Humanoid robots work better in enviroments meant for humans though. For example when...tending for those enviroments while humans do more worthwhile stuff. Perhaps Japanese aren't telling us the whole story yet;)
PS. Roughly humanoid upper torso (yes, 6 legs -> 4 legs + 2 arms transformation done in a specific way will do of course) is good for teleoperating such robot; gives "immersion". And the Moon is close enough for it to be almost realtime...
1 - so...who owns it "originally"? Why the one you bought it from was the "owner"? Who and why decides that?
2 - who decides what does it mean "not hurting others"? You?
3 - I'm sorry, you might not want to realize this, but for the two above points, and generally for your comfy standard of living, you need the society (ohhhh, that's already close to the scary word)
"One shot" not as in "one missile" but a barrage of them of course (however many containers those people can get their hands on - yes, it will be harder for non-state entities...but it's not safe to assume they can't have it, eventually); again, maximizing chances, nothing more.
Even if we can get a lock on location of some of the spotters (it doesn't need to be satellite radio btw; doesn't change things much of course), by that time it might be already too late.
I think you don't approach "fishing boats" in sufficiently low-tech way (look what Somali pirates are using now). If you have a bunch of sufficiently determined people, they can literally set sail in something wooden, very small, barely seaworthy; with enough supplies to wait passivelly for their lucky encounter (and pretend to be lost / shipwrecked when discovered). Simirarly you think too high tech, IMHO, with semi-submersibles - basically just very small surface vessels hiding most of their hull below the waves. Heck, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if somebody gets the idea of making them out of wood, also with literal sail for approach. Certainly stealthy. Essentially, look at them as low-tech equivalent of our present & upcoming unmanned sea vessels; just with sufficiently desperate or brainwashed people taking place of almost all the tech.
Sure, it doesn't give them anywhere near certainty of success. Might be enough of a threat though; one of the worst things is underestimating those.
When you approach the issue only as "maximizing chances" (and with sufficiently desperate / determined people) it isn't necessarily so clear anymore.
Also, I don't really think carrier battlegroups clear the seas from any small, barely seawrothy vessels they encounter... And yeah, it was my impression that the discussion is from the point of view of small, "one shot" action. But even after it you can't expect the sea to be clear, even in exclusion zone (plus imagine the headlines about indiscriminately shooting at poor fishermen from 3rd world countries); or in times when drug lords use semi-submersibles. Dozen or so spotters, equipped with GSM (also, I'm sure the old ways of navigation aren't completelly forgotten) and radio, waiting for sightings of potential targets; helping the missiles get its lucky shot.
Well, if "on _all_ Nokia low end to mid end phones" then you're speaking of close to half a billion devices per year...
Symbian is already close to 100M per year probably - 20% of all Nokia phones being Symbian sounds roughly right; yes, it will gradually grab more and more from S40, but there will be a place for the latter (and for S30) certainly for quite some time.
Yes, a propaganda; though it wasn't so simple. Polish cavalry in 1939 did fight also against German mechanised forces, with some successes here and there (not bad considering all the disproportions) - after all, they were highly mobile units equipped also in some anti-armor weaponry...
Though I suppose one should distinguish between wars when one side has decisive advantage and wars between roughly comparable powers. In the latter case...yeah, it's easy to imagine that the carrier is obsolete. By what? Perhaps ICBMs when talking about all-out war, but also cruise missiles (launched from subs, smaller surface vessels, bombers or mobile ground platforms) together with modern AA defenses and mentioned by you STOL aircraft, both of which can effectivelly deal with "projecting power" from small carrier-based airforce. That US carriers never had to stand the trial of Tu-95, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 doesn't mean they are not highly vulnerable to it...
For a long time now all "conventional war" they deal with was against adversaries with with virtually nonexistent navy, anti-ship airforce or long range coastal defences.
...The only way to locate a carrier would be by airborne radar, or satellite (often with radar as well)...
Kids these days, forgetting about fisherman in small boats...
Also, it probably wouldn't be that trivial to determine which container ship did the attack - empty missile container can be fairly easily thrown into the sea, together with few surrounding ones on which there might be an obvious trace of the launch. Alternativelly the crew might be unaware about the special cargo of one container (and the ship is chosen mostly at random, based only on its shipping route)
Perhaps it's also a nice bonus of progress? iniaturization have taken its toll and the typical experimental equipment is now somewhat smaller slightly faster than expected, with more place for experiments (there was a story recently about miniature experiment containers for the ISS). Or maybe some better communication with the ISS won't mean overburdening the crew with excessive amount of experiments.
Sure, construction of the ISS was flawed & expensive (most likely also largely because of the costly mistake which was the Shuttle and the push to save its face...to make it usefull for something; so "hey, why don't we design a space station around modules meant to be launched by Shuttle?!"); could be done much cheaper via autonomous rendezvouz of modules probably. And that's how few upcoming, certinly in some aspects better (and cheaper) space stations will be built. Better also thanks to ISS, our training ground - we have problems even with toilets...
OK, you might consider such acitivities a waste even when they will be much cheaper and more refined. But it's not either-or...especially since the budget for ISS was miniscule in comparison with some really wastefull activities. And it helps keep the public attention at NASA, hence perhaps keeping alive unmanned exploration, too. And we have to refine the basics, they will come handy at some point. Especially since autonomous probes will have some serious limitations for a long time. Humans also have them of course; but why not combine the two, their strenghts? Does a fleet of robots which are mostly autonomous but occasionally teleoperated by members of small crew orbiting the place really sound so bad?
In the meantime, if the ISS is mostly complete, why not use it to advance our knowledge in the best possible (call for proposals is about that really) fashion?
"Paying for the poor" helps to keep the place nicer all around, meaning you have more chance at all of "pursuing happiness". BTW, inancing first two things inevitably gives more opportunities for that pursuit to quite small group of people. And as to your ability to pursue happiness...people have shown time and time again that they generally have a hard time at moderation, a hard time not living on the credit of future generations (this graph is especially "inconvenient")
Though Russia is bound to benefit if the global marine traffic would be paralysed - out of all the "big ones" they depend the least on it, and can serve as a transport route between China and EU.
Now, will Prezi turn out to be something nice or will it be comparably devastating to PowerPoint... (I'm sure the presentations they like to be proud of were made by good speakers, etc. anyway)
Besides, it goes all ways when it comes who "succeeds" and who is "defeating" during such exercises, with singular tactical encounters having even more mixed results; that's the point, to see what works when it's safe.
It's just that this one example applied to the matter at hand.
And that is exactly the problem with powerpoints - they hook up listeners to fragmented visual flow. If you can't keep their attention without that aid, then your presentation most likely sucks anyway and you shouldn't be giving it, you shouldn't be hiding behind it to mask how poor of a speaker you are.
("it helps keep you on-track as a speaker" tells everything about who really benefits from powerpoint)
And at the same time the ease of making a basic Powerpoint presentation (together with "oh, shiny!" factor) makes stupid people confident enough to disseminate their ideas.
One has to remember that Powerpoint (or, as you point out, similar tools...it's just that PP is by far the most popular one) is not really used, not really meant to help in passing knowledge or information.
No, is is used by incompetent speakers to hide behind their slides. Any moron feels he can make a nice presentation, when using Powerpoint. But this tool didn't really change that presentations require not only somebody bright, but also with a talent and/or training of a public speaker.
Did you really just suggest that detonating bombs on deck (what kind of bombs? On top of that deck of an aircraft carrier, which is in large part separated by hangar from the main structure or outright "suspended" above waves) is in any way comparable to HE bomb penetrating deep into the structure or detonating under the keel?
There's also a lot of feedback loops in how various churches deal with morality. Or how they claim to do...because it's not completelly about "morality":
Using your example of sexual repression - because really, let us be frank about what we're dealing with. You have people who are at their absolute height of sexual needs and are forced to subdue them...essentially they are the ones doing most of the work, they force themselves, twist themselves around what is very much driving them. Community is of course most helpfull in providing the reasons, but ultimatelly the "victims" are the ones who must build an internal appreciation (incorporating the supplied reasons, too) of what they are being forced into; otherwise you'll go crazy (well, or go crazy to much bigger degree...). If they can do that, if they can subdue such powerfull force in them - the contruct will be very strong, it is likely that they won't escape it for the rest of their lives. Even will value it sincerely, and pass it on (though at this step there's some amount of "preemptive jealousy" involved, IMHO)
That is the ultimate morality for religion, to ensure maximising its survival. Large part of it is of course about large and stable society...but not all things which this encompasses are about good fortune of individuals.
There's not much thought in it obviously, certainly nothing sinister. Just a simple fact of the best adapted variants of faiths surviving, displacing "weaker" ones.
But, historically, churches being effective in keeping to be worshipped is the only thing of relevance - how many faiths, even those with some above average wisdom in them, were simply outcompeted out of the market and not by something which was "better" but simply more effective? That same fate awaits current churches, too. Yes, at some point presently popular religions will be relegated to the area of curious mythology, there's no escaping that (nevermind that with the amount of changes happening, in formally the same faith, over the ages...well, early adherents would often consider current ones to be a very strong heretics)
Slashdot Mirror
Humanoid robots work better in enviroments meant for humans though. For example when...tending for those enviroments while humans do more worthwhile stuff. Perhaps Japanese aren't telling us the whole story yet ;)
PS. Roughly humanoid upper torso (yes, 6 legs -> 4 legs + 2 arms transformation done in a specific way will do of course) is good for teleoperating such robot; gives "immersion". And the Moon is close enough for it to be almost realtime...
Yes, India is, like, right now in the process of auctioning 3G licenses. This will really bring benefits to Ericsson and Nokia Siemens.
1 - so...who owns it "originally"? Why the one you bought it from was the "owner"? Who and why decides that?
2 - who decides what does it mean "not hurting others"? You?
3 - I'm sorry, you might not want to realize this, but for the two above points, and generally for your comfy standard of living, you need the society (ohhhh, that's already close to the scary word)
Carrying a weapon (and lack of public police) was the standard for vast majority of human history. And it was a lot less crime then, right?...
"One shot" not as in "one missile" but a barrage of them of course (however many containers those people can get their hands on - yes, it will be harder for non-state entities...but it's not safe to assume they can't have it, eventually); again, maximizing chances, nothing more.
Even if we can get a lock on location of some of the spotters (it doesn't need to be satellite radio btw; doesn't change things much of course), by that time it might be already too late.
I think you don't approach "fishing boats" in sufficiently low-tech way (look what Somali pirates are using now). If you have a bunch of sufficiently determined people, they can literally set sail in something wooden, very small, barely seaworthy; with enough supplies to wait passivelly for their lucky encounter (and pretend to be lost / shipwrecked when discovered). Simirarly you think too high tech, IMHO, with semi-submersibles - basically just very small surface vessels hiding most of their hull below the waves. Heck, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if somebody gets the idea of making them out of wood, also with literal sail for approach. Certainly stealthy.
Essentially, look at them as low-tech equivalent of our present & upcoming unmanned sea vessels; just with sufficiently desperate or brainwashed people taking place of almost all the tech.
Sure, it doesn't give them anywhere near certainty of success. Might be enough of a threat though; one of the worst things is underestimating those.
When you approach the issue only as "maximizing chances" (and with sufficiently desperate / determined people) it isn't necessarily so clear anymore.
Also, I don't really think carrier battlegroups clear the seas from any small, barely seawrothy vessels they encounter... And yeah, it was my impression that the discussion is from the point of view of small, "one shot" action. But even after it you can't expect the sea to be clear, even in exclusion zone (plus imagine the headlines about indiscriminately shooting at poor fishermen from 3rd world countries); or in times when drug lords use semi-submersibles. Dozen or so spotters, equipped with GSM (also, I'm sure the old ways of navigation aren't completelly forgotten) and radio, waiting for sightings of potential targets; helping the missiles get its lucky shot.
5230 is a nice example - it's one of the models for which new Ovi Maps is available. Even when looking at that single capability it's a great value...
Well, if "on _all_ Nokia low end to mid end phones" then you're speaking of close to half a billion devices per year...
Symbian is already close to 100M per year probably - 20% of all Nokia phones being Symbian sounds roughly right; yes, it will gradually grab more and more from S40, but there will be a place for the latter (and for S30) certainly for quite some time.
(hey, can it be anything but sarcasm if Symbian has half od smartphone market? Even if it's just a minority of what Nokia sells...)
Yes, a propaganda; though it wasn't so simple. Polish cavalry in 1939 did fight also against German mechanised forces, with some successes here and there (not bad considering all the disproportions) - after all, they were highly mobile units equipped also in some anti-armor weaponry...
Though I suppose one should distinguish between wars when one side has decisive advantage and wars between roughly comparable powers. In the latter case...yeah, it's easy to imagine that the carrier is obsolete. By what? Perhaps ICBMs when talking about all-out war, but also cruise missiles (launched from subs, smaller surface vessels, bombers or mobile ground platforms) together with modern AA defenses and mentioned by you STOL aircraft, both of which can effectivelly deal with "projecting power" from small carrier-based airforce. That US carriers never had to stand the trial of Tu-95, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 doesn't mean they are not highly vulnerable to it...
For a long time now all "conventional war" they deal with was against adversaries with with virtually nonexistent navy, anti-ship airforce or long range coastal defences.
...The only way to locate a carrier would be by airborne radar, or satellite (often with radar as well)...
Kids these days, forgetting about fisherman in small boats...
Also, it probably wouldn't be that trivial to determine which container ship did the attack - empty missile container can be fairly easily thrown into the sea, together with few surrounding ones on which there might be an obvious trace of the launch. Alternativelly the crew might be unaware about the special cargo of one container (and the ship is chosen mostly at random, based only on its shipping route)
Perhaps it's also a nice bonus of progress? iniaturization have taken its toll and the typical experimental equipment is now somewhat smaller slightly faster than expected, with more place for experiments (there was a story recently about miniature experiment containers for the ISS). Or maybe some better communication with the ISS won't mean overburdening the crew with excessive amount of experiments.
Sure, construction of the ISS was flawed & expensive (most likely also largely because of the costly mistake which was the Shuttle and the push to save its face...to make it usefull for something; so "hey, why don't we design a space station around modules meant to be launched by Shuttle?!"); could be done much cheaper via autonomous rendezvouz of modules probably. And that's how few upcoming, certinly in some aspects better (and cheaper) space stations will be built. Better also thanks to ISS, our training ground - we have problems even with toilets...
OK, you might consider such acitivities a waste even when they will be much cheaper and more refined. But it's not either-or...especially since the budget for ISS was miniscule in comparison with some really wastefull activities. And it helps keep the public attention at NASA, hence perhaps keeping alive unmanned exploration, too. And we have to refine the basics, they will come handy at some point.
Especially since autonomous probes will have some serious limitations for a long time. Humans also have them of course; but why not combine the two, their strenghts? Does a fleet of robots which are mostly autonomous but occasionally teleoperated by members of small crew orbiting the place really sound so bad?
In the meantime, if the ISS is mostly complete, why not use it to advance our knowledge in the best possible (call for proposals is about that really) fashion?
If only the world would be so simple...
"Paying for the poor" helps to keep the place nicer all around, meaning you have more chance at all of "pursuing happiness". BTW, inancing first two things inevitably gives more opportunities for that pursuit to quite small group of people. And as to your ability to pursue happiness...people have shown time and time again that they generally have a hard time at moderation, a hard time not living on the credit of future generations (this graph is especially "inconvenient")
No, I'm afraid it's not so simple.
Though Russia is bound to benefit if the global marine traffic would be paralysed - out of all the "big ones" they depend the least on it, and can serve as a transport route between China and EU.
Now, will Prezi turn out to be something nice or will it be comparably devastating to PowerPoint... (I'm sure the presentations they like to be proud of were made by good speakers, etc. anyway)
Besides, it goes all ways when it comes who "succeeds" and who is "defeating" during such exercises, with singular tactical encounters having even more mixed results; that's the point, to see what works when it's safe.
It's just that this one example applied to the matter at hand.
And that is exactly the problem with powerpoints - they hook up listeners to fragmented visual flow. If you can't keep their attention without that aid, then your presentation most likely sucks anyway and you shouldn't be giving it, you shouldn't be hiding behind it to mask how poor of a speaker you are.
("it helps keep you on-track as a speaker" tells everything about who really benefits from powerpoint)
And at the same time the ease of making a basic Powerpoint presentation (together with "oh, shiny!" factor) makes stupid people confident enough to disseminate their ideas.
One has to remember that Powerpoint (or, as you point out, similar tools...it's just that PP is by far the most popular one) is not really used, not really meant to help in passing knowledge or information.
No, is is used by incompetent speakers to hide behind their slides. Any moron feels he can make a nice presentation, when using Powerpoint. But this tool didn't really change that presentations require not only somebody bright, but also with a talent and/or training of a public speaker.
Did you really just suggest that detonating bombs on deck (what kind of bombs? On top of that deck of an aircraft carrier, which is in large part separated by hangar from the main structure or outright "suspended" above waves) is in any way comparable to HE bomb penetrating deep into the structure or detonating under the keel?
There's also a lot of feedback loops in how various churches deal with morality. Or how they claim to do...because it's not completelly about "morality":
Using your example of sexual repression - because really, let us be frank about what we're dealing with. You have people who are at their absolute height of sexual needs and are forced to subdue them...essentially they are the ones doing most of the work, they force themselves, twist themselves around what is very much driving them. Community is of course most helpfull in providing the reasons, but ultimatelly the "victims" are the ones who must build an internal appreciation (incorporating the supplied reasons, too) of what they are being forced into; otherwise you'll go crazy (well, or go crazy to much bigger degree...). If they can do that, if they can subdue such powerfull force in them - the contruct will be very strong, it is likely that they won't escape it for the rest of their lives. Even will value it sincerely, and pass it on (though at this step there's some amount of "preemptive jealousy" involved, IMHO)
That is the ultimate morality for religion, to ensure maximising its survival. Large part of it is of course about large and stable society...but not all things which this encompasses are about good fortune of individuals.
There's not much thought in it obviously, certainly nothing sinister. Just a simple fact of the best adapted variants of faiths surviving, displacing "weaker" ones.
OS breakdown here would be interesting, too.
But, historically, churches being effective in keeping to be worshipped is the only thing of relevance - how many faiths, even those with some above average wisdom in them, were simply outcompeted out of the market and not by something which was "better" but simply more effective?
That same fate awaits current churches, too. Yes, at some point presently popular religions will be relegated to the area of curious mythology, there's no escaping that (nevermind that with the amount of changes happening, in formally the same faith, over the ages...well, early adherents would often consider current ones to be a very strong heretics)