They have been admitted to the school of practical experience with a great idea, but less practical experience than you would prefer. We have two choices:
1) Tell them "You suck", throw them out on their asses, and consign their idea to the scrap heap
-or-
2) Start to teach them the skill sets they need, and try to realize some of the promise of their idea.
Choose wisely.
They have been admitted to the school of practical experience with a great idea, but less practical experience than you would prefer. We have two choices:
1) Tell them "You suck", and throw them out on their asses.
-or-
2) Teach them the skill sets they need.
Choose wisely.
Don't conflate the "Right to Movement" (Which I totally support) with the "Right to Operate a Vehicle" (which is imaginary). You ARE free to travel by car, or horse, or bike, or foot in almost any circumstance, but in cases where operation of a vehicle in public spaces presents a hazard to others and can result in tremendous amounts of damage, the government sets rules about safe operation. People who have demonstrated that they are knowledgeable about those rules, and have agreed to follow them, can be given operator privileges. Is there anything unreasonable about that?
I have not heard of any instances where an otherwise law-abiding citizen was forbidden from traveling in a car. (Planes are apparently different, something which I think IS worth complaining about.) The only exception to this that I am aware of are cases where criminals (or people awaiting trial) were forbidden from leaving a particular area. This seems reasonable.
I bet you'd be equally unhappy if thousands of police officers were hired to replace the cameras, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that what you really care about is being able to break the law and not get caught. If that's not subverting the system, I don't know what is.
I think the current system is reasonable, and I have little sympathy. As I have said earlier in the thread, you agreed to play by the rules when you applied for that drivers license. If you can't handle the consequences, hand that card back in and find someone else to drive you around (safely, we all hope).
I agree that cameras should be used fairly (I get pretty angry when a local authority fiddles with yellow light times to bring in some more cash). But I don't have any problem with an automated system on a public road that sends a picture of you and your speed to the police when you are breaking the law.
The fact that you do not know why the speed limit is set to a particular number does not mean there isn't a perfectly reasonable explanation.
I suggest that you find a traffic engineer and ask that question. I suspect that this is what they will say: There are a set of guidelines for traffic based on the area that the road passes through (i.e. 25 mph on undivided 2 lane roads in urban residential areas). However, these are note set in stone, and can be modified as is seen appropriate. For example: if there frequent car wrecks at a certain curve, you can bet that the speed limit will trend downward.
A couple of points:
1) Speed limits are almost always posted (or you can apply guidelines like the one I listed earlier. I was required to learn them for my drivers license exam). If you don't want a ticket, pay attention and obey the speed limit.
2) As a condition of receiving your drivers license, you agreed to play by the rules. If you don't want to play by the rules AND you want to keep the drivers license, expect some consequences. (Grow up!) If you can't figure out the relationship between your speeding tickets and how far over the speed limit you were traveling, you should not be on the road.
3) There are ways to get the speed limit adjusted. I would suggest that you talk to the city council for starters. They will at least be able to refer you to the appropriate group. Being run around by the local government is probably a more productive use of your time than whining about how you should be consulted for the speed limit for every street that you might possibly drive on.
4) Some times people with authority that you do not possess will make decisions that you disagree with, even after you tell them that you disagree. Get used to it.
5 Before you get all righteous about how limits are set, why don't you propose a system for setting the speed limits for arbitrary roads. Don't forget to take the following into account: Pedestrian traffic, odds of a pedestrian dying when hit at the proposed speed limit, the presence of schools, the bank of the road, the consequences of an accident on other traffic, winter weather, the type of pavement, width of the road, regular vehicular traffic, the presence of alternative high speed routes, etc.
I'm sure you're a smart guy, you can whip up something good.
Last I checked, legal permission to drive a car on public roads was a privilege, not a right. Given that you get a drivers license, it seems hard to believe that driving at (insert speed limit here) + 1 mph is suddenly a "Right."
I see this argument a lot. People think that they should be allowed to do anything they want, so long as THEY don't think it will hurt someone else. At best, these people are inconsiderate and need smacked down. (i.e. playing loud music in subway cars.) At worst, they are ignorant, foolish, and/or dangerous. (i.e. 90 mph in a 55 zone, at night.)
The distinction you describe is very fuzzy in practice. For example, an attempt to patent the waterbed in the US was thwarted by the writings of Robert Heinlein. In addition, patents are intentionally written so that they can be interpreted as broadly as possible.
Nah, I'm an Alaskan of Scottish descent. Despite the Yankee commandment to remain as ignorant as possible of other systems of government (and health care, apparently), I picked up a bit on my visits to Great Britain. Not enough, but a little. After this discussion, I'll probably spend some time remedying that.
As to handing in my kilt . . . well . . . let's just say that "things" could get chilly.;-)
I was aware of that, though I'm not well versed on the degree of separation between the two legal systems. I loved the "We English and Welshmen" phrase. For the Scots, it must be like hearing someone say "Us crazy southern people".
Regardless, I approve. It's always nice to see a group of people who value truth over correctness rather than vice versa.
b) It amuses me that you left the Scots out of your idea of "we". I approve.
c) Our system (usually) allows a reasonable person to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, then treat the poor fool appropriately without being sued into oblivion.
d) As to the merits of free speech, we aren't going to stop someone from playing the fool (and deprive ourselves of a potential source of entertainment), like those bible-belters that you mention. I'd sooner boot the circus out of town.
Format, Reinstall. That wipes software. Splurge and buy a new keyboard if you don't trust it. Do a quick look for suspicious looking hardware. That should handle the worst. Ah, and change the locks to the house. No point going to all the trouble is the Ex-Spouse has access to the machine.
My apoligies. I wish I could lay claim to being able to make such a calculation from the YouTube video, but I had drawn my conclusion (perhaps hastily) from a few other things:
Short step length (as you mentioned)
Large flat feet (large support polygon)
Knees that are bent substantially for the entire stride (indicates a high powered, low compliance joint)
Relatively small vertical motion of the torso
Marked gait similarities when compared to Asimo (Place foot 1, move COM over it, move foot 2. The result is that the robot never looks like it is off balance)
It may be that we are using different definitions for the term "Dynamic walking." I use it to mean that the robot takes advantage of the natural dynamics of the system, that is, the gaits are designed to use some of the unactuated "swing" that humans use to walk. I refer to Tad McGeer's work on passive dynamics, and the slew of dynamic walkers that he has inspired (Delft, Cornell, MIT, and others). I do not doubt that you keep careful tabs on the acceleration and velocity of the torso COM, it would be hard to walk otherwise. That simply wasn't part of my definition.
That said, I am very impressed in the work you all have done. I actually have a few questions that I was wondering if you could answer:
What is the cost of transport? How long can you run it on a charge? How compliant are your joints? How autonomous is it? Have you got any papers out on it that I could look up?
I'm a bastard for nit-picking, but that doesn't look like dynamic walking.
To be precise, a robot walks dynamically if its center of gravity extends beyond the boundaries of its support polygon while walking. Take a look at the robot I work on to see dynamic walking. The difference lies in what happens if all the joints suddenly locked up completely while walking. A robot that actually walks dynamically would almost certainly fall over. Asimo and this robot would not. This appears to be the static or quasi-static situation described in the second link.
for whom windows works just fine. All of the software I run works in windows, and as a student, I can get upgrades at a reasonable price.
I recently decided that I have a moral responsability to give Linux a fair shake, So I've been running Ubuntu on the home computer. It's been fun, but is still unintuitive (and will remains so for a while, I suspect). I could see how someone less interested in change would rather pirate than switch.
"Better the devil one knows than the devil that one suspects"
It would be an most unfortunate chess game, where the on-lookers (customers) are the ones who have the most to lose.
-----------
READ CAREFULLY. By reading this post, you agree, on your behalf and that of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. http://www.reasonableagreement.org/
My wife and father are both doctors, so I'm probably biased, But I's say the answer is unambiguiously YES. Drug adds are an attempt to get the patient to sway the doctor from doing what's best for the patient.
I mean, let's think about this for a moment:
Patient: "Have you considered Sucrosa(tm)? Isn't that sopposed to help me?"
MD: "Damn, you are GOOD! Shoot, I went through 4 years of college, 4 more years of med school, and 3 years of residency, but I never quite got the hang of that diagnosis thing. Thanks, you saved my butt today"
MD: "Oh, BTW, a swift kick to the groin wil probably help you out. .."
So, he was asked to write the software for work, he was given a (work) computer to develop the software with, and he was told to do it on the clock. That sounds to me like developing this software was part of his job descripton. If my boss put me in the same situation, I'd say the software was goes to him, no question.
The fact that he did it off the clock hardly seems like his boss' fault.
If I had to pick based on that info, well, he'd need to turn over his code. Regardless you can be sure that neither party will make these mistakes again.
The more technically inclined may be interested in the Eyetap. http://www.eyetap.org/ It's still under development, but would be exactly what you are looking for, as well as having many other applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Ratchet things up a notch. Wear a kilt.
Bloody double-posters!
These idiots can't manage to read the simplest of instructions. I'm going to track down this idiot in meatspace and give him a piece of my mind!
Oh wait . . .
They have been admitted to the school of practical experience with a great idea, but less practical experience than you would prefer. We have two choices: 1) Tell them "You suck", throw them out on their asses, and consign their idea to the scrap heap -or- 2) Start to teach them the skill sets they need, and try to realize some of the promise of their idea. Choose wisely.
They have been admitted to the school of practical experience with a great idea, but less practical experience than you would prefer. We have two choices: 1) Tell them "You suck", and throw them out on their asses. -or- 2) Teach them the skill sets they need. Choose wisely.
That quip about freedom not being free . . . This is what they are talking about. If it's worth having, it's worth making a sacrifice for.
Don't conflate the "Right to Movement" (Which I totally support) with the "Right to Operate a Vehicle" (which is imaginary). You ARE free to travel by car, or horse, or bike, or foot in almost any circumstance, but in cases where operation of a vehicle in public spaces presents a hazard to others and can result in tremendous amounts of damage, the government sets rules about safe operation. People who have demonstrated that they are knowledgeable about those rules, and have agreed to follow them, can be given operator privileges. Is there anything unreasonable about that?
I have not heard of any instances where an otherwise law-abiding citizen was forbidden from traveling in a car. (Planes are apparently different, something which I think IS worth complaining about.) The only exception to this that I am aware of are cases where criminals (or people awaiting trial) were forbidden from leaving a particular area. This seems reasonable.
I bet you'd be equally unhappy if thousands of police officers were hired to replace the cameras, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that what you really care about is being able to break the law and not get caught. If that's not subverting the system, I don't know what is.
I think the current system is reasonable, and I have little sympathy. As I have said earlier in the thread, you agreed to play by the rules when you applied for that drivers license. If you can't handle the consequences, hand that card back in and find someone else to drive you around (safely, we all hope).
I agree that cameras should be used fairly (I get pretty angry when a local authority fiddles with yellow light times to bring in some more cash). But I don't have any problem with an automated system on a public road that sends a picture of you and your speed to the police when you are breaking the law.
The fact that you do not know why the speed limit is set to a particular number does not mean there isn't a perfectly reasonable explanation.
I suggest that you find a traffic engineer and ask that question. I suspect that this is what they will say: There are a set of guidelines for traffic based on the area that the road passes through (i.e. 25 mph on undivided 2 lane roads in urban residential areas). However, these are note set in stone, and can be modified as is seen appropriate. For example: if there frequent car wrecks at a certain curve, you can bet that the speed limit will trend downward.
A couple of points:
1) Speed limits are almost always posted (or you can apply guidelines like the one I listed earlier. I was required to learn them for my drivers license exam). If you don't want a ticket, pay attention and obey the speed limit.
2) As a condition of receiving your drivers license, you agreed to play by the rules. If you don't want to play by the rules AND you want to keep the drivers license, expect some consequences. (Grow up!) If you can't figure out the relationship between your speeding tickets and how far over the speed limit you were traveling, you should not be on the road.
3) There are ways to get the speed limit adjusted. I would suggest that you talk to the city council for starters. They will at least be able to refer you to the appropriate group. Being run around by the local government is probably a more productive use of your time than whining about how you should be consulted for the speed limit for every street that you might possibly drive on.
4) Some times people with authority that you do not possess will make decisions that you disagree with, even after you tell them that you disagree. Get used to it.
5 Before you get all righteous about how limits are set, why don't you propose a system for setting the speed limits for arbitrary roads. Don't forget to take the following into account: Pedestrian traffic, odds of a pedestrian dying when hit at the proposed speed limit, the presence of schools, the bank of the road, the consequences of an accident on other traffic, winter weather, the type of pavement, width of the road, regular vehicular traffic, the presence of alternative high speed routes, etc.
I'm sure you're a smart guy, you can whip up something good.
Last I checked, legal permission to drive a car on public roads was a privilege, not a right. Given that you get a drivers license, it seems hard to believe that driving at (insert speed limit here) + 1 mph is suddenly a "Right." I see this argument a lot. People think that they should be allowed to do anything they want, so long as THEY don't think it will hurt someone else. At best, these people are inconsiderate and need smacked down. (i.e. playing loud music in subway cars.) At worst, they are ignorant, foolish, and/or dangerous. (i.e. 90 mph in a 55 zone, at night.)
The distinction you describe is very fuzzy in practice. For example, an attempt to patent the waterbed in the US was thwarted by the writings of Robert Heinlein. In addition, patents are intentionally written so that they can be interpreted as broadly as possible.
Nah, I'm an Alaskan of Scottish descent. Despite the Yankee commandment to remain as ignorant as possible of other systems of government (and health care, apparently), I picked up a bit on my visits to Great Britain. Not enough, but a little. After this discussion, I'll probably spend some time remedying that.
As to handing in my kilt . . . well . . . let's just say that "things" could get chilly. ;-)
I was aware of that, though I'm not well versed on the degree of separation between the two legal systems. I loved the "We English and Welshmen" phrase. For the Scots, it must be like hearing someone say "Us crazy southern people".
Regardless, I approve. It's always nice to see a group of people who value truth over correctness rather than vice versa.
a) I second Yoshi_mon's comment
b) It amuses me that you left the Scots out of your idea of "we". I approve.
c) Our system (usually) allows a reasonable person to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, then treat the poor fool appropriately without being sued into oblivion.
d) As to the merits of free speech, we aren't going to stop someone from playing the fool (and deprive ourselves of a potential source of entertainment), like those bible-belters that you mention. I'd sooner boot the circus out of town.
Format, Reinstall. That wipes software. Splurge and buy a new keyboard if you don't trust it. Do a quick look for suspicious looking hardware. That should handle the worst. Ah, and change the locks to the house. No point going to all the trouble is the Ex-Spouse has access to the machine.
. . . that they settled. I would have liked to see a ruling that established a precident for dealing with this kind of violation.
Ah well. I'm sure that there were other details that were equally important in determining the outcome.
Cool! A program that shares a drive over a wireless network! And a computer that can map said drive! Revolutionary! Where would we be w/o Apple?
- Short step length (as you mentioned)
- Large flat feet (large support polygon)
- Knees that are bent substantially for the entire stride (indicates a high powered, low compliance joint)
- Relatively small vertical motion of the torso
- Marked gait similarities when compared to Asimo (Place foot 1, move COM over it, move foot 2. The result is that the robot never looks like it is off balance)
It may be that we are using different definitions for the term "Dynamic walking." I use it to mean that the robot takes advantage of the natural dynamics of the system, that is, the gaits are designed to use some of the unactuated "swing" that humans use to walk. I refer to Tad McGeer's work on passive dynamics, and the slew of dynamic walkers that he has inspired (Delft, Cornell, MIT, and others). I do not doubt that you keep careful tabs on the acceleration and velocity of the torso COM, it would be hard to walk otherwise. That simply wasn't part of my definition.That said, I am very impressed in the work you all have done. I actually have a few questions that I was wondering if you could answer:
What is the cost of transport? How long can you run it on a charge? How compliant are your joints? How autonomous is it? Have you got any papers out on it that I could look up?
Thanks for your reply, and again, nice work!
To be precise, a robot walks dynamically if its center of gravity extends beyond the boundaries of its support polygon while walking. Take a look at the robot I work on to see dynamic walking. The difference lies in what happens if all the joints suddenly locked up completely while walking. A robot that actually walks dynamically would almost certainly fall over. Asimo and this robot would not. This appears to be the static or quasi-static situation described in the second link.
for whom windows works just fine. All of the software I run works in windows, and as a student, I can get upgrades at a reasonable price.
I recently decided that I have a moral responsability to give Linux a fair shake, So I've been running Ubuntu on the home computer. It's been fun, but is still unintuitive (and will remains so for a while, I suspect). I could see how someone less interested in change would rather pirate than switch.
"Better the devil one knows than the devil that one suspects"
It would be an most unfortunate chess game, where the on-lookers (customers) are the ones who have the most to lose.
-----------
READ CAREFULLY. By reading this post, you agree, on your behalf and that of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. http://www.reasonableagreement.org/
Try the Nokia 8600 series if it's still around. I think the E70 is the current model.
My wife and father are both doctors, so I'm probably biased, But I's say the answer is unambiguiously YES. Drug adds are an attempt to get the patient to sway the doctor from doing what's best for the patient.
."
I mean, let's think about this for a moment:
Patient: "Have you considered Sucrosa(tm)? Isn't that sopposed to help me?"
MD: "Damn, you are GOOD! Shoot, I went through 4 years of college, 4 more years of med school, and 3 years of residency, but I never quite got the hang of that diagnosis thing. Thanks, you saved my butt today"
MD: "Oh, BTW, a swift kick to the groin wil probably help you out. .
Like I said, I'm a bit biased. . .
seems like a good counter example.
So, he was asked to write the software for work, he was given a (work) computer to develop the software with, and he was told to do it on the clock. That sounds to me like developing this software was part of his job descripton. If my boss put me in the same situation, I'd say the software was goes to him, no question.
The fact that he did it off the clock hardly seems like his boss' fault.
If I had to pick based on that info, well, he'd need to turn over his code. Regardless you can be sure that neither party will make these mistakes again.
The more technically inclined may be interested in the Eyetap. http://www.eyetap.org/ It's still under development, but would be exactly what you are looking for, as well as having many other applications.