) and position are all different concepts. Velocity is the rate of change of position. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. You can be accelerating and have zero velocity, for example. Eg, throw a ball into the air, and it is continually accelerating under gravity at 9.8 m/sec. But if you throw it straight up then there is a moment at the top of the trajectory where its velocity is zero.
In the video, the arm is moving to the left of screen, and then it starts accelerating to the right. For the first second or so of this acceleration, the velocity of the arm is to the left, while the acceleration is to the right.
I'm not sure that is true. At the incident at 00:51, the arm is moving to the left of picture, and then suddenly starts moving to the right. It is the acceleration that counts, not the position or speed. The sudden acceleration from moving left to moving right appears to happen right on the moment the driver turns the wheel; the fact that it takes the arm some time to move to the right of picture is irrelevant.
Yeah but that is irrelevant to his point. The Spanish were the ones that brought back all the gold and became mega-rich from it.
They also squandered it all and are now one of the poorest countries in Europe. So let that be a lesson!
No, that this much harder to do than you imagine.
And think of the value for money - the development cost and launch cost of such a rescue vehicle versus the cost of a single Progress mission. Unless accidents like this happened really frequently, the cost of a rescue vehicle would vastly outweigh the advantages.
First? And its slashdotted already! Anyone got a rehosted copy?
Not in Oz. Historically, religion has been quite distant from politics - yes, we have our resident right-wing religious nutjob (currently that position is taken by Steve Fielding, and before him, Brian Harridene), but even then, it is only really in the last couple of years that religion has started to become mainstream in politics, which is BAD and hopefully will now stop.
When I was growing up, I always knew Brian Harridene as the resident wingnut (he came from the same state as me too), but it was only much later that I realized he was staunch Catholic, before then I had no idea he was religious at all. Of course in hindsight it put all his past rhetoric and bloodymindedness in perspective, but I don't remember him ever explicitly invoking religion in an interview, for example, and I don't think he ever used religion to excuse bad behavior (unlike Tony Blair, who infamously tried to blame his mistakes in Iraq on God, and of course every US president since at least Reagan, who invoke God as a crutch for absolutely everything).
99% of the material covered by the filter is likely to be legal anyway, and the remaining 1% of actual child porn etc isn't the kind of stuff that you typically get by accident. But even if this does happen by accident, the presence of the filter might actually help your defence. There are at least a few judges in Oz that are quite tech savvy. Court cases involving the filter might get very interesting, for example I can imagine a workable defence of "I didn't know that document contained illegal material, if it was illegal then the filter should have stopped it, therefore I'm not guilty". This would be particularly hilarious if it was received by email or P2P ;-)
Very interesting. Can you remember which ISP's? it is very curious, because while many of the large ISP's are going along with it because they don't want to upset the Government, many of their own technical people, and some smaller ISP's, have come out firmly against it.
No, the people making the filter are not ISP's, it is ACMA.
Ok, that is probably the ISP, but not through choice.
That would be the police, who are generally clueless. But as far as I know there is no suggestion that circumventing the filter will be illegal. The vast bulk of "Refused Classification" material that the filter will trap is not, in fact, illegal to possess, and if anyone can work around the filter and get at this stuff then there is nothing that the authorities can do about it.
No, unlike the USA, Australia doesn't subscribe to a paranoid fear of naked breasts. If it was in an explicitly erotic pose then perhaps it might hit some soft-core porn classification, but it would have to be quite provocative. Unless it is in a sexual context, bare breasts are fine.
It is quite funny, in the periodic "laugh at those crazy Americans and their breast hysteria" segment on the Australian TV news, they have no hesitation in showing the details up close, in prime time.
Of course, Australia is quite middle-of-the-road here. In Scandinavia you'll often see full frontal (male as well as female) nudity on prime time TV. Some cultures have a better grasp of the difference between nakedness and sex than others.
Ignore the GP. The situation in Australia, with a "Refused Classification" status that is in a no-mans land of being not illegal but cannot be bought, shown publically etc is quite bizarre and probably unique in the civilized world.
Huh what? Sorry, but I think you have not thought this through. Exactly what do you think you need a license for? Naked photos of your wife or girlfriend? Really? Why don't you do a bare minimum of research, or even apply some common sense, before you 'suspect' things on a public discussion board.
Please stop spreading myths, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. RC material is generally not illegal to possess. Listen to Steven Conroy sometime, whenever he is asked a question about this he goes off on a long spiel about how RC material is not available in shops, can't rent it at the video store, etc etc which is all a distraction so he can avoid having to admit that it isn't actually illegal.
Refused Classification ("RC") material is legal in most states and territories, except for material that falls under the definition of child porn. See here, for example, for more details, and stop spreading crap info!
But a remote desktop shouldn't require any kind of display driver on the host.
Yeah, the problems only come when you try to use the keyboard or mouse.
No, no, it isn't a general validation of software patents. The German legal system follows Civil Law, not Common Law. That is, the results of previous court cases are not binding on later cases. A subsequent court is bound only to follow statutory law, and has no obligation to take into consideration previous case law. This is quite different to the Common Law of the British tradition, where case law does indeed set a binding precent that affects later rulings.
That doesn't make sense. If the 4th point is inside the 3-point gamut, then you don't have a 4-point gamut, because the 4th coordinate is completely redundant. You still have a 3-point gamut, but every color has multiple representations in the 4 coordinates.
I expect it was short-hand for taking a 3-point gamut and adding a 4th point. The reason being, that you can use the 4th point to extend the gamut. You don't have to extend the gamut, eg in CMYK, the K coordinate doesn't add any information not already in the CMY coordinates (in principle at least; in practice the K value is the amount of black ink to use and that is used since it is hard to generate good blacks from cyan+magenta+yellow ink, but that is the only purpose of the 4th K coordinate). But the point is you always can increase the gamut if you want to, by adding one more coordinate.
CMYK isn't a 4-color gamut. The K value represents black, which is equivalent to 1,1,1 in CMY color-space. CMYK is used for color printing because it is hard to reproduce good quality black from combinations of cyan,yellow and magenta ink. See Wikipedia for details.
Yes, most people only have 3 color receptors. But human eyes are very non-linear, and can differentiate quite a few colors (especially yellows,greens,oranges) outside the range of linear RGB.
Ok, but you are being really picky. I think that it IS true that if you gave me any 3-color gamut, I could add a 4th color (keeping everything else about the representation constant, such as bits per channel etc) and produce colors outside the range of the 3-color gamut.
Obviously, if it was a color that RGB could produce then there wouldn't be any point making a special color channel with it. You should read up on the color gamut and learn a bit about the limitations of RGB.
"Codes" is a common and long-standing jargon word in several significant sub-fields of CS, notably high performance and scientific computing. If you are unfamiliar with it, then you are simply betraying your own ignorance.
Sure, it is pointless to go back and forth like that. My only comment is that the internets are full of Americans begging for charity as the bank repossesses their house to pay their health bills. That is practically unheard of anywhere else. I don't think there is any justifiable claim that outcomes at the 'top end' of town are comparatively better in the USA either. Anyway, for those who can afford to pay, for most nation's health systems they can always go to a private doctor or hospital. This is certainly true in the UK.
Are any of those options actually any good? What happens if you can't afford it, or your insurance provider finds a 'loophole' and tells you your not covered?
And that makes all the difference?
I know you people are brought up to somehow have an inbuilt distrust of the "Guvmint", but at some point it comes down to a choice: do you want to be a slave to an unelected industrialist, or do you want to actually vote, and (at least in principle) have a say in how your healthcare is run?
Versus the US system where the least important person in the system is, uh, the patient!
The most important being the CEO of the insurance company of course.