This is not true for laptops, however, and that segment is growing very quickly and is almost as large as the desktop market today. It is very difficult (though not impossible) to find a laptop Windows; any Linux user having a name-brand laptop has paid for a copy of Windows as well.
As you see in my other post here, I managed to mix up "left" and "right". And for my triumphant return engagement, I will not only mix up the names of my siblings, but also forget what day of the week this is!
They may be old, yes. In any case, GST is not currently part of the Gnome desktop (though it is being discussed right now if they are fit for inclusion into 2.8). If they become part, they would need to have that fixed, yes.
I trapped nothing. I confused which side is "left" and which is "right". Yes, I can be that disorganized, and no, don't trust me if I try to give directions...
OK, I will buy a red and a green sock to remind me which is left and which is right. You'd think I'd know it after 35 years... It is the other way around, of course.
Are they both putting the same amount of effort in making their desktops user-friendly?
I would say that Gnome has had it as an explicit focus for a lot longer than KDE, and has been working a lot more on various aspects of usability. One example is the (always ongoing) effort to make the desktop fully accessible to people with disabilities - an effort that pays off for the rest of us as well, in the form of a more consistent desktop and some fun toys (like screen readers) to play with:)
As to which desktop is actually the better one for you - well, that's up to you, really. Try both for a time, and select the one you are more comfortable with. Or don't choose; alternate between both as the mood strikes you. Either desktop's applications work fine under both, after all, and interoperability between them is steadily improving.
What you absolutely should do is to ignore all the flamewars and sniping on places like/. - most people dissing one or the other desktop are pretty clueless fanboys that only embarrass the mature users and developers of their chosen desktop.
if I click on any part of the window EXCEPT the task bar, the window doesn't gain focus, whereas in Windows and KDE, the default is to give a window focus no matter where you click, which is much more reasonable.
Um, something is broken for you - giving focus no matter where you click is the default behaviour for Gnome. Without more info, I have no idea what could be wrong, though.
Firewire access was fixed about a month ago with a kernel update. But yes, in general you are right - this is not the distro for people that want something stable and unchanging. It is bleeding edge, and as always, that means you do cut yourself from time to time.
Different legal system, so you need to adapt the license for it.
It's funny (as in sad "funny") that americans seem to think that others dislike them a lot more than people really do. Of course, as some parts of the US have acted out on that misrepresentation the past few years, they are at serious risk of making it self-fulfilling.
More important in this piece is that all of them are growing in absolute terms, and growing quickly. 10-15% growth every six months is nothing to sneeze at. It would be interesting to see these figures for other OS:es.
Spend years at various research facilities, with no dependable income, no steady base to return to and no expectation that it will eventually lead to anything better. Be prepared for bursts of postgraduate work interpunctuated by periods of nonsense work or unemployment. And if you do get to the "something better" stage, that turns out to be all about teaching the basics to not very interested undergraduates, and nothing at all about actually doing any research any more.
By all means, please do pursue a PhD, but do realize that as far as research goes, chances are those graduate student years will be the epitome of research activity for you, not the beginning.
If you want to be a teacher, this system is not too bad. If you rather want to stay a researcher, you are in for some big disappointments.
Those are normal parking lines, but meant for the cars to stand outwards, between them. I suspect that they simply borrowed this space and parallel-parked those other cars for the film sequence.
Well, why does it need to pinpoint the location at all? You need to look at what problem you are trying to solve (mowing the lawn); it's not clear why you need to care about position.
As for links, google really is your friend! THere is no good resource that I know about that really covers the subject from a hobbyist perspective; you will probably need to get used to reading journal papers.
Why not use a constellation of transponders (RFID tags would actually be ideal - cheap and each is unique) and a two antenna setup to locate the robot's position relative to the transponders via interferometry?
Because you would need transponders, antennas, assorted electronics, software, space on the unit for all of the above, as well as time and knowledge to actually make a well-functioning, reliable system out of the pile of stuff. Oh, and you need that reference map measured up as well. Agree on the image processing; note that I do not suggest that as a solution.
All in all, I think it is likely easier to spend thirty seconds adjusting the spring load on a bumper:)
There may be some confusion between natural obstacles and the "markers" you have added to the lawn/grass. Trees drop sticks, kids throw balls, rocks etc. It might be a good idea to try to use markers that are sufficiently different from the environment to remain distinguishable.
I would not. The behaviour should be the same in either case (back off, go another way), so why make things hugely complicated for no gain? The pegs (or whatever) I suggested are not "markers"; they _are_ obstacles, just like sticks and balls. They just happen to be obstacles that have been placed intentionally, to stop the machine from going somewhere it shouldn't.
And, as I said, at least for the first design round, forget all about mapping. As the parent mentions, good mapping is still at the level of PhD projects.
Yep - except now you are adding to the sensor package and to the behaviour logic. Instead of a bumper, you now need a bumper _and_ a sensor for the wire. And of course, you need to power the wire, and if it fails, you have a lawnmower on the run.
I don't think you should see it as a replacement for a car; rather it is an all-weather, electric alternative to a scooter, commuter bike or delivery vehicle. In Sweden, similar small, enclosed gasoline-engine moped-classed vehicles have become popular for just those roles. This could probably be a good higher speed alternative.
I guess that in a way, having USA as their home marked is not a good thing. You would probably see a lot more acceptance for this in Europe.
I think using "Big AI" like that would be the wrong approach, really. It is very difficult to get right and brittle to unexpected change.
Since you are talking about your own lawn only (I assume), you actually have pretty good control over the environment. I would take a page from Rodney Brooks and from toy manufacturers:
First, as other posters have suggested, go for a weed-whacker or other smaller, less dangerous cutting design. Compensate by planning to have it running for long periods of time, like an hour daily, essentially making it a "touch-up" design, relying on manual mowing if you let the grass get away from you.
Second, basically forget about complicated, error-prone sensor packages. Use the minimal amount of sensorics you can get away with, and tailor them specifically for the task at hand. I would use one single front-and-sides bumper, set at exactly the level you want the grass to be cut.
Third, tune the environment. If you have a fence, that will work fine. For flowerbeds, ponds, cobra pits and other garden features that you don't want it to run into, set evenly spaced (rounded!) wooden pegs at the edges, so the bumper has something to run into. If you think pegs will be ugly, be creative: rocks, small fencing, whatever. It needs to be only as high as the bumper - which we alreadey set at the level of the grass.
For control, start out easy. "If we hit something, back up a few centimeters, turn a random amount and go." This can work surprisingly well if the lawn isn't too big. You can even figure out approximately how long you need to run the robot to get reasonable coverage. An added benefit of this Brownian Walk algorithm is that you really need minimal sensors - the bumper is it. You can experiment with some fancier algorithms as well - initiating a turn after some time whether you hit anything or not, for instance, or turning off altogether if you've been going forward for a very long time without hitting anything.
If you want to add some more sensorics, like shaft encoders for the wheels, you can start to play with dead reckoning and do dynaimc map generation and other funs stuff. Even with lousy precision, you can still figure out an approximate average on how much time you've been using to cut a given area, and compensate for it by going (approximately) there for some extra random walking.
As long as you can keep the unit simple, it will tend to be robust, and perhaps inexpensive enough that you can build two or three and cut the time (sorry) by quite a bit.
One important thing: make sure you have a safe, convenient way to turn the thing off. Big red button on top should do it. Have the red top be translucent and add a couple of blinking LEDs inside for that "heavy industry" look that will make you the envy of your neighbours.
And yes, BTW, I am a robot scientist, so I sort of know what I'm talking about:)
Exactly. I would go even further, though. For a large organization, most positions require some level of competence - and competence over and beyond will be wasted to soem extent. A large organization is by necessity fairly bureaucratic and inflexible, and it won't really help all that much if you are doing a better/faster job than your job profile calls for.
So, what a large HR department wants to do is to find the people fulfilling the technical requirements, and then focus on how well the applicant will actually function in the corporate culture and together with the other members of his/her future department. This is much more important than relative technical skill beyond that necessary to do the job.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not true for laptops, however, and that segment is growing very quickly and is almost as large as the desktop market today. It is very difficult (though not impossible) to find a laptop Windows; any Linux user having a name-brand laptop has paid for a copy of Windows as well.
I think they can reasonably add in the work time for burning that CD as well, as that is part of the cost.
As others say, this is right on the ragged edge on what is permissible. But it most likely _is_ permissible, "violating the spirit" or not.
It is.
As you see in my other post here, I managed to mix up "left" and "right". And for my triumphant return engagement, I will not only mix up the names of my siblings, but also forget what day of the week this is!
They may be old, yes. In any case, GST is not currently part of the Gnome desktop (though it is being discussed right now if they are fit for inclusion into 2.8). If they become part, they would need to have that fixed, yes.
I trapped nothing. I confused which side is "left" and which is "right". Yes, I can be that disorganized, and no, don't trust me if I try to give directions...
OK, I will buy a red and a green sock to remind me which is left and which is right. You'd think I'd know it after 35 years... It is the other way around, of course.
Nope, it isn't. Gnome does not use "Cancel" or "OK". If you find a dialogue that uses those, please file a bug report.
What you have is: the safe choice to the left; the unsafe choice to the right; and other, less frequent choices in between.
Are they both putting the same amount of effort in making their desktops user-friendly?
:)
/. - most people dissing one or the other desktop are pretty clueless fanboys that only embarrass the mature users and developers of their chosen desktop.
I would say that Gnome has had it as an explicit focus for a lot longer than KDE, and has been working a lot more on various aspects of usability. One example is the (always ongoing) effort to make the desktop fully accessible to people with disabilities - an effort that pays off for the rest of us as well, in the form of a more consistent desktop and some fun toys (like screen readers) to play with
As to which desktop is actually the better one for you - well, that's up to you, really. Try both for a time, and select the one you are more comfortable with. Or don't choose; alternate between both as the mood strikes you. Either desktop's applications work fine under both, after all, and interoperability between them is steadily improving.
What you absolutely should do is to ignore all the flamewars and sniping on places like
Of course, Gnome does not have "Cancel" and "OK" - if you find a dialogue that does, it is a bug, and should be reported.
if I click on any part of the window EXCEPT the task bar, the window doesn't gain focus, whereas in Windows and KDE, the default is to give a window focus no matter where you click, which is much more reasonable.
Um, something is broken for you - giving focus no matter where you click is the default behaviour for Gnome. Without more info, I have no idea what could be wrong, though.
here:
/ in dex.html
:)
http://www2.nict.go.jp/jt/a134/xkozima/research
I would argue that the Infanoid is cuter
The tissues are actually used for bathroom visits; some public bathrooms do not have toilet paper, though that has apperantly been changing lately.
Firewire access was fixed about a month ago with a kernel update. But yes, in general you are right - this is not the distro for people that want something stable and unchanging. It is bleeding edge, and as always, that means you do cut yourself from time to time.
Different legal system, so you need to adapt the license for it.
It's funny (as in sad "funny") that americans seem to think that others dislike them a lot more than people really do. Of course, as some parts of the US have acted out on that misrepresentation the past few years, they are at serious risk of making it self-fulfilling.
More important in this piece is that all of them are growing in absolute terms, and growing quickly. 10-15% growth every six months is nothing to sneeze at. It would be interesting to see these figures for other OS:es.
Another way to put it:
Spend years at various research facilities, with no dependable income, no steady base to return to and no expectation that it will eventually lead to anything better. Be prepared for bursts of postgraduate work interpunctuated by periods of nonsense work or unemployment. And if you do get to the "something better" stage, that turns out to be all about teaching the basics to not very interested undergraduates, and nothing at all about actually doing any research any more.
By all means, please do pursue a PhD, but do realize that as far as research goes, chances are those graduate student years will be the epitome of research activity for you, not the beginning.
If you want to be a teacher, this system is not too bad. If you rather want to stay a researcher, you are in for some big disappointments.
It's for the tuner, not the screen. So yes, get a large monitor and you'd be fine.
Those are normal parking lines, but meant for the cars to stand outwards, between them. I suspect that they simply borrowed this space and parallel-parked those other cars for the film sequence.
Well, why does it need to pinpoint the location at all? You need to look at what problem you are trying to solve (mowing the lawn); it's not clear why you need to care about position.
As for links, google really is your friend! THere is no good resource that I know about that really covers the subject from a hobbyist perspective; you will probably need to get used to reading journal papers.
Why not use a constellation of transponders (RFID tags would actually be ideal - cheap and each is unique) and a two antenna setup to locate the robot's position relative to the transponders via interferometry?
:)
Because you would need transponders, antennas, assorted electronics, software, space on the unit for all of the above, as well as time and knowledge to actually make a well-functioning, reliable system out of the pile of stuff. Oh, and you need that reference map measured up as well. Agree on the image processing; note that I do not suggest that as a solution.
All in all, I think it is likely easier to spend thirty seconds adjusting the spring load on a bumper
There may be some confusion between natural obstacles and the "markers" you have added to the lawn/grass. Trees drop sticks, kids throw balls, rocks etc. It might be a good idea to try to use markers that are sufficiently different from the environment to remain distinguishable.
I would not. The behaviour should be the same in either case (back off, go another way), so why make things hugely complicated for no gain? The pegs (or whatever) I suggested are not "markers"; they _are_ obstacles, just like sticks and balls. They just happen to be obstacles that have been placed intentionally, to stop the machine from going somewhere it shouldn't.
And, as I said, at least for the first design round, forget all about mapping. As the parent mentions, good mapping is still at the level of PhD projects.
Yep - except now you are adding to the sensor package and to the behaviour logic. Instead of a bumper, you now need a bumper _and_ a sensor for the wire. And of course, you need to power the wire, and if it fails, you have a lawnmower on the run.
I don't think you should see it as a replacement for a car; rather it is an all-weather, electric alternative to a scooter, commuter bike or delivery vehicle. In Sweden, similar small, enclosed gasoline-engine moped-classed vehicles have become popular for just those roles. This could probably be a good higher speed alternative.
I guess that in a way, having USA as their home marked is not a good thing. You would probably see a lot more acceptance for this in Europe.
I think using "Big AI" like that would be the wrong approach, really. It is very difficult to get right and brittle to unexpected change.
:)
Since you are talking about your own lawn only (I assume), you actually have pretty good control over the environment. I would take a page from Rodney Brooks and from toy manufacturers:
First, as other posters have suggested, go for a weed-whacker or other smaller, less dangerous cutting design. Compensate by planning to have it running for long periods of time, like an hour daily, essentially making it a "touch-up" design, relying on manual mowing if you let the grass get away from you.
Second, basically forget about complicated, error-prone sensor packages. Use the minimal amount of sensorics you can get away with, and tailor them specifically for the task at hand. I would use one single front-and-sides bumper, set at exactly the level you want the grass to be cut.
Third, tune the environment. If you have a fence, that will work fine. For flowerbeds, ponds, cobra pits and other garden features that you don't want it to run into, set evenly spaced (rounded!) wooden pegs at the edges, so the bumper has something to run into. If you think pegs will be ugly, be creative: rocks, small fencing, whatever. It needs to be only as high as the bumper - which we alreadey set at the level of the grass.
For control, start out easy. "If we hit something, back up a few centimeters, turn a random amount and go." This can work surprisingly well if the lawn isn't too big. You can even figure out approximately how long you need to run the robot to get reasonable coverage. An added benefit of this Brownian Walk algorithm is that you really need minimal sensors - the bumper is it. You can experiment with some fancier algorithms as well - initiating a turn after some time whether you hit anything or not, for instance, or turning off altogether if you've been going forward for a very long time without hitting anything.
If you want to add some more sensorics, like shaft encoders for the wheels, you can start to play with dead reckoning and do dynaimc map generation and other funs stuff. Even with lousy precision, you can still figure out an approximate average on how much time you've been using to cut a given area, and compensate for it by going (approximately) there for some extra random walking.
As long as you can keep the unit simple, it will tend to be robust, and perhaps inexpensive enough that you can build two or three and cut the time (sorry) by quite a bit.
One important thing: make sure you have a safe, convenient way to turn the thing off. Big red button on top should do it. Have the red top be translucent and add a couple of blinking LEDs inside for that "heavy industry" look that will make you the envy of your neighbours.
And yes, BTW, I am a robot scientist, so I sort of know what I'm talking about
Exactly. I would go even further, though. For a large organization, most positions require some level of competence - and competence over and beyond will be wasted to soem extent. A large organization is by necessity fairly bureaucratic and inflexible, and it won't really help all that much if you are doing a better/faster job than your job profile calls for.
So, what a large HR department wants to do is to find the people fulfilling the technical requirements, and then focus on how well the applicant will actually function in the corporate culture and together with the other members of his/her future department. This is much more important than relative technical skill beyond that necessary to do the job.