What? Is this supposed to resemble a logical argument? We have already "created" smarter humans by passing knowledge down through the generations, allowing us to reach further and further (shoulders of geniuses, and all that). And why on earth wouldn't a human be able to create something smarter than him/herself? We have created things that are faster and stronger. We have created machines that can perform certain calculations many orders of magnitude faster than us. Why is "intelligence" such a sacred trait?
Personally, this attitude drives me nuts. Sure, the kids with a real natural love for it will pick it up no matter what interface you put in front of them. But you will hook MORE if you provide them something entertaining to get them interested. There are two major bars to clear: one to initially get interested in the profession and the second is to become a professional. I want the first bar low and the second bar high. There is plenty of time in the middle to filter out those people who lack the necessary skills. Trying to filter them up front is going to filter out some potentially good developers.
OK, i have contacted my friend ho WORKS for Social Security. This is bogus. Each office is given a block of numbers, and all numbers in that area come from that office. They have yet to recycle any numbers for deceased individuals, and living individuals aren't assigned random numbers. Once a number is taken it is out of the pool. Mistakes CAN happen, but it would be an error of the Social Security office and they would correct it (this has happened at my friends office, but only once in 5 years).
The most common problem is that someone else is USING your number (or you their's) due to a mistake by you or them.
That is from the mouth of someone who actually assigns these numbers.
Umm, no. It knows the distance between the two points on the sensor bar. Their location relative to each other is used to calculate distance. If you do anything to provide 2 IR sources that are farther apart, it will behave like you are closer to the screen.
I know one of the people who does this, and as soon as you start moving any volume (10 PCs/year +), you aren't paying retail for windows. Or at least he doesn't.
I don't know the stats, but hopefully it is helping apprehend the murderers. Cameras aren't magic bullets (no pun intended), just another piece to a larger puzzle. It is like saying, "Police don't stop all murders, so why do we have them". It isn't all or nothing.
Thanks for the article. I'm surprised this wasn't in the original article, considering how relevant it is.
Now, does anyone know exactly what this actually translates into for end users? I want to know what features I will actually lose when my company applies this.
I'm no expert, but I thought part of his idea was to make the AI capable of doing most of the flying, to deal with the instability you are talking about. The claim is that with an engine failure, the vehicle would still be able to land due to redundant engines (8 instead of 4). I've actually heard a speach by Dr. Moller, and the other claim was that in the long run, AI would have to do 95% of the flying to keep the skyways safe. For example, it would force an altitude change if you made a direction change, to keep you flowing with the traffic. I agree with his logic on this part.
I know nothing about the physics of flight, so I won't even try to respond to your other comments.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Is this supposed to resemble a logical argument? We have already "created" smarter humans by passing knowledge down through the generations, allowing us to reach further and further (shoulders of geniuses, and all that). And why on earth wouldn't a human be able to create something smarter than him/herself? We have created things that are faster and stronger. We have created machines that can perform certain calculations many orders of magnitude faster than us. Why is "intelligence" such a sacred trait?
Personally, this attitude drives me nuts. Sure, the kids with a real natural love for it will pick it up no matter what interface you put in front of them. But you will hook MORE if you provide them something entertaining to get them interested. There are two major bars to clear: one to initially get interested in the profession and the second is to become a professional. I want the first bar low and the second bar high. There is plenty of time in the middle to filter out those people who lack the necessary skills. Trying to filter them up front is going to filter out some potentially good developers.
I should add that these blocks of numbers are not permanent. A small block is assigned, it is used up, and they are assigned another block.
OK, i have contacted my friend ho WORKS for Social Security. This is bogus. Each office is given a block of numbers, and all numbers in that area come from that office. They have yet to recycle any numbers for deceased individuals, and living individuals aren't assigned random numbers. Once a number is taken it is out of the pool. Mistakes CAN happen, but it would be an error of the Social Security office and they would correct it (this has happened at my friends office, but only once in 5 years). The most common problem is that someone else is USING your number (or you their's) due to a mistake by you or them. That is from the mouth of someone who actually assigns these numbers.
Umm, no. It knows the distance between the two points on the sensor bar. Their location relative to each other is used to calculate distance. If you do anything to provide 2 IR sources that are farther apart, it will behave like you are closer to the screen.
It was a fun night, indeed. Smashing computers with a sledge hammer should become an annual tradition. It really helps relieve the geek stress.
I know one of the people who does this, and as soon as you start moving any volume (10 PCs/year +), you aren't paying retail for windows. Or at least he doesn't.
I don't know the stats, but hopefully it is helping apprehend the murderers. Cameras aren't magic bullets (no pun intended), just another piece to a larger puzzle. It is like saying, "Police don't stop all murders, so why do we have them". It isn't all or nothing.
Thanks for the article. I'm surprised this wasn't in the original article, considering how relevant it is.
Now, does anyone know exactly what this actually translates into for end users? I want to know what features I will actually lose when my company applies this.
I'm no expert, but I thought part of his idea was to make the AI capable of doing most of the flying, to deal with the instability you are talking about. The claim is that with an engine failure, the vehicle would still be able to land due to redundant engines (8 instead of 4). I've actually heard a speach by Dr. Moller, and the other claim was that in the long run, AI would have to do 95% of the flying to keep the skyways safe. For example, it would force an altitude change if you made a direction change, to keep you flowing with the traffic. I agree with his logic on this part. I know nothing about the physics of flight, so I won't even try to respond to your other comments.