Maybe you have shared your modifications with others who can help. Maybe it has already been merged into the standard codebase. Even when it's not possible to reproduce the bug due to logistical contraints, or to determine whose fault it is, the vendor should still listen to the problem and offer guidance on how to isolate the problem.
After that, if you still have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
Prodigies usually attend universities near home, so that they can still live with their family. The quality of the school is secondary, as they can always move on later if they outgrow it. My university won't even let students live on campus below a certain age, and they probably aren't socially ready for it anyway. One of my best friends from undergrad started taking classes at 12 and entered as a freshman at 14. She wasn't allowed to live on campus until sophomore year.
In a way, I'm glad to not be in that category, as its quite difficult for such students. Their intelligence at school is well advanced of their social development, and nobody treats them normally anyway. Our society is set up so that things only line up for regular people.
This is stupid. CmdrTaco has the "Cmdr" prefix, as in Commander. This is not that big a freakin' deal.
Or rather, it wouldn't have been big deal if they didn't let him register the account. However, he got the name, played for months, and then was forced to change it.
I wouldn't have been too unhappy about not getting my preferred gmail address, but I'd be pretty annoyed at this point if someone came along and said I had to change it. If its really as simple as not having specific names, then the "Cmdr" prefix should be auto-blacklisted and you shouldn't be able to register it at all.
I agree that BSD does not need Reiser, but I disagree with the blanket statement that BSD's filesystem is necessarily better. Comparative benchmarking of full implementations has shown that the differences between filesystems is not that large for most workloads, so nobody needs to care as long as the filesystem safeguards its integrity.
2. UFS2 is better in just about every way. The issue of journaling vs. soft-updates has been rehashed a million times over, and soft-updates are simply better.
The link you give is (a) written by the people that wrote soft updates, and (b) compares outdated journaling file systems, which are essentially strawmen. Reiser looks great in the papers on their own website too, but that's not a really an objective comparison either. If you want to put this to rest, you'll need to run a benchmark with more modern journaling file systems (in particular, those with wandering logs).
The one issue journaling had in it's favor was fsck times, and UFS2 with it's "background fsck" has eliminated that problem. A system based on UFS2 will be up-and-running far faster than a ReiserFS journaled system, due to reiserfsck taking much longer to complete.
The point of a journaling file system is that you don't need to run fsck (except in the case of a hard drive failure, of course). Mounting a several-hundred GB Reiser partition takes a few seconds, even if it was not cleanly unmounted. How much faster do you want that to be?
Last I heard from some of the authors, the main drawbacks keeping softupdates from being used elsewhere were that it was more invasive to the VFS than a journaling file system, and had extremely bad memory usage behavior for specifically crafted (but unrealistic) benchmarks. I'd be interested in knowing if there has been some progress on these since 2000. Journaling file systems have come a long way in that time.
I'd say the real problem is often Hans Reiser. He's usually got good ideas, but he tends to quickly get on people's bad side with his argumentative style. What's strange is that this is usually limited to the first 10-20 posts in some big discussion, then he calms down and works more directly and constructively with developers. If you look at the past few Reiser discussions on lkml, they seem to follow this pattern.
Well that's easy: Run a Democrat against him, picked by a primary system only open to Democrats. This will ensure that the one chosen reflects the ideals of die-hard party members, while ensuring incompatibility with other parties' voters, and relegating the all important undecided swing voters as irrelevant.
For bonus points, ask the cantidate to waste time on issues facing America 35 years ago, rather than on focusing on issues affecting us now, where he had the advantage.
Maybe someday we'll have an approval-voting based national primary, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for our bipartisan overlords to come around.
It's only amazing if you don't know algebra, and no, a calculator is not required. Then again, if the point is to encourage people to eventually put down their calculator and instead try understanding why something works, then I'm all for it.
By that definition I don't think a secular government exists. Western democracies are really quite Christian in their laws; Separation of church and state only means separation of leadership structures, not of beliefs. I think all that really matters is that the nations are tolerant.
There was no way to guarantee authenticity of the memo, and originally no attempt was even made.
Of course during this time, Clinton was smoking pot in Russia and draft dodging. According to the news that didn't matter for the '92 and '96 elections, but somehow it mattered for the 2004 election. But then Clinton was a better president than Bush is or Kerry would have been anyway, so what happened during Vietnam is obviously of critical importance.
The electronics industry in California is far larger and more profitable than the movie industry. They are not as good at lobbying yet though. Hurting the CA electronics industry to help the movie industry is not helping your average constituent.
Re:OMNI Magazine story on prototype robots in '81
on
Fast Robot Prototyping
·
· Score: 1
I think he's referring to Rodney Brooks. Along with much of the robotics community, Tilden was heavily influenced by Brooks in the late 80s (see this article). Brooks preached an approach of building and evolving robot designs, starting with simple "insects" first. Tilden has taken the simple-only approach a bit further than anyone else though, and remains pretty controversial in his ideas.
The photo looks like forced perspective. We have no way to gauge the distance of the carcas compared to the hunter and his motorcycle. He isn't standing next to it, which would be the norm for an actual depiction of size, and the focus on the two objects does not seem that good (different distances, perhaps?).
My guess is that he shot a large feral housecat, strung it up in a tree and took a picture with him far behind it, in order to make it look large. That would explain why his bullet made the entire head/neck explode, which I find unlikely for a regular rifle on an 85kg cat.
All you need to do to stop these things is set some traffic cones out.
Comment out a few lines of code and it won't.
Robots have no innate self preservation. If you tell them to drive straight into a wall or off a cliff they will do so. Anything that they stop for is merely what the programmers decide warrants it.
Yes, that makes them pretty dangerous in a war zone. I work with robotics all the time, and I would not get anywhere near a grand challenge entry when they are autonomous.
The majority of deaths in Iraq is no that of U.S. forces, however.
And its not due to US forces killing them either. It's Iraq's "free" army blowing up its own civilians. How will a robotic convoy make that worse again?
True, but that is because of the availability of AK47s and the ammo for them, not because nasty terrorist hands are burned by the righteous grips of the M-16. In the very worst case ammo makes a handy ingredient in jury rigged bombs.
Well actually they are pretty much useless. Few people know how to maintain an M-16 in battlefield conditions, so most of them would foul quickly. Go look at Vietnam to see that happening to US troops when they were first introduced. The AK-47 is heavier, less accurate, and with less range. However, you can bury it in the dirt for a year and it will fire just fine when you dig it up. In other words, its easy to maintain in the field (with minimal training), and generally does not require much maintenance. That is extremely important for guerilla armies.
Also, modern propellent doesn't burn that fast, making it not particularly useful for an effective bomb. The last propellent that was good for making bombs was the blackpowder used in muskets.
Yes, those terrorists are so damn stupid they don't realize the value of water, food, and medical supplies.
You seem to know very little about asymmetric warfare. Their strategy is to kill enough Americans to make Americans decide its not worth it (see Vietnam). They don't have enough people to do what traditional armies would do, so cutting off supply lines is nearly impossible (the trained fighters are probably outnumbered by quite a lot). So simply attacking a convoy is only worth it insofar as you can kill some enemies. Attacking a robotic convoy is a drop in the bucket as far as supplies, and doesn't kill Americans, so it won't make us want to leave. So a combatant would be risking their life for little gain, and they've proven smarter than that. Sorry for the dry analysis, but that's pretty much how it works.
It's a little known fact that none of our existing supply vehicles have locks or radios on them. Because if they did, they'd be invulnerable to those damn stupid terrorists. And if only we stopped filling our all our supply transports with people, and only had a couple drivers in each truck, they wouldn't attack any more, because they only care about causalties.
A driverless vehicle means nobody dies in the initial attack, so you can retaliate without worrying about protecting your own people, or recovering injuries/casualties. Hell, you could make the whole truck remotely destroyable by fire if you want. Calm down a bit and think about it.
What exactly is your point anyway? Would you like to drive a supply truck, or would you rather a robot did it? I know what I would choose if I was a soldier. If it gets stuck, we would have the option for remote control. We could also turn down the obstacle avoidance, then people damn well better get out of the way (we probably wouldn't though, as it'd generate a lot of bad press if you run over some civilians).
Way to go mister military mastermind. It sure is a good thing terrorists are too stupid to read English or use the Internet, otherwise they might read your post and realize all the mistakes they're making. Here's a quick hint: action movies and the crap shows on Fox and SpikeTV are not neccesarily accurate depictions of warfare.
Says the person who doesn't know the difference between an M-16 and an AK-47, smokeless powder and high explosive, and who thinks they are smarter at military thinking than the collective minds of the DoD.
Suica also means watermelon in Japanese, which even the Japanese find funny: "Now you can pay for trains and meals with your watermelon." I don't recall it being shown in allcaps much either, so they aren't pretending very hard that its an acronym. So maybe your first point is even more correct than you realized. Another example is the humanoid robot ASIMO, which in Japanese is very close to ashimoto which means "step, gait", but in the US they claim its the unlikely acronym "Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility."
How often have you heard of oxygen masks deploying accidentally? Also, as other posters said, you could always start with a warning and allow a pilot to override it if they are conscious.
It's like wondering where our self-driving cars are because hey, we already have cruise control, right?
Ask the lawyers. Technology to handle driving on highways has been around for years. After the grand challenge is won by someone, there's really no reason most of the automatic driving problem can't be solved. Well, except for the lawyers, and they aren't going anywhere.
Same goes for an emergency altitude change in an autopilot. All you'd have to certify is that it wouldn't trigger accidentally. In the remainder of cases, no matter how badly coded, it'd be much more likely to save lives, since the alternative is already certain death. The problem lies in the following: If the emergency system didn't work, the airplane designers would be sued, while if the autopilot flies straight until it runs out of fuel, the airplane designers can simply say it "did exactly what it was supposed to do." In other words, we've created a culture of conservatism and covering our asses, at the expense of actual technical progress and "doing the right thing".
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you have shared your modifications with others who can help. Maybe it has already been merged into the standard codebase. Even when it's not possible to reproduce the bug due to logistical contraints, or to determine whose fault it is, the vendor should still listen to the problem and offer guidance on how to isolate the problem.
After that, if you still have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
and a middling Korean university
Prodigies usually attend universities near home, so that they can still live with their family. The quality of the school is secondary, as they can always move on later if they outgrow it. My university won't even let students live on campus below a certain age, and they probably aren't socially ready for it anyway. One of my best friends from undergrad started taking classes at 12 and entered as a freshman at 14. She wasn't allowed to live on campus until sophomore year.
In a way, I'm glad to not be in that category, as its quite difficult for such students. Their intelligence at school is well advanced of their social development, and nobody treats them normally anyway. Our society is set up so that things only line up for regular people.
Don't forget to compile with:
make -j 65536
This is stupid. CmdrTaco has the "Cmdr" prefix, as in Commander. This is not that big a freakin' deal.
Or rather, it wouldn't have been big deal if they didn't let him register the account. However, he got the name, played for months, and then was forced to change it.
I wouldn't have been too unhappy about not getting my preferred gmail address, but I'd be pretty annoyed at this point if someone came along and said I had to change it. If its really as simple as not having specific names, then the "Cmdr" prefix should be auto-blacklisted and you shouldn't be able to register it at all.
I agree that BSD does not need Reiser, but I disagree with the blanket statement that BSD's filesystem is necessarily better. Comparative benchmarking of full implementations has shown that the differences between filesystems is not that large for most workloads, so nobody needs to care as long as the filesystem safeguards its integrity.
2. UFS2 is better in just about every way. The issue of journaling vs. soft-updates has been rehashed a million times over, and soft-updates are simply better.
The link you give is (a) written by the people that wrote soft updates, and (b) compares outdated journaling file systems, which are essentially strawmen. Reiser looks great in the papers on their own website too, but that's not a really an objective comparison either. If you want to put this to rest, you'll need to run a benchmark with more modern journaling file systems (in particular, those with wandering logs).
The one issue journaling had in it's favor was fsck times, and UFS2 with it's "background fsck" has eliminated that problem. A system based on UFS2 will be up-and-running far faster than a ReiserFS journaled system, due to reiserfsck taking much longer to complete.
The point of a journaling file system is that you don't need to run fsck (except in the case of a hard drive failure, of course). Mounting a several-hundred GB Reiser partition takes a few seconds, even if it was not cleanly unmounted. How much faster do you want that to be?
Last I heard from some of the authors, the main drawbacks keeping softupdates from being used elsewhere were that it was more invasive to the VFS than a journaling file system, and had extremely bad memory usage behavior for specifically crafted (but unrealistic) benchmarks. I'd be interested in knowing if there has been some progress on these since 2000. Journaling file systems have come a long way in that time.
The problem with Reiser is that it is Reiser,
I'd say the real problem is often Hans Reiser. He's usually got good ideas, but he tends to quickly get on people's bad side with his argumentative style. What's strange is that this is usually limited to the first 10-20 posts in some big discussion, then he calms down and works more directly and constructively with developers. If you look at the past few Reiser discussions on lkml, they seem to follow this pattern.
Well that's easy: Run a Democrat against him, picked by a primary system only open to Democrats. This will ensure that the one chosen reflects the ideals of die-hard party members, while ensuring incompatibility with other parties' voters, and relegating the all important undecided swing voters as irrelevant.
For bonus points, ask the cantidate to waste time on issues facing America 35 years ago, rather than on focusing on issues affecting us now, where he had the advantage.
Maybe someday we'll have an approval-voting based national primary, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for our bipartisan overlords to come around.
a = first 3 digits
b = last 4 digits
((a*80+1)*250 + b+b -250)/2
(a*20000 + 250 + b*2 - 250)/2
a*10000 + 125 + b - 125
a*10000 + b
It's only amazing if you don't know algebra, and no, a calculator is not required. Then again, if the point is to encourage people to eventually put down their calculator and instead try understanding why something works, then I'm all for it.
By that definition I don't think a secular government exists. Western democracies are really quite Christian in their laws; Separation of church and state only means separation of leadership structures, not of beliefs. I think all that really matters is that the nations are tolerant.
There was no way to guarantee authenticity of the memo, and originally no attempt was even made.
Of course during this time, Clinton was smoking pot in Russia and draft dodging. According to the news that didn't matter for the '92 and '96 elections, but somehow it mattered for the 2004 election. But then Clinton was a better president than Bush is or Kerry would have been anyway, so what happened during Vietnam is obviously of critical importance.
Care to name any web news outlet that does that? CNN doesn't AFAICT.
The electronics industry in California is far larger and more profitable than the movie industry. They are not as good at lobbying yet though. Hurting the CA electronics industry to help the movie industry is not helping your average constituent.
I think he's referring to Rodney Brooks. Along with much of the robotics community, Tilden was heavily influenced by Brooks in the late 80s (see this article). Brooks preached an approach of building and evolving robot designs, starting with simple "insects" first. Tilden has taken the simple-only approach a bit further than anyone else though, and remains pretty controversial in his ideas.
The photo looks like forced perspective. We have no way to gauge the distance of the carcas compared to the hunter and his motorcycle. He isn't standing next to it, which would be the norm for an actual depiction of size, and the focus on the two objects does not seem that good (different distances, perhaps?).
My guess is that he shot a large feral housecat, strung it up in a tree and took a picture with him far behind it, in order to make it look large. That would explain why his bullet made the entire head/neck explode, which I find unlikely for a regular rifle on an 85kg cat.
...not useless trophies but the thrill of having created something of potential practical use.
:P
I'm sure the 2 million dollar prize doesn't have anything to do with it
All you need to do to stop these things is set some traffic cones out.
Comment out a few lines of code and it won't.
Robots have no innate self preservation. If you tell them to drive straight into a wall or off a cliff they will do so. Anything that they stop for is merely what the programmers decide warrants it.
Yes, that makes them pretty dangerous in a war zone. I work with robotics all the time, and I would not get anywhere near a grand challenge entry when they are autonomous.
The majority of deaths in Iraq is no that of U.S. forces, however.
And its not due to US forces killing them either. It's Iraq's "free" army blowing up its own civilians. How will a robotic convoy make that worse again?
You're forgetting the locals thinking: "What if this vehicle doesn't stop when I get in front of it, and how might that impact me?"
I sure as hell wouldn't get near this vehicle if I knew there was no intelligent human driver in it.
That's true. In fact there are already training manuals available on the Internet.
True, but that is because of the availability of AK47s and the ammo for them, not because nasty terrorist hands are burned by the righteous grips of the M-16. In the very worst case ammo makes a handy ingredient in jury rigged bombs.
Well actually they are pretty much useless. Few people know how to maintain an M-16 in battlefield conditions, so most of them would foul quickly. Go look at Vietnam to see that happening to US troops when they were first introduced. The AK-47 is heavier, less accurate, and with less range. However, you can bury it in the dirt for a year and it will fire just fine when you dig it up. In other words, its easy to maintain in the field (with minimal training), and generally does not require much maintenance. That is extremely important for guerilla armies.
Also, modern propellent doesn't burn that fast, making it not particularly useful for an effective bomb. The last propellent that was good for making bombs was the blackpowder used in muskets.
Yes, those terrorists are so damn stupid they don't realize the value of water, food, and medical supplies.
You seem to know very little about asymmetric warfare. Their strategy is to kill enough Americans to make Americans decide its not worth it (see Vietnam). They don't have enough people to do what traditional armies would do, so cutting off supply lines is nearly impossible (the trained fighters are probably outnumbered by quite a lot). So simply attacking a convoy is only worth it insofar as you can kill some enemies. Attacking a robotic convoy is a drop in the bucket as far as supplies, and doesn't kill Americans, so it won't make us want to leave. So a combatant would be risking their life for little gain, and they've proven smarter than that. Sorry for the dry analysis, but that's pretty much how it works.
It's a little known fact that none of our existing supply vehicles have locks or radios on them. Because if they did, they'd be invulnerable to those damn stupid terrorists. And if only we stopped filling our all our supply transports with people, and only had a couple drivers in each truck, they wouldn't attack any more, because they only care about causalties.
A driverless vehicle means nobody dies in the initial attack, so you can retaliate without worrying about protecting your own people, or recovering injuries/casualties. Hell, you could make the whole truck remotely destroyable by fire if you want. Calm down a bit and think about it.
What exactly is your point anyway? Would you like to drive a supply truck, or would you rather a robot did it? I know what I would choose if I was a soldier. If it gets stuck, we would have the option for remote control. We could also turn down the obstacle avoidance, then people damn well better get out of the way (we probably wouldn't though, as it'd generate a lot of bad press if you run over some civilians).
Way to go mister military mastermind. It sure is a good thing terrorists are too stupid to read English or use the Internet, otherwise they might read your post and realize all the mistakes they're making. Here's a quick hint: action movies and the crap shows on Fox and SpikeTV are not neccesarily accurate depictions of warfare.
Says the person who doesn't know the difference between an M-16 and an AK-47, smokeless powder and high explosive, and who thinks they are smarter at military thinking than the collective minds of the DoD.
...improve on the Internet?
Suica also means watermelon in Japanese, which even the Japanese find funny: "Now you can pay for trains and meals with your watermelon." I don't recall it being shown in allcaps much either, so they aren't pretending very hard that its an acronym. So maybe your first point is even more correct than you realized. Another example is the humanoid robot ASIMO, which in Japanese is very close to ashimoto which means "step, gait", but in the US they claim its the unlikely acronym "Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility."
How often have you heard of oxygen masks deploying accidentally? Also, as other posters said, you could always start with a warning and allow a pilot to override it if they are conscious.
That's pretty cool. What kind of airplane?
It's like wondering where our self-driving cars are because hey, we already have cruise control, right?
Ask the lawyers. Technology to handle driving on highways has been around for years. After the grand challenge is won by someone, there's really no reason most of the automatic driving problem can't be solved. Well, except for the lawyers, and they aren't going anywhere.
Same goes for an emergency altitude change in an autopilot. All you'd have to certify is that it wouldn't trigger accidentally. In the remainder of cases, no matter how badly coded, it'd be much more likely to save lives, since the alternative is already certain death. The problem lies in the following: If the emergency system didn't work, the airplane designers would be sued, while if the autopilot flies straight until it runs out of fuel, the airplane designers can simply say it "did exactly what it was supposed to do." In other words, we've created a culture of conservatism and covering our asses, at the expense of actual technical progress and "doing the right thing".