Classifying objects for these purposes amounts to asking, "Is it hard?"
The density of the object isn't the only thing that needs to be known. Other characteristics, such as the shape of the object, matter as well. A washer or nut is made of the same material, so it will be as dense as a nail or screw, but driving over a washer will be reasonably safe for the vehicle because it lacks the pointed edge needed to puncture a tire.
Another example is the distribution and interaction of multiple objects. One washer is reasonably safe, but a large enough pile of them will cause the tires to lose traction with the road which, obviously, can be dangerous.
Object classification and avoidance is a very complicated process. The current generation of automated vehicles have not even begun to tackle the problems that we have discussed here. It took years to build vehicles that were capable of large object avoidance and adherence to traffic laws most of the time (see the history here).
Regarding run-flat tires, it's safe to say that by the time we have computers driving the majority of cars on the road, non-run-flat tires won't be on the road.
Agreed, but, again, having run-flat tires is irrelevant.
Ok, let's assume all objects the size of a nail or smaller can be ignored. So worst case, you don't have run-flat tires and hit the nail at 65 MPH, your tire explodes, you swerve into the car next to you, and you start a chain reaction that leads to a massive freeway pile up. Best case, you run over the nail with run-flat tires and punch a hole in one or two of them. You can continue to your current destination, assuming it's fairly close, but you will need to waste time and money repairing the tire(s) before you can use your vehicle again.
Even the best case scenario is not acceptable. All objects, as you said, should be "steered around pending classification." Which is the point that was made in my first post and the AC post above it. A simple object detection system will not work. It needs to be capable of classifying objects as either dangerous or not, which is a problem that is yet to be solved.
Circular polarization differs from linear polarization in that viewers are able to tilt their head and look about the theater naturally with no loss of 3D perception whereas linear polarization requires viewers to keep their head within a certain degree of tilt for effective 3D perception; otherwise they may see double or darkened images.
Same here. This was also my first experience with RealD 3D and I was absolutely amazed by it. I'm also amazed at how many people thought that the 3D added little to nothing to the experience. I mean it wasn't just the little things popping out of the screen (I can see where some might see that as just a gimmick, although I enjoyed that too), it was also how much more lifelike the actors appeared. I felt it gave the impression of being there in the room with them much more than any 2D movie.
I was under the impression that the circular polarization allowed the screen to be viewed from any angle. I saw Avatar at a theater that uses RealD (which uses circular polarization) and tilting my head did not seem to change the image at all. Maybe the theater that you went to uses an older tech based on linear polarization?
How did you get that TV for $1500? The Costco website lists it at $2500, which is more than I would be willing to pay for it. But if there is any way that I could get it for $1500, I just might do it.
The specs on the website say that it comes with one 3D IR Emitter, so maybe I'm looking at a different model (you said yours didn't come with an IR emitter). The one on the website is the 837 Series.
A cost-benefit analysis says you shouldn't do this - the risk is your life, or 100% vs one million dollars. On the other hand, a risk-benefit analysis says you have a 83.33% chance of walking away with one million dollars, which is a pretty good bet (admit it, you'd probably do it.)
You have just described why a cost-benefit analysis is a good idea in this case. If there is any chance that this experiment would destroy the Earth (and I'm not saying that there is), then don't do it. Why bet all life (as far as we know) and its entire history on a physics experiment? I wouldn't place that bet just as I would not agree to play Russian Roulette for any amount of money.
I have a private pilot certificate. There are regulations regarding minimum safe altitude. A good description is here. But throughout my training no one mentioned any laws specifically regarding low flying over others' property. Theoretically, I could fly over someone's land with the wheels just off the ground provided there is no one around, it is possible to make a safe landing at any time (if necessary), weather permits VFR flight, etc. If you know of any laws that say otherwise, I would appreciate a link.
While I can accept that music would be less distracting that office chatter, I simply don't understand the concept that music is better than silence. I can work with music, but if I need to concentrate on something intensely, like a complex coding problem or making decisions based on a large amount of data, I need silence.
I am the same way. In the cube farm at my office there is always someone nearby chatting on the phone, talking to coworkers, opening/closing the loud doors in our office area, or making other odd noises. This is all very distracting. I tried listening to music to drown out the noise, but it wasn't much of an improvement. So what did I do? I stopped going to the office. Almost all of the work that I do can be done via VPN. At home, I have a full office, with a door, all to myself. I find that I get a lot more work done at home than I ever did at the office.
Where did all the EQ people go? They didn't all just magically lose interest.
I did. After spending countless hours playing UO and then EQ, I have completely lost interest in MMOs. I have yet to play any of the MMOs that were released after EQ.
Personally, I like having things stored locally and under my control. I like having Firefox (and all of the web stuff) as an application that runs within my local OS. This allows me to correctly secure it and separate it from everything else.
I can see why some would want everything stored elsewhere. It means less time spent playing the sys admin role. But it definitely isn't for me. I hope Firefox remains as a browser that runs within a local OS.
Better yet, show all of these (and more) the first week, give them the weekend to decide which one they would like to build the most, then take a vote on which project to build in class during the remaining 8 weeks.
Cell phone games won't replace consoles. They're two different genres. Cell phones don't have the necessary hardware to replace a lot of the popular console games. It will be a long time before you see Halo or Call of Duty on a cell phone.
I admit, some of the iPhone games are addicting. I've been playing Kingdoms Live a lot recently. But that is only because my cell phone is always with me. It's just something to do during any down time while I'm away from the consoles.
How does this account for the number of people in each group who were actually exposed to HIV? I admit I'm pretty bad with statistics, but after reading the article and some of the statistics discussions here, I still don't understand how the study accounts for this. Could it be that more people in the placebo group were exposed to the virus than in the vaccine group and, if so, wouldn't this account for the larger number of people who became infected in the placebo group?
All of a sudden, they'll be expected to shut up, sit still, and listen for hours to a boring instructor with his whiteboard and PowerPoint slides.
It is possible to get through a university program without dealing with that. In the 4 years that I spent getting a BS in CS, I only had one professor (Physics) who took attendance. I rarely attended lectures for the other classes. Most professors posted lecture slides online, so I would read them at my own pace. If I didn't understand part of a homework assignment, I would look it up in the textbook.
That's a tough one. If you're investing in the research of 100 different ideas and only 1 becomes marketable, part of me says that you should only make money on the 1 idea -- like investing in 100 different stocks and having only 1 turn a profit, bad investment decisions lead to financial loss. Although another part of me says that this attitude can discourage investment in research that does not have obvious potential to become marketable.
All-in-all I think you're right, it is a balancing act between stifling innovation by compensating research investments either not enough or too much.
The current patent system leans (heavily, in my opinion) toward overcompensating. For example, pharmaceutical companies make much, much more money off of the few drugs that they patent than the amount of money that they allocate to all R&D (not just R&D for the patented drug). In 1999, Eli Lilly made $10B. Only 17.8% went to R&D -- 27% went toward profits.
Tying patents only to research costs leans the other direction as shown in your example. Perhaps other incentives would need to be added that would allow investors to recover money spent on research that did not lead to something marketable. Although I don't know where the money to pay those incentives would come from or how to limit the financial abuse of such a system.
Exactly. Patents allow those who invest in research to recover their costs. What I want to know is: why is this simple idea, the purpose for the existence of patents, not part of the patent system? Why do patents come with an arbitrary time limit? Wouldn't it make more sense to have patents expire after the research costs have been recovered? Sure it would be more difficult to track the costs/earnings per patent, but the reduction in patent system abuse that this would bring would, in my opinion, make it well worth the effort.
The newspapers are using Google as free advertising for their websites. If they want a higher spot on search results, they can always pay Google for it.
I used to be just about as against pro sports as you are. "I don't want to pay to watch some guy throw/catch a football and get paid millions of dollars to do it despite the fact that it contributes next to nothing to society," I would say. However, a few of my friends are really into football. Occasionally I would watch a game with them or listen to them rattle off stats. They seemed to enjoy it a lot, so eventually I decided to give it a try. I picked a team, memorized the roster and a few stats, started watching their games regularly, bet on some of the games with friends, and got involved with fantasy football. It turned out to be pretty fun -- and cheap. Many of the games are free on local channels. Some are on cable channels which would require a cable subscription, but that is pretty cheap. Or any of the games can be seen at any sports bar that has the NFL Sunday Ticket. I still wouldn't pay the hundreds of dollars that they charge for a decent seat at the stadium though.
And yes, when I have money riding on a game and my team wins, I do say "we won.":P
Given two resumes that are virtually identical, the student with OrCad experience is the one who will be hired
Well that's good. At least you save the ones who have not used OrCad the trouble of spending any amount of time working for such a closed-minded company.
Another cure for traffic jams is to make our highways 20-lanes wide (like in Asimov's novels). I guarantee that a nice, wide, open stretch of macadam won't jam up if you have that many lanes to serve the cars.
I propose 640k lanes. 640k should be enough for anyone.
Between 1985 and 1996 Alaska Airlines progressively increased the period in between jackscrew lubrication as well as end play checks with the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The NTSB found that "Alaska Airlines' end play check interval extension should have been, but was not, supported by adequate technical data to demonstrate that the extension would not present a potential hazard.
A special inspection conducted by the FAA in April 2000 of Alaska Airlines uncovered widespread significant deficiencies that "the FAA should have uncovered earlier."
Slashdot Mirror
Classifying objects for these purposes amounts to asking, "Is it hard?"
The density of the object isn't the only thing that needs to be known. Other characteristics, such as the shape of the object, matter as well. A washer or nut is made of the same material, so it will be as dense as a nail or screw, but driving over a washer will be reasonably safe for the vehicle because it lacks the pointed edge needed to puncture a tire.
Another example is the distribution and interaction of multiple objects. One washer is reasonably safe, but a large enough pile of them will cause the tires to lose traction with the road which, obviously, can be dangerous.
Object classification and avoidance is a very complicated process. The current generation of automated vehicles have not even begun to tackle the problems that we have discussed here. It took years to build vehicles that were capable of large object avoidance and adherence to traffic laws most of the time (see the history here).
Regarding run-flat tires, it's safe to say that by the time we have computers driving the majority of cars on the road, non-run-flat tires won't be on the road.
Agreed, but, again, having run-flat tires is irrelevant.
Ok, let's assume all objects the size of a nail or smaller can be ignored. So worst case, you don't have run-flat tires and hit the nail at 65 MPH, your tire explodes, you swerve into the car next to you, and you start a chain reaction that leads to a massive freeway pile up. Best case, you run over the nail with run-flat tires and punch a hole in one or two of them. You can continue to your current destination, assuming it's fairly close, but you will need to waste time and money repairing the tire(s) before you can use your vehicle again.
Even the best case scenario is not acceptable. All objects, as you said, should be "steered around pending classification." Which is the point that was made in my first post and the AC post above it. A simple object detection system will not work. It needs to be capable of classifying objects as either dangerous or not, which is a problem that is yet to be solved.
No car is going to bother to stop for something that small.
You must have missed the post a few levels up:
Even small objects could easily be detected, like a nail.
Yes, some small objects can be dangerous.
Exactly. With only simple radar, IR, etc., freeways would grind to a halt every time some idiot threw a gum wrapper or cigarette out the window.
Circular polarization is different.
Circular polarization differs from linear polarization in that viewers are able to tilt their head and look about the theater naturally with no loss of 3D perception whereas linear polarization requires viewers to keep their head within a certain degree of tilt for effective 3D perception; otherwise they may see double or darkened images.
Same here. This was also my first experience with RealD 3D and I was absolutely amazed by it. I'm also amazed at how many people thought that the 3D added little to nothing to the experience. I mean it wasn't just the little things popping out of the screen (I can see where some might see that as just a gimmick, although I enjoyed that too), it was also how much more lifelike the actors appeared. I felt it gave the impression of being there in the room with them much more than any 2D movie.
I was under the impression that the circular polarization allowed the screen to be viewed from any angle. I saw Avatar at a theater that uses RealD (which uses circular polarization) and tilting my head did not seem to change the image at all. Maybe the theater that you went to uses an older tech based on linear polarization?
How did you get that TV for $1500? The Costco website lists it at $2500, which is more than I would be willing to pay for it. But if there is any way that I could get it for $1500, I just might do it.
The specs on the website say that it comes with one 3D IR Emitter, so maybe I'm looking at a different model (you said yours didn't come with an IR emitter). The one on the website is the 837 Series.
A cost-benefit analysis says you shouldn't do this - the risk is your life, or 100% vs one million dollars. On the other hand, a risk-benefit analysis says you have a 83.33% chance of walking away with one million dollars, which is a pretty good bet (admit it, you'd probably do it.)
You have just described why a cost-benefit analysis is a good idea in this case. If there is any chance that this experiment would destroy the Earth (and I'm not saying that there is), then don't do it. Why bet all life (as far as we know) and its entire history on a physics experiment? I wouldn't place that bet just as I would not agree to play Russian Roulette for any amount of money.
I have a private pilot certificate. There are regulations regarding minimum safe altitude. A good description is here. But throughout my training no one mentioned any laws specifically regarding low flying over others' property. Theoretically, I could fly over someone's land with the wheels just off the ground provided there is no one around, it is possible to make a safe landing at any time (if necessary), weather permits VFR flight, etc. If you know of any laws that say otherwise, I would appreciate a link.
While I can accept that music would be less distracting that office chatter, I simply don't understand the concept that music is better than silence. I can work with music, but if I need to concentrate on something intensely, like a complex coding problem or making decisions based on a large amount of data, I need silence.
I am the same way. In the cube farm at my office there is always someone nearby chatting on the phone, talking to coworkers, opening/closing the loud doors in our office area, or making other odd noises. This is all very distracting. I tried listening to music to drown out the noise, but it wasn't much of an improvement. So what did I do? I stopped going to the office. Almost all of the work that I do can be done via VPN. At home, I have a full office, with a door, all to myself. I find that I get a lot more work done at home than I ever did at the office.
Where did all the EQ people go? They didn't all just magically lose interest.
I did. After spending countless hours playing UO and then EQ, I have completely lost interest in MMOs. I have yet to play any of the MMOs that were released after EQ.
Personally, I like having things stored locally and under my control. I like having Firefox (and all of the web stuff) as an application that runs within my local OS. This allows me to correctly secure it and separate it from everything else.
I can see why some would want everything stored elsewhere. It means less time spent playing the sys admin role. But it definitely isn't for me. I hope Firefox remains as a browser that runs within a local OS.
Better yet, show all of these (and more) the first week, give them the weekend to decide which one they would like to build the most, then take a vote on which project to build in class during the remaining 8 weeks.
Cell phone games won't replace consoles. They're two different genres. Cell phones don't have the necessary hardware to replace a lot of the popular console games. It will be a long time before you see Halo or Call of Duty on a cell phone.
I admit, some of the iPhone games are addicting. I've been playing Kingdoms Live a lot recently. But that is only because my cell phone is always with me. It's just something to do during any down time while I'm away from the consoles.
How does this account for the number of people in each group who were actually exposed to HIV? I admit I'm pretty bad with statistics, but after reading the article and some of the statistics discussions here, I still don't understand how the study accounts for this. Could it be that more people in the placebo group were exposed to the virus than in the vaccine group and, if so, wouldn't this account for the larger number of people who became infected in the placebo group?
...because Microsoft is DOING NOTHING WRONG.
I wouldn't say they're doing nothing wrong. ;)
All of a sudden, they'll be expected to shut up, sit still, and listen for hours to a boring instructor with his whiteboard and PowerPoint slides.
It is possible to get through a university program without dealing with that. In the 4 years that I spent getting a BS in CS, I only had one professor (Physics) who took attendance. I rarely attended lectures for the other classes. Most professors posted lecture slides online, so I would read them at my own pace. If I didn't understand part of a homework assignment, I would look it up in the textbook.
That's a tough one. If you're investing in the research of 100 different ideas and only 1 becomes marketable, part of me says that you should only make money on the 1 idea -- like investing in 100 different stocks and having only 1 turn a profit, bad investment decisions lead to financial loss. Although another part of me says that this attitude can discourage investment in research that does not have obvious potential to become marketable.
All-in-all I think you're right, it is a balancing act between stifling innovation by compensating research investments either not enough or too much.
The current patent system leans (heavily, in my opinion) toward overcompensating. For example, pharmaceutical companies make much, much more money off of the few drugs that they patent than the amount of money that they allocate to all R&D (not just R&D for the patented drug). In 1999, Eli Lilly made $10B. Only 17.8% went to R&D -- 27% went toward profits.
Tying patents only to research costs leans the other direction as shown in your example. Perhaps other incentives would need to be added that would allow investors to recover money spent on research that did not lead to something marketable. Although I don't know where the money to pay those incentives would come from or how to limit the financial abuse of such a system.
Exactly. Patents allow those who invest in research to recover their costs. What I want to know is: why is this simple idea, the purpose for the existence of patents, not part of the patent system? Why do patents come with an arbitrary time limit? Wouldn't it make more sense to have patents expire after the research costs have been recovered? Sure it would be more difficult to track the costs/earnings per patent, but the reduction in patent system abuse that this would bring would, in my opinion, make it well worth the effort.
The newspapers are using Google as free advertising for their websites. If they want a higher spot on search results, they can always pay Google for it.
I used to be just about as against pro sports as you are. "I don't want to pay to watch some guy throw/catch a football and get paid millions of dollars to do it despite the fact that it contributes next to nothing to society," I would say. However, a few of my friends are really into football. Occasionally I would watch a game with them or listen to them rattle off stats. They seemed to enjoy it a lot, so eventually I decided to give it a try. I picked a team, memorized the roster and a few stats, started watching their games regularly, bet on some of the games with friends, and got involved with fantasy football. It turned out to be pretty fun -- and cheap. Many of the games are free on local channels. Some are on cable channels which would require a cable subscription, but that is pretty cheap. Or any of the games can be seen at any sports bar that has the NFL Sunday Ticket. I still wouldn't pay the hundreds of dollars that they charge for a decent seat at the stadium though.
And yes, when I have money riding on a game and my team wins, I do say "we won." :P
Given two resumes that are virtually identical, the student with OrCad experience is the one who will be hired
Well that's good. At least you save the ones who have not used OrCad the trouble of spending any amount of time working for such a closed-minded company.
Another cure for traffic jams is to make our highways 20-lanes wide (like in Asimov's novels). I guarantee that a nice, wide, open stretch of macadam won't jam up if you have that many lanes to serve the cars.
I propose 640k lanes. 640k should be enough for anyone.
Despite this, it happens. And the FAA doesn't always catch it. See Alaska Airlines Flight 261.
Between 1985 and 1996 Alaska Airlines progressively increased the period in between jackscrew lubrication as well as end play checks with the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The NTSB found that "Alaska Airlines' end play check interval extension should have been, but was not, supported by adequate technical data to demonstrate that the extension would not present a potential hazard.
A special inspection conducted by the FAA in April 2000 of Alaska Airlines uncovered widespread significant deficiencies that "the FAA should have uncovered earlier."