Re:For me, its the optical zoom ability
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 1
Thank-you very, very much. I will definitely check that out. As I said before, I am fairly new to the whole digital camera thing and made a terrible mistake buying the featureless, non configurable camera that I did.
I appreciate your advice.
Aside: I also checked out your homepage and looked at your art. Quite nice. I invite you to check out mine as well (in my Slashdot journal). Anyways, I am adding you to my Slashdot "Friends" list and will be eagerly awaiting for your "new and improved art page."
Thanks again. I appreciate your giving some specific camera and lens types to try, and hope that other people will follow your example and do the same. Listing specific to try is much, much more helpful.:)
I refer you to the response I gave to another poster. I agree that alot (most) of the poor quality of the photo was my own problem. But it is quite difficult to hold a camera still when having to perform absolute acrobatics to get in close enough for the shot which, as you quite correctly pointed out, only makes the shot blurry. Unfortunately, a tripod was not an option in this case, but I would have been able to hold the camera a bit more still if I weren't having to go through what I was to get the pictures.
It was my fault in buying this camera. It is featureless except for the on/off button and digital zoom. Having more experience with non-digital cameras (which *never* give me poor shots like this), I didn't understand much about digital cameras at the time (lesson well learned) and will be buying one that gives me more control over the images in the future. And yes, it will have a super optical zoom. Perhaps then I can get far enough back to use a tripod and hold the camera still while capturing my wild life shots.
That, or I will just go back to my non-digital counterparts...
Re:For me, its the optical zoom ability
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't help to be able to hold the camera still when one has to hold the camera out and up to the subject because of a lack of zoom ability. This is especially true when you are dealing with wild animals.
I agree, though, that alot of the problem was mine, but I never have this difficulty with non-digital cameras, and frankly, cameras with a good zoom. I feel like I have to be a circus acrobat to get some of the closeups, and most of the time that just puts me too close and everything goes out of focus.
It should also be noted that the camera, while carrying claims of lots of megapixels, has hardly any additional features except for an on/off button, and digital zoom. This was my mistake in buying it because, when buying a digital camera, I was rather ignorant on the features and have been sucked in (stupidly) by the idea of big numbers.
LOL. I suppose I should have posed an "Ask Slashdot" beforehand.:)
For me, its the optical zoom ability
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The biggest determining factor to me in buying a good digital camera is the optical zoom. With so much focus put on the number of megapixels and digital zoom (which, in my opinion, is better done in Photoshop anyways), the optical zoom is too often forgotten and hard to find in most "affordable" digital cameras. Without the optical zoom, one is limited to the same twelve-foot-away pictures that is great for people who only want to take pictures of friends and family standing in front of things, but is really useless if you want to get a good close up.
For example, this picture I took with my decent megapixel digital camera, my first time using it was a terrible disappointment because it was a great shot ruined just based on my not having the proper optical zoom capabilities. (And my mistake in buying a camera that I thought would be top of the line, and stupidly didn't notice the difference between digital and optical zoom, this being my first move off of traditional cameras.)
I would love a search engine on which I could search for Open Source Software and CC media, all with one click. However, and perhaps someone more informed than I can explain this, I was under the impression that the GPL was distinct from the CC because, under CC work, any user can use it for any reason and reproduce it without notice, and can then sell it. However, under the GPL, all contributions made under the GPL must be re-released and made available to the public with the GPL notice. In CC, you don't have to worry about license issues.
Gandalf: This is C#. Forged by the Dark Lord and his engineers in the fires of Mount Redmond. Taken by him from the hand of evil himself. All who use it are bound to him. Gates needs only this ring to cover all the lands of a second darkness... He is seeking it, seeking it; all his thought is bent on it.
Frodo: Alright, we put it away. We keep it hidden. We never speak of it again... No one knows its here, do they? Do they, Gandalf?
Gandalf: Unfortunately, yes. The power of Gates is far reaching. The innocent would use C# from a desire to do good, but through them, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
I am not completely familiar with this, but I believe that there is a general agreement in place that the international community attempts to enforce other countries' copyright violations. I believe that this was part of the Berne Convention (http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo001en.htm), assuming that you consider code a literary or artistic work which, in many cases, code is considered due to outdated laws in need of revision.
What SCO is doing here, however, is reprehensible. A company with any integrity would first legally prove that they own a copyright and give the offending parties a chance to correct said mistake, not try to build a business model out of lawsuits. What is worse is that SCO is not only making a business model out of lawsuits, but they are profiting through soliciting licensing from people to whom they owe proof of infringement, but refure to give!
I suspect that the international community will laugh at SCO when they try to enforce an unproven (and unlikely) claim of copyright violation. Its becoming even more apparent that this is just a product of sleazy business tactics.
But the short answer to your question is that, if SCO were to prove (which they have yet to do) their claims, the international community might likely try to uphold that. However, they do not have to except in good faith. If they really wanted to, they could simply look at Mr. McBride and say "Bite me." Mr. McBride is setting SCO up to be crushed. Its just unfortunate that they can make money (by bullying with threats of licensing fees and lawsuits) through pumping and dumping their stock.
I was not aware that they had successfully argued this in court, but by what I can tell, you are right. The problem is that, according to the policies for trademarks, they should never have been able to acquire a simple, English word especially when windows are not the original creation of the Microsoft organization. Applications using windows were implemented before Bill Gates. I remember in previous/. articles we determined (being the sole reason left in the world, it seems) that the word was untrademarkable, but I think that our folly was wishful thinking based on sound reasoning. It should not be trademarkable. However, based on the decision made against Lindows and various publications I saw online (each of which I regard with a large grain of salt), I believe that your statement is most likely correct. I would like to see supporting references, if anyone has any.
Of further interest, while researching your statement, About.com has trademarked the word "About." If trademarking "windows" is a gray area (although I feel it should not be), this is a blantant abuse of the system. When a company can copyright an adverb, we are approaching ridiculous.
This just further solidifies my case that the entire U.S. trademark, patent, and copyright system is outdated, poorly administered (if you can ever consider it administrated at all), and has become overall pointless. We need to restructure it.
I think that tomorrow I shall start a company called "The" and acquire my trademark. I will be rich.
I assume that you mean the United States government. Open Source has been chosen in implemented by governments all over the world. I, for one, am eager to see the United States follow the international example for a change. I hate to nitpick, but it seems that people all-too-often mistake government to mean the U.S.
I think that this would be an excellent test case for Open Source in the U.S. government. Considering the number of U.S.-based lawsuits over open source products, I think that this could finally bring the viability of using open source as a cost-saving measure to light so that local and state governments all over the United States will jump on the bandwagon and learn what we already know. Frankly, we need Open Source to be given more legitimacy in the United States as, outside of geek circles, it is all-too-often seen as a communist OS made for hobbyists... I know, I know, this makes no sense, but does most things?
I can see the wheels turning now: "Wow. If a government deeply rooted in capitalism and who has good reason to demand security is willing to implement an Open Source product, it must be good."
When asked if the SCO case concerned him, the interviewer answered: "It further complicates the decision-making process and promotes uncertainty" and I have to agree. That is why this would be such an important, powerful move. A government opting to use Open Source software is what will promote Open Source certainty. We need folks with power standing up and saying the same thing he did when he said: "Linux has shown itself as a stable and a solid performer in the server area." What a great opportunity for this to be heard!
Software will break and the process of bringing it back to operation needs to be reliable. With open source software, the support structure is not always clear.
I can't resist. Yes, M$ software breaks. That off my chest, I think that Linux has shown itself to have a very strong, if slightly disjointed support structure. And, where there is a need, a solution will be forged. Perhaps they can take the money they were throwing into the software and support structure, and use it to financially support an organized Open Source Support structure. Less money, better software, better support.
The final point they made was a great one: "Citizens can call their City Council representatives and voice their opinion. It is their tax money at stake. The promise is more and better services for less."
What a great idea. Not just for the places concerned in this article, but in our government as well. Perhaps if enough people called their representatives (who may or may not be tech savvy and who may or may not even know what Open Source is), we might possibly see this realized.
I agree. As I posted earlier, I bought an eMachines Widescreen laptop and have been completely satisfied by it. I had no problem finding the drivers for it, I found members of the Linux community who had successfully developed ATI support, and even better: it has a 3.5 hour battery life which is much greater than most of the laptops I have seen. Unlike some of the other AMD-powered laptops, mine does not overheat and it has handled everything that I have thrown at it beautifully. I take that back: it choked when I was doing some 3D rendering on it, but I think that was a function of the OS and not and hardware or driver concerns.
The laptop is very rugged. The speakers are the highest quality I have ever heard. Also, despite rumors that they are noisy, it is by far the quietist laptop I have seen.
My friends bought laptops and none of their offers the same battery life, many of them overheat, and they all have noisy fans.
I understand that eMachines has had a shifty background, but I think that it is time for people to throw down their gun shy attitudes and actually try the new products this company is putting out.
I just bought an eMachines Widescreen Athalon Laptop with ATI, despite all of my geeky senses telling me not to. Many people have sucessfully gotten Linux running on this same model, including Slackware. You can download the drivers fairly easily (I had all of them--for Linux, XP, and 2000-- downloaded within twenty minutes)
eMachines carries with it a very undeserved reputation and I feel bad for those gun shy folks who can't see that they really are putting out good, solid products now. This laptop is quieter than any of the models my friends bought, has an amazing 3.5 hour battery life (three hours if running my wireless network), and has supported everything that I have thrown at it. I am pleased because my laptop outperforms the laptops my colleagues have purchased, and mine cost about $400 less.
And I agree, Linux is THE OS to test these processors out.
I sort of agree and sort of do not. I think that alot of the obesity problems (at least, the ones caused by overeating and no exercise) are the result of a lack of self-control. That said, giving people video games as a crutch or excuse isn't treating the cause, its treating the symptoms. Perhaps the surface goal of getting people thinner will be met, but without the tools to maintain that, the people will eventually return to their previous states. People need to learn to take responsibility for themselves and make excellent decisions for themselves, even when those decisions are not convenient.
A poor analogy, but if a child insists on making phonecalls after you have grounded them from the phone, simply taking the phone away from them does nothing but prevent them from talking on the phone. It does not address the fact that something is causing said child to disobey and talk on the phone in the first place. They will simply replace that phone with another manifestation of not listening and will not have learned a lesson. The parents treated the symptoms (by taking away the phone, the child cannot talk on the phone), but not the cause (the child purposely disobeyed). An admittedly poor anaology, but let me reconcile this with the situation at hand. The parents buying their children devices such as the one mentioned in the article (and the adults buying them as well) have learned nothing about the mental aspect of losing weight. They are not following through on an act to make themselves skinnier and would not if it meant that they had to eat less and walk more. The only reason that they are exercising is because it is linked to their game. However, ten years down the road when they have moved on to the Playstation 6, and like the Nintendo game pad of the late 80's this devices loses its fad appeal, you will have a bunch of fat videogamers who have no self control and no real skills in losing weight. The doctors treated the symptoms (the fat), but not the cause (lack of self control).
If a person's only excuse to exercise is because they can play a video game while doing so, they I do not see them ultimately having the willpower to lose weight, and probably won't.
But sadly, as someone who knows a 13 year old gamer who weighs in the 200's, a part of me wants to agree because getting that self control in him won't happen overnight, and I would do anything to get him to lose weight before he becomes morbidly obese. And that breaks my heart.
The system works on the principle of isometric exercise, which contracts the muscles without moving any joints. After just a couple of minutes of playing Gran Turismo with the joystick, you can feel the strain in your upper arms and shoulder muscles.
This sounds to me like another item to add to the hundreds we use that cause carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive stress disorders. Now, instead of just mildly turning the joystick over and over again, there is resistance that will add to the strain. This doesn't see like its at healthy as it first appears. Exercise indeed, but what I believe these sports medicine professionals are missing is the fact that unlike lifting weights or other people who exercise for health reasons, gamers do not typically stop playing after a short one-hour workout. (Good, healthy workouts are usually about that long) Gamers sometimes sit in front of those games for hours and hours; having repetitive moments with muscular tension could actually harm the muscles instead of build them up. It would seem that this is a great idea for the health nut looking for an interesting way to lose weight as these people would play for an hour and stop, but this is not a particularly great excuse for gamers to exercise. The company should stick with the idea of putting these in gyms, but perhaps skip the idea of a marketing this to a hardcore, overweight RPGer.
However, I think that if used in moderation, I suppose this is an excuse (note: I said excuse, and its not a particularly great one) to exercise. But perhaps they should look at marketing this, instead of as a piece of exercise equipment, as a way to physically enjoy the games. Anyone remember when Nintendo made the the large floor pad so that you could really run and control the track game? It was great not because of the exercise but because one got to really participate in the game. Maybe applying this to VR, anyone?
. In the end, however, one thing holds true: This device makes a perfect symbolic comment on our culture.
Can you own common words? "In one of the broadest crackdowns ever issued against a domain name holder, a federal judge has ordered eReferee.com to stop using the word 'referee' in all of its domain names.... In issuing the court ruling, Wisconsin federal [j]udge C.N. Clevert sided with Referee magazine, a periodical holding the trademark to the word 'referee' for the purposes of publication." David Post, an associate professor of law at Temple, called the ruling "unbelievable", saying that regardless of whether eReferee.com had violated trademark law, as was alleged, by using a logo confusingly similar to its rival's, "You just don't want to let someone own the word 'referee'". (Lisa M. Bowman, "Judge approves domain name penalty on eReferee", CNet, Feb. 16; Gretchen Schuldt, "Referee Enterprises Seeks to Halt Competitor from Using 'Referee' in Web Name", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Corporate Intelligence.com, Feb. 23).
Using his own name a legal risk. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Bill Wyman shares his name with a somewhat well-known musician who played bass with the Rolling Stones. He was nonetheless unprepared when he received a letter from the musician's lawyer suggesting that he might be violating the other guy's rights by... well, by going on using his own name (Bill Wyman, "Will the real Bill Wyman please tune up?", Atlanta Journal-Constitution
"'Let's Roll' Trademark Battle Is On". Why'd she have to hire that lawyer? No sooner does the widow of Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer set up a foundation to honor his memory than its lawyer announces that he's having it apply for a trademark on the now-famous phrase "Let's Roll", so that anyone who wants to use the words on hats or t-shirts will have to fork over a royalty. Since September 11 numerous other individuals have also sought to copyright the phrase, although it was in common use before that date. (AP/Las Vegas Sun, Feb. 1)
Someone might get confused. "Just when you think the battle over domain names and trademarks can get no more ridiculous, Pillsbury goes and ups the ante. Universities and companies as large as Sun Microsystems received cease-and-desist letters this week ordering engineers to stop holding what the [giant flour maker] considers illegal 'bake-offs.' But it's not as if the engineers are huddling together around the oven trading stolen recipes -- in techie lingo, a 'bake-off' is a get-together in which software programmers test their creations against network protocols to see if they will work correctly.... No matter: The geeks are infringing on Pillsbury's 'bake-off trademark,' the letters argued." (Damien Cave, "Pillsbury Doughboy mauls techies", Salon, Jan. 20)(Slashdot thread)
It is becoming ever more apparent that the entire system needs to be evaluated and rewritten. But, as easy as this is to blame on an outdated system, this case (the parent post) shows that even when a policy is in place, it will be abused and ignored. Perhaps before Trademarking anything, they should read their own Trademark policy or, in the case that they don't recognize playmate as an English word, perhaps they should spend a little time reviewing the dictionary.
What next, Microsoft finally succeeding in Trademarking "Windows"??? Playboy goes after the children's toy industry because they unashamedly use the term "playmate" in many of its toys?
It makes no matter that these advertisers were using the popularity of these words to boost their services. Capitalizing on things is not a crime. Especially when the terms they are capitalizing on are not trademarkable. If anyone
The short answer is that, yes, there are scholarships out there for the technologically-inclined. You can sign up for FastWeb, a free scholarship-search service that allows you to fill out your information and they notify you when a scholarship you qualify for comes up. There are other sources as well, most of which are online. I would suggest you go talk to your guidance counselor, who has more resources for you then they are probably openly offering. Keep in mind, however, that they are limited in what they can do and to find the real jackpot scholarships, you will have to do some searching on your own.
It would be helpful if you could provide more information to us.
1) What major are you considering? 2) Which school are you considering? 3) Are you parents alumni of that school? 4) Do you have any interesting quirks? Such as, are you left-handed? You might be suprised to know that there are scholarships out there for even that. If your parents are members of unions, they work at large corporations, if you're the first to go to college, etc., then there is probably a scholarship out there for you. 5) How were your grades, and what within what percentage of your graduating class were you ranked? You don't have to answer this one, but believe me, external-based academic scholarships are out there. 6) Are you a member of any organizations? 7) What kind of "technologically-inclined" abilities do you have?
Feel free to contact me and I would be happy to help you through this oftentimes confusing and scary process. I will set up a temporary entry in my journal that you can post to. I just graduated from a private college (after 3.5 years), so it wasn't too long ago that I was in your shoes. Now, after having seen the admission process, I can give you an idea of what they are looking for, and exactly what you were told all along would count for something but really counts for jack squat.
Just in case you didn't read it wrong--several years does not equal seven years. Actually, I just graduated with my electrical engineering degree after three and a half years, and if I had chosen my class order a little more carefully, I could have done so in 3.
My university has competed in this competition since its first, which I believe was a little over 10 years ago.
That is true. I have no illusions, and I doubt do the competition sponsors, that college students are the most innovative in the country. The purpose of the competition, I believe, is to give those university students who are working on robotics anyways a chance to compete said robots against each other and to show what students (i.e., not big companies with lots of money) with little experience can do. It is also helping cultivate a new generation of engineers. I don't think its an exclusion based on believing that university students are better than anyone. But pitting three unexperienced university students against Boeing (not because of $$--well, it is a little bit about the money--but it is the engineering experience that will get you) would counterbalance the competition a bit.
Basically, they found a fun way to teach and DARPA and other sponsors saw what the students were able to produce and decided to reward them for it. What a way to learn! Instead of sitting in a classroom sleeping, we get to work toward something great, learning through experience, and we have a chance at getting paid to do so. Neat.
This is just one robotics competition. Another poster has mentioned one that is open to EVERYONE in which the money prize is much, much higher. You are welcome to compete in that if you wish.:)
You are absolutely right, the prizes do not recoup the losses, but since most research costs money, it is nice to offset the cost a bit. For most teams, this competition is a good deal. Since student time is free and many groups are heavily funded by outside organizations and their respective universities, and taking into consideration the fact that the rules stipulate that the students receive the reward money, not the university, the real thinkers on the project in a sense do get rewarded. With a $10,000 Grand Prize, distributed through our three team mates, that is a substantial amount of cash to students who would do it for free otherwise. I think that this competition is in the spirit of open source because students work and freely submit their work, detailed in technical papers, so that all can see the general idea of how their work was done, but in the case that the students have an especially good robot, they are rewarded financially for it. AND, all students get class credit for it, and I don't know too many university students who get paid to go to class.
It is true that the universities do tend to want to claim ownership of materials and property, but we get to take with us the learning we gained above and beyond our classmates. I know that this project has impressed two major players into offering me jobs upon graduation, so the reward of a potential job and marketability outweighs the small prizes.
You will also notice that the $1500 was for a single event. There are several ways of getting rewards. One team has won over $10,000, which goes straight to the students.
If we want to take what we learned and go apply that to future robots that we independently want to sale, then that is fine. DARPA cannot claim our technology. Only the university can. And they can't claim lessons learned.
And, as for the GM support, that is because they are working on autonomous vehicle lanes. They already have a test lane in Texas.:)
Re:Importance of GPS, & questions on its Relia
on
Equine Speedometers
·
· Score: 1
I appologize if I am not clear. I will give explaining this my best shot, but I am having trouble putting it into words. But I will give it a shot, anyways.
Two words: size, convenience
Now, an explanation: I am fairly certain that the boxes put in NASCAR cars are large and heavy, insofar as I can remember. I suppose that, when dealing with cars, size was not a concern. A device inside the car doesn't really reduce aerodynamics or increase the relative weight that much. The same is not true for placing a large GPS unit outside of a car, which is effectively what you are doing when you have to strap it on the horse if the device doesn't fit under a saddle pad which is usually very small and thin. An average jockey saddle is nothing more than a tiny piece of leather a little larger than the size of...hmm...about the size of the average mouse pad. Also, in most NASCAR races, the cars finish with a much greater margin between them. Now, last season I watched some fairly close races, but usually photofinish will suffice. Track records in NASCAR are usually shattered by seconds (and given the speed of the cars, this is a HUGE margin) while track records for horses are usually determined by fractions of a second. The preciseness of the NASCAR units, therefore, are probably less a concern than they would be in a horse race.
Also, the difference lies in here, the GPS is used as a training tool. In NASCAR, it is a racing tool. There is a huge difference between the significance of a horse's training speed and that of a car. The idea here is to allow the trainer to be able to monitor the horse's performance without needing additional track technology, to make his training more convenient and independent, while reliable. In a NASCAR race, alot of the race success is based on how well the car can draft off of its teammate (since remember that NASCAR is largely a team sport, whereas horse racing is not.) The speed of a single car, while important, does not take into consideration the benefit of drafting behind another car in the race. In horse racing, following closely behind another horse is not seen as an advantage because the dirt thrown up from the track tends to irritate a horse, and horses who are trapped behind another horse tend to wear themselves out of being able to win. Horses tend to race better alone or in pairs, when they do not get caught in behind other horses, unlike NASCAR where wide-open in-the-front racing is often disadvantageous and terrible for gas mileage. Of course, knowing the state-of-health of both car and horse is equally important to training success, so in that respect the two units are equally important. But, information retrieved from a single horse training on its own track alone is more significant than that of a car racing on its own, IMHO, making the ability of a trainer to track how well his horse is individually training on any course in the world is advantageous--and better, to do so with a device that weighs almost nothing (a pound of added weight is HUGE in handicapping horses) would be very useful. So, the idea here is to create a way for the trainers to independently track their animals on any track in the world. While doing so in NASCAR would be nice, most NASCAR racers have the benefit of in-place technology at the tracks. NASCAR racers also use the technology less often as proof-of-concept is usually tested on race day, whereas horses are flesh and blood that require daily training to maintain condition, and they travel the world (unlike NASCAR racers), so having this be available the world over at any time of night is the focus. In short, the two technologies are applied and developed differently.
There is also the problem that NASCAR vehicles have speedometers and automatic logging equipment built into the vehicle itself. A fleshandblood horse does not have this advantage. Trying to stick one of those huge black boxes they put in NASCARS onto a racehorse would not be pretty. That is why there is a need to design a horse-friendly GPS/monitoring unit.
In short, I do not think that you can use NASCAR units on horses without redesign.
Re:Importance of GPS, & questions on its Relia
on
Equine Speedometers
·
· Score: 1
My intention, and I appologize if this was unclear, was for them to develop smaller units similar to the implantable RFID ones. I have seen some very, very tiny GPS units (at the 2003 Boston Embedded Systems Conference they had units that were almost the size of quarters), so I was trying to suggest that they should develop smaller, implantable units, or at least units small enough to be tucked inside its traveling halter. I suppose that I left that for guessing, but in saying a "greater application" and mentioning RFID this is what I was inferring, but this was admittedly not clear. I appologize.
And yes, I did RTFA.
Re:Importance of GPS, & questions on its Relia
on
Equine Speedometers
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But in the article, they mentioned that their GPS units were only accurate to a few meters. Yes, your mentioned technology would certainly be best, but, unless I read the article incorrectly (egads! I RTFA), they are not using very reliable units.
Perhaps they should look into using units similar to your own. I am familiar with differential GPS and have used it, not finding it accurate enough for our liking, but I have never tried the surveyor grade ones, nor am I familiar with them. The units that we use on our robot are not the cheap handheld ones. A company was generous enough to donate a somewhat decent one to us, although the accuracy is not as good as the top-of-the-line ones, unfortunately.
The problem with setting up a base station at the track is it makes the units less portable and less convenient. For that the work, each track in the world would have to do the same, and the likeliness of the happening is almost nothing. The current GPS setup they have can be used at any track in the world, be it Churchill Downs, a track in New Zealand (their turf horses come over here to race all of the time!), or Belmont Park. They could use it at their training stables as well.
Having an accurate account could certainly help when, after a big race, the race has to be reviewed because a jockey calls foul of a horse bumping out of the gate, or pinning against the pole. In a crowded field where cameras have limited vision, this information could be very helpful. But I still stand by the fact that, requiring each racetrack to maintain a base station is a little too hopeful a goal. There are hundreds of tracks, and having a technology that can be used anywhere at any time would be much more useful.
It should be obligatory that any person involved in deciding this case should have to read a writeup such as this one. All too often those making the decisions are as tech savvy as dung beetles. It has been successfully argued in court that a certain hacker (in the misused sense of the term) could not have possibly been responsible for a breakin because the end IP was not the same as his home one and that "IP addresses are like DNA. Identifiers that cannot be changed." When we have the technologically unsavvy making rulings on technology issues, how can we expect any differently? If this SCO case is won, it will probably be on the backs of people who can't figure out how to attach files to their emails.
This has been long-needed. We demand that legalese be put into "plain English," should we not expect attorneys to require the same?
We need Open Source and related licenses explained for dummies (pehaps a book, anyone? Open Source For Dummies), for the those of us knee-deep in all of this who have a grasp of what is going on, and for the legal entities who will ultimately decide the case.
This case will never be won so long as people believe that SCO can claim.h files, error number listings, and parts of the C standard library because "they look the same as that 'er Linus thingy code", and as long as people continue to equate open source royalty-free software with an attack on capitalism. Perhaps in addition to an Open Source for Dummies, the courts need a Basic Programming for Dummies as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank-you very, very much. I will definitely check that out. As I said before, I am fairly new to the whole digital camera thing and made a terrible mistake buying the featureless, non configurable camera that I did.
:)
I appreciate your advice.
Aside:
I also checked out your homepage and looked at your art. Quite nice. I invite you to check out mine as well (in my Slashdot journal). Anyways, I am adding you to my Slashdot "Friends" list and will be eagerly awaiting for your "new and improved art page."
Thanks again. I appreciate your giving some specific camera and lens types to try, and hope that other people will follow your example and do the same. Listing specific to try is much, much more helpful.
I refer you to the response I gave to another poster. I agree that alot (most) of the poor quality of the photo was my own problem. But it is quite difficult to hold a camera still when having to perform absolute acrobatics to get in close enough for the shot which, as you quite correctly pointed out, only makes the shot blurry. Unfortunately, a tripod was not an option in this case, but I would have been able to hold the camera a bit more still if I weren't having to go through what I was to get the pictures.
It was my fault in buying this camera. It is featureless except for the on/off button and digital zoom. Having more experience with non-digital cameras (which *never* give me poor shots like this), I didn't understand much about digital cameras at the time (lesson well learned) and will be buying one that gives me more control over the images in the future. And yes, it will have a super optical zoom. Perhaps then I can get far enough back to use a tripod and hold the camera still while capturing my wild life shots.
That, or I will just go back to my non-digital counterparts...
It doesn't help to be able to hold the camera still when one has to hold the camera out and up to the subject because of a lack of zoom ability. This is especially true when you are dealing with wild animals.
:)
I agree, though, that alot of the problem was mine, but I never have this difficulty with non-digital cameras, and frankly, cameras with a good zoom. I feel like I have to be a circus acrobat to get some of the closeups, and most of the time that just puts me too close and everything goes out of focus.
It should also be noted that the camera, while carrying claims of lots of megapixels, has hardly any additional features except for an on/off button, and digital zoom. This was my mistake in buying it because, when buying a digital camera, I was rather ignorant on the features and have been sucked in (stupidly) by the idea of big numbers.
LOL. I suppose I should have posed an "Ask Slashdot" beforehand.
The biggest determining factor to me in buying a good digital camera is the optical zoom. With so much focus put on the number of megapixels and digital zoom (which, in my opinion, is better done in Photoshop anyways), the optical zoom is too often forgotten and hard to find in most "affordable" digital cameras. Without the optical zoom, one is limited to the same twelve-foot-away pictures that is great for people who only want to take pictures of friends and family standing in front of things, but is really useless if you want to get a good close up.
For example, this picture I took with my decent megapixel digital camera, my first time using it was a terrible disappointment because it was a great shot ruined just based on my not having the proper optical zoom capabilities.
(And my mistake in buying a camera that I thought would be top of the line, and stupidly didn't notice the difference between digital and optical zoom, this being my first move off of traditional cameras.)
I got most of it, I think. So, in case the angelfire page goes down, here is a semi-mirror. Some of the images didn't save, but I got most everything.
e d.html
It looks like the angelfire page is still there, but this might help her page load a little.
HERE IS THE PAGE:
http://www.ee.utulsa.edu/~tellis/mirror/kiddofspe
I would love a search engine on which I could search for Open Source Software and CC media, all with one click. However, and perhaps someone more informed than I can explain this, I was under the impression that the GPL was distinct from the CC because, under CC work, any user can use it for any reason and reproduce it without notice, and can then sell it. However, under the GPL, all contributions made under the GPL must be re-released and made available to the public with the GPL notice. In CC, you don't have to worry about license issues.
Anyone able to compare and contrast the two?
Gonna burn some karma on this...
;) And yes, I am just teasing.
Gandalf: This is C#. Forged by the Dark Lord and his engineers in the fires of Mount Redmond. Taken by him from the hand of evil himself. All who use it are bound to him. Gates needs only this ring to cover all the lands of a second darkness... He is seeking it, seeking it; all his thought is bent on it.
Frodo: Alright, we put it away. We keep it hidden. We never speak of it again... No one knows its here, do they? Do they, Gandalf?
Gandalf: Unfortunately, yes. The power of Gates is far reaching. The innocent would use C# from a desire to do good, but through them, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
You get the idea...
I am not completely familiar with this, but I believe that there is a general agreement in place that the international community attempts to enforce other countries' copyright violations. I believe that this was part of the Berne Convention (http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo001en.htm), assuming that you consider code a literary or artistic work which, in many cases, code is considered due to outdated laws in need of revision.
What SCO is doing here, however, is reprehensible. A company with any integrity would first legally prove that they own a copyright and give the offending parties a chance to correct said mistake, not try to build a business model out of lawsuits. What is worse is that SCO is not only making a business model out of lawsuits, but they are profiting through soliciting licensing from people to whom they owe proof of infringement, but refure to give!
I suspect that the international community will laugh at SCO when they try to enforce an unproven (and unlikely) claim of copyright violation.
Its becoming even more apparent that this is just a product of sleazy business tactics.
But the short answer to your question is that, if SCO were to prove (which they have yet to do) their claims, the international community might likely try to uphold that. However, they do not have to except in good faith. If they really wanted to, they could simply look at Mr. McBride and say "Bite me." Mr. McBride is setting SCO up to be crushed. Its just unfortunate that they can make money (by bullying with threats of licensing fees and lawsuits) through pumping and dumping their stock.
The U.S.-based SCO has yet to successfully get Americans to buy into their licensing scam. I do not see why any European countries would either.
I suspect that SCO will be mocked and laughed at by the Europeans just the same as we Americans do. Finally! A humor that transcends boundaries!
I was not aware that they had successfully argued this in court, but by what I can tell, you are right. The problem is that, according to the policies for trademarks, they should never have been able to acquire a simple, English word especially when windows are not the original creation of the Microsoft organization. Applications using windows were implemented before Bill Gates. I remember in previous /. articles we determined (being the sole reason left in the world, it seems) that the word was untrademarkable, but I think that our folly was wishful thinking based on sound reasoning. It should not be trademarkable. However, based on the decision made against Lindows and various publications I saw online (each of which I regard with a large grain of salt), I believe that your statement is most likely correct. I would like to see supporting references, if anyone has any.
Of further interest, while researching your statement, About.com has trademarked the word "About." If trademarking "windows" is a gray area (although I feel it should not be), this is a blantant abuse of the system. When a company can copyright an adverb, we are approaching ridiculous.
This just further solidifies my case that the entire U.S. trademark, patent, and copyright system is outdated, poorly administered (if you can ever consider it administrated at all), and has become overall pointless. We need to restructure it.
I think that tomorrow I shall start a company called "The" and acquire my trademark. I will be rich.
Open source in government is getting real.
I assume that you mean the United States government. Open Source has been chosen in implemented by governments all over the world. I, for one, am eager to see the United States follow the international example for a change. I hate to nitpick, but it seems that people all-too-often mistake government to mean the U.S.
I think that this would be an excellent test case for Open Source in the U.S. government. Considering the number of U.S.-based lawsuits over open source products, I think that this could finally bring the viability of using open source as a cost-saving measure to light so that local and state governments all over the United States will jump on the bandwagon and learn what we already know. Frankly, we need Open Source to be given more legitimacy in the United States as, outside of geek circles, it is all-too-often seen as a communist OS made for hobbyists... I know, I know, this makes no sense, but does most things?
I can see the wheels turning now:
"Wow. If a government deeply rooted in capitalism and who has good reason to demand security is willing to implement an Open Source product, it must be good."
When asked if the SCO case concerned him, the interviewer answered: "It further complicates the decision-making process and promotes uncertainty" and I have to agree. That is why this would be such an important, powerful move. A government opting to use Open Source software is what will promote Open Source certainty. We need folks with power standing up and saying the same thing he did when he said: "Linux has shown itself as a stable and a solid performer in the server area." What a great opportunity for this to be heard!
Software will break and the process of bringing it back to operation needs to be reliable. With open source software, the support structure is not always clear.
I can't resist. Yes, M$ software breaks. That off my chest, I think that Linux has shown itself to have a very strong, if slightly disjointed support structure. And, where there is a need, a solution will be forged. Perhaps they can take the money they were throwing into the software and support structure, and use it to financially support an organized Open Source Support structure. Less money, better software, better support.
The final point they made was a great one:
"Citizens can call their City Council representatives and voice their opinion. It is their tax money at stake. The promise is more and better services for less."
What a great idea. Not just for the places concerned in this article, but in our government as well. Perhaps if enough people called their representatives (who may or may not be tech savvy and who may or may not even know what Open Source is), we might possibly see this realized.
LOL. Creating The Slashdot lobby? Neat.
I agree. As I posted earlier, I bought an eMachines Widescreen laptop and have been completely satisfied by it. I had no problem finding the drivers for it, I found members of the Linux community who had successfully developed ATI support, and even better: it has a 3.5 hour battery life which is much greater than most of the laptops I have seen. Unlike some of the other AMD-powered laptops, mine does not overheat and it has handled everything that I have thrown at it beautifully. I take that back: it choked when I was doing some 3D rendering on it, but I think that was a function of the OS and not and hardware or driver concerns.
The laptop is very rugged. The speakers are the highest quality I have ever heard. Also, despite rumors that they are noisy, it is by far the quietist laptop I have seen.
My friends bought laptops and none of their offers the same battery life, many of them overheat, and they all have noisy fans.
I understand that eMachines has had a shifty background, but I think that it is time for people to throw down their gun shy attitudes and actually try the new products this company is putting out.
These laptops were simply *MADE* for Linux.
I just bought an eMachines Widescreen Athalon Laptop with ATI, despite all of my geeky senses telling me not to. Many people have sucessfully gotten Linux running on this same model, including Slackware. You can download the drivers fairly easily (I had all of them--for Linux, XP, and 2000-- downloaded within twenty minutes)
eMachines carries with it a very undeserved reputation and I feel bad for those gun shy folks who can't see that they really are putting out good, solid products now. This laptop is quieter than any of the models my friends bought, has an amazing 3.5 hour battery life (three hours if running my wireless network), and has supported everything that I have thrown at it. I am pleased because my laptop outperforms the laptops my colleagues have purchased, and mine cost about $400 less.
And I agree, Linux is THE OS to test these processors out.
I sort of agree and sort of do not. I think that alot of the obesity problems (at least, the ones caused by overeating and no exercise) are the result of a lack of self-control. That said, giving people video games as a crutch or excuse isn't treating the cause, its treating the symptoms. Perhaps the surface goal of getting people thinner will be met, but without the tools to maintain that, the people will eventually return to their previous states. People need to learn to take responsibility for themselves and make excellent decisions for themselves, even when those decisions are not convenient.
A poor analogy, but if a child insists on making phonecalls after you have grounded them from the phone, simply taking the phone away from them does nothing but prevent them from talking on the phone. It does not address the fact that something is causing said child to disobey and talk on the phone in the first place. They will simply replace that phone with another manifestation of not listening and will not have learned a lesson. The parents treated the symptoms (by taking away the phone, the child cannot talk on the phone), but not the cause (the child purposely disobeyed). An admittedly poor anaology, but let me reconcile this with the situation at hand. The parents buying their children devices such as the one mentioned in the article (and the adults buying them as well) have learned nothing about the mental aspect of losing weight. They are not following through on an act to make themselves skinnier and would not if it meant that they had to eat less and walk more. The only reason that they are exercising is because it is linked to their game. However, ten years down the road when they have moved on to the Playstation 6, and like the Nintendo game pad of the late 80's this devices loses its fad appeal, you will have a bunch of fat videogamers who have no self control and no real skills in losing weight. The doctors treated the symptoms (the fat), but not the cause (lack of self control).
If a person's only excuse to exercise is because they can play a video game while doing so, they I do not see them ultimately having the willpower to lose weight, and probably won't.
But sadly, as someone who knows a 13 year old gamer who weighs in the 200's, a part of me wants to agree because getting that self control in him won't happen overnight, and I would do anything to get him to lose weight before he becomes morbidly obese. And that breaks my heart.
*laughs*
Well, considering the amount of ridiculous trademark infringement cases we have seen in the news recently, I am suprised that the Go Fish Card Game People have not sued the GloFish people for infringement. Hey, if people can confuse Lindows with Windows, then why not?
I, for one, welcome our new GloFish Overlords...
The system works on the principle of isometric exercise, which contracts the muscles without moving any joints. After just a couple of minutes of playing Gran Turismo with the joystick, you can feel the strain in your upper arms and shoulder muscles.
.
This sounds to me like another item to add to the hundreds we use that cause carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive stress disorders. Now, instead of just mildly turning the joystick over and over again, there is resistance that will add to the strain. This doesn't see like its at healthy as it first appears. Exercise indeed, but what I believe these sports medicine professionals are missing is the fact that unlike lifting weights or other people who exercise for health reasons, gamers do not typically stop playing after a short one-hour workout. (Good, healthy workouts are usually about that long) Gamers sometimes sit in front of those games for hours and hours; having repetitive moments with muscular tension could actually harm the muscles instead of build them up. It would seem that this is a great idea for the health nut looking for an interesting way to lose weight as these people would play for an hour and stop, but this is not a particularly great excuse for gamers to exercise. The company should stick with the idea of putting these in gyms, but perhaps skip the idea of a marketing this to a hardcore, overweight RPGer.
However, I think that if used in moderation, I suppose this is an excuse (note: I said excuse, and its not a particularly great one) to exercise. But perhaps they should look at marketing this, instead of as a piece of exercise equipment, as a way to physically enjoy the games. Anyone remember when Nintendo made the the large floor pad so that you could really run and control the track game? It was great not because of the exercise but because one got to really participate in the game. Maybe applying this to VR, anyone?
In the end, however, one thing holds true:
This device makes a perfect symbolic comment on our culture.
I believe that our entire patent, copyright, and trademark system has reached the point of ridiculous.
... In issuing the court ruling, Wisconsin federal [j]udge C.N. Clevert sided with Referee magazine, a periodical holding the trademark to the word 'referee' for the purposes of publication." David Post, an associate professor of law at Temple, called the ruling "unbelievable", saying that regardless of whether eReferee.com had violated trademark law, as was alleged, by using a logo confusingly similar to its rival's, "You just don't want to let someone own the word 'referee'". (Lisa M. Bowman, "Judge approves domain name penalty on eReferee", CNet, Feb. 16; Gretchen Schuldt, "Referee Enterprises Seeks to Halt Competitor from Using 'Referee' in Web Name", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Corporate Intelligence.com, Feb. 23).
... well, by going on using his own name (Bill Wyman, "Will the real Bill Wyman please tune up?", Atlanta Journal-Constitution
... No matter: The geeks are infringing on Pillsbury's 'bake-off trademark,' the letters argued." (Damien Cave, "Pillsbury Doughboy mauls techies", Salon, Jan. 20)(Slashdot thread)
Consider these examples from Overlawyered.com:
Can you own common words? "In one of the broadest crackdowns ever issued against a domain name holder, a federal judge has ordered eReferee.com to stop using the word 'referee' in all of its domain names.
Using his own name a legal risk. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Bill Wyman shares his name with a somewhat well-known musician who played bass with the Rolling Stones. He was nonetheless unprepared when he received a letter from the musician's lawyer suggesting that he might be violating the other guy's rights by
"'Let's Roll' Trademark Battle Is On". Why'd she have to hire that lawyer? No sooner does the widow of Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer set up a foundation to honor his memory than its lawyer announces that he's having it apply for a trademark on the now-famous phrase "Let's Roll", so that anyone who wants to use the words on hats or t-shirts will have to fork over a royalty. Since September 11 numerous other individuals have also sought to copyright the phrase, although it was in common use before that date. (AP/Las Vegas Sun, Feb. 1)
Someone might get confused. "Just when you think the battle over domain names and trademarks can get no more ridiculous, Pillsbury goes and ups the ante. Universities and companies as large as Sun Microsystems received cease-and-desist letters this week ordering engineers to stop holding what the [giant flour maker] considers illegal 'bake-offs.' But it's not as if the engineers are huddling together around the oven trading stolen recipes -- in techie lingo, a 'bake-off' is a get-together in which software programmers test their creations against network protocols to see if they will work correctly.
It is becoming ever more apparent that the entire system needs to be evaluated and rewritten. But, as easy as this is to blame on an outdated system, this case (the parent post) shows that even when a policy is in place, it will be abused and ignored. Perhaps before Trademarking anything, they should read their own Trademark policy or, in the case that they don't recognize playmate as an English word, perhaps they should spend a little time reviewing the dictionary.
What next, Microsoft finally succeeding in Trademarking "Windows"??? Playboy goes after the children's toy industry because they unashamedly use the term "playmate" in many of its toys?
It makes no matter that these advertisers were using the popularity of these words to boost their services. Capitalizing on things is not a crime. Especially when the terms they are capitalizing on are not trademarkable. If anyone
The short answer is that, yes, there are scholarships out there for the technologically-inclined. You can sign up for FastWeb, a free scholarship-search service that allows you to fill out your information and they notify you when a scholarship you qualify for comes up. There are other sources as well, most of which are online. I would suggest you go talk to your guidance counselor, who has more resources for you then they are probably openly offering. Keep in mind, however, that they are limited in what they can do and to find the real jackpot scholarships, you will have to do some searching on your own.
It would be helpful if you could provide more information to us.
1) What major are you considering?
2) Which school are you considering?
3) Are you parents alumni of that school?
4) Do you have any interesting quirks?
Such as, are you left-handed? You might be suprised to know that there are scholarships out there for even that. If your parents are members of unions, they work at large corporations, if you're the first to go to college, etc., then there is probably a scholarship out there for you.
5) How were your grades, and what within what percentage of your graduating class were you ranked? You don't have to answer this one, but believe me, external-based academic scholarships are out there.
6) Are you a member of any organizations?
7) What kind of "technologically-inclined" abilities do you have?
Feel free to contact me and I would be happy to help you through this oftentimes confusing and scary process. I will set up a temporary entry in my journal that you can post to. I just graduated from a private college (after 3.5 years), so it wasn't too long ago that I was in your shoes. Now, after having seen the admission process, I can give you an idea of what they are looking for, and exactly what you were told all along would count for something but really counts for jack squat.
Just in case you didn't read it wrong--several years does not equal seven years. Actually, I just graduated with my electrical engineering degree after three and a half years, and if I had chosen my class order a little more carefully, I could have done so in 3.
:)
My university has competed in this competition since its first, which I believe was a little over 10 years ago.
-dexterpexter
That is true. I have no illusions, and I doubt do the competition sponsors, that college students are the most innovative in the country. The purpose of the competition, I believe, is to give those university students who are working on robotics anyways a chance to compete said robots against each other and to show what students (i.e., not big companies with lots of money) with little experience can do. It is also helping cultivate a new generation of engineers. I don't think its an exclusion based on believing that university students are better than anyone. But pitting three unexperienced university students against Boeing (not because of $$--well, it is a little bit about the money--but it is the engineering experience that will get you) would counterbalance the competition a bit.
:)
Basically, they found a fun way to teach and DARPA and other sponsors saw what the students were able to produce and decided to reward them for it. What a way to learn! Instead of sitting in a classroom sleeping, we get to work toward something great, learning through experience, and we have a chance at getting paid to do so. Neat.
This is just one robotics competition. Another poster has mentioned one that is open to EVERYONE in which the money prize is much, much higher. You are welcome to compete in that if you wish.
You are absolutely right, the prizes do not recoup the losses, but since most research costs money, it is nice to offset the cost a bit. For most teams, this competition is a good deal. Since student time is free and many groups are heavily funded by outside organizations and their respective universities, and taking into consideration the fact that the rules stipulate that the students receive the reward money, not the university, the real thinkers on the project in a sense do get rewarded. With a $10,000 Grand Prize, distributed through our three team mates, that is a substantial amount of cash to students who would do it for free otherwise. I think that this competition is in the spirit of open source because students work and freely submit their work, detailed in technical papers, so that all can see the general idea of how their work was done, but in the case that the students have an especially good robot, they are rewarded financially for it. AND, all students get class credit for it, and I don't know too many university students who get paid to go to class.
:)
It is true that the universities do tend to want to claim ownership of materials and property, but we get to take with us the learning we gained above and beyond our classmates. I know that this project has impressed two major players into offering me jobs upon graduation, so the reward of a potential job and marketability outweighs the small prizes.
You will also notice that the $1500 was for a single event. There are several ways of getting rewards. One team has won over $10,000, which goes straight to the students.
If we want to take what we learned and go apply that to future robots that we independently want to sale, then that is fine. DARPA cannot claim our technology. Only the university can. And they can't claim lessons learned.
And, as for the GM support, that is because they are working on autonomous vehicle lanes. They already have a test lane in Texas.
I appologize if I am not clear. I will give explaining this my best shot, but I am having trouble putting it into words. But I will give it a shot, anyways.
Two words: size, convenience
Now, an explanation:
I am fairly certain that the boxes put in NASCAR cars are large and heavy, insofar as I can remember. I suppose that, when dealing with cars, size was not a concern. A device inside the car doesn't really reduce aerodynamics or increase the relative weight that much. The same is not true for placing a large GPS unit outside of a car, which is effectively what you are doing when you have to strap it on the horse if the device doesn't fit under a saddle pad which is usually very small and thin. An average jockey saddle is nothing more than a tiny piece of leather a little larger than the size of...hmm...about the size of the average mouse pad. Also, in most NASCAR races, the cars finish with a much greater margin between them. Now, last season I watched some fairly close races, but usually photofinish will suffice. Track records in NASCAR are usually shattered by seconds (and given the speed of the cars, this is a HUGE margin) while track records for horses are usually determined by fractions of a second. The preciseness of the NASCAR units, therefore, are probably less a concern than they would be in a horse race.
Also, the difference lies in here, the GPS is used as a training tool. In NASCAR, it is a racing tool. There is a huge difference between the significance of a horse's training speed and that of a car. The idea here is to allow the trainer to be able to monitor the horse's performance without needing additional track technology, to make his training more convenient and independent, while reliable. In a NASCAR race, alot of the race success is based on how well the car can draft off of its teammate (since remember that NASCAR is largely a team sport, whereas horse racing is not.) The speed of a single car, while important, does not take into consideration the benefit of drafting behind another car in the race. In horse racing, following closely behind another horse is not seen as an advantage because the dirt thrown up from the track tends to irritate a horse, and horses who are trapped behind another horse tend to wear themselves out of being able to win. Horses tend to race better alone or in pairs, when they do not get caught in behind other horses, unlike NASCAR where wide-open in-the-front racing is often disadvantageous and terrible for gas mileage. Of course, knowing the state-of-health of both car and horse is equally important to training success, so in that respect the two units are equally important. But, information retrieved from a single horse training on its own track alone is more significant than that of a car racing on its own, IMHO, making the ability of a trainer to track how well his horse is individually training on any course in the world is advantageous--and better, to do so with a device that weighs almost nothing (a pound of added weight is HUGE in handicapping horses) would be very useful. So, the idea here is to create a way for the trainers to independently track their animals on any track in the world. While doing so in NASCAR would be nice, most NASCAR racers have the benefit of in-place technology at the tracks. NASCAR racers also use the technology less often as proof-of-concept is usually tested on race day, whereas horses are flesh and blood that require daily training to maintain condition, and they travel the world (unlike NASCAR racers), so having this be available the world over at any time of night is the focus. In short, the two technologies are applied and developed differently.
There is also the problem that NASCAR vehicles have speedometers and automatic logging equipment built into the vehicle itself. A fleshandblood horse does not have this advantage. Trying to stick one of those huge black boxes they put in NASCARS onto a racehorse would not be pretty. That is why there is a need to design a horse-friendly GPS/monitoring unit.
In short, I do not think that you can use NASCAR units on horses without redesign.
My intention, and I appologize if this was unclear, was for them to develop smaller units similar to the implantable RFID ones. I have seen some very, very tiny GPS units (at the 2003 Boston Embedded Systems Conference they had units that were almost the size of quarters), so I was trying to suggest that they should develop smaller, implantable units, or at least units small enough to be tucked inside its traveling halter. I suppose that I left that for guessing, but in saying a "greater application" and mentioning RFID this is what I was inferring, but this was admittedly not clear. I appologize.
And yes, I did RTFA.
But in the article, they mentioned that their GPS units were only accurate to a few meters. Yes, your mentioned technology would certainly be best, but, unless I read the article incorrectly (egads! I RTFA), they are not using very reliable units.
Perhaps they should look into using units similar to your own. I am familiar with differential GPS and have used it, not finding it accurate enough for our liking, but I have never tried the surveyor grade ones, nor am I familiar with them. The units that we use on our robot are not the cheap handheld ones. A company was generous enough to donate a somewhat decent one to us, although the accuracy is not as good as the top-of-the-line ones, unfortunately.
The problem with setting up a base station at the track is it makes the units less portable and less convenient. For that the work, each track in the world would have to do the same, and the likeliness of the happening is almost nothing. The current GPS setup they have can be used at any track in the world, be it Churchill Downs, a track in New Zealand (their turf horses come over here to race all of the time!), or Belmont Park. They could use it at their training stables as well.
Having an accurate account could certainly help when, after a big race, the race has to be reviewed because a jockey calls foul of a horse bumping out of the gate, or pinning against the pole. In a crowded field where cameras have limited vision, this information could be very helpful. But I still stand by the fact that, requiring each racetrack to maintain a base station is a little too hopeful a goal. There are hundreds of tracks, and having a technology that can be used anywhere at any time would be much more useful.
Interesting idea, though.
It should be obligatory that any person involved in deciding this case should have to read a writeup such as this one. All too often those making the decisions are as tech savvy as dung beetles. It has been successfully argued in court that a certain hacker (in the misused sense of the term) could not have possibly been responsible for a breakin because the end IP was not the same as his home one and that "IP addresses are like DNA. Identifiers that cannot be changed." When we have the technologically unsavvy making rulings on technology issues, how can we expect any differently? If this SCO case is won, it will probably be on the backs of people who can't figure out how to attach files to their emails.
.h files, error number listings, and parts of the C standard library because "they look the same as that 'er Linus thingy code", and as long as people continue to equate open source royalty-free software with an attack on capitalism. Perhaps in addition to an Open Source for Dummies, the courts need a Basic Programming for Dummies as well.
This has been long-needed. We demand that legalese be put into "plain English," should we not expect attorneys to require the same?
We need Open Source and related licenses explained for dummies (pehaps a book, anyone? Open Source For Dummies), for the those of us knee-deep in all of this who have a grasp of what is going on, and for the legal entities who will ultimately decide the case.
This case will never be won so long as people believe that SCO can claim
Yes, we need more articles like this one.