I strongly Concur! A first robotics team. If not, there are a ton of other FIRST teams, from the Jr. Lego League (7 year olds I beleive) way on up. The do Lego leagues, Vex leagues, and the collosal ones for the "First Robotics League".
It doesn't matter if your a high school, or an elementary school Brownie troupe - there's a league for you!
I've recently been to Sport's Authority, twice, and each time was solicited extended warranty plans for a pair of rollerblades, and (get this), a pair of freaking ski goggles.
Anything for a buck...
Ditto....seriously....I hadn't noticed.
The article is too long to sustain my attention, so I didn't read it, but they aren't using AdBlock Plus, are they?
Last time they did this over the "media player", after months of laywers and stuff, Microsoft finally agreed to come out with a version of the OS which lacked the Media player.
And the verdict?
Nobody wanted it.
If you don't want IE, do what I do. Just don't run it.
open sourcing the product also implies that the patents are void / not enforcable (sic)
Whoa - I dunno about that. Patents and trade-secrets are kind of at opposite ends of the spectrum - you can protect something by hiding it (trade secret) or patenting it, which means fully disclosing it.
Is there specific precedence for OSS-ing something "implicitly" voiding patents?
I work in the Cable TV industry - and there was a bunch of talk at some point with respect to cable company DVRs - and disabling the ability to fast-forward through ads.
The marketing people, at the same time were talking about "on-demand" advertising - where, on a local cable TV system, knowing exactly who was watching a program, that ads could be tailored towards the particular viewer (or household).
When I told them that removing the ability of the DVRs to skip ads was a complete "deal killer" for most people, that they would hate it, and would reject the whole DVR system, the marketing people quickly responded:
"No, but these are targeted ads that are relevant to the buyer".
..as if the marketing people were stupid enough to believe that people would really want to be subjected to the kind of crap the churn out, if it were a just a bit more directed to what they believe their "key demographic" was, or whatever.
In conclusion, marking people are f*cking retarded.
I checked out the "Explaining OpenID" web site referenced in the article, and it didn't make a whole lot of sense.
It did tell me that my OpenID is: www.google.com/o8/id
I undoubtedly will not remember that, nor do I believe it is even accurate.
I then read how I could integrate it into my own web site - and despite doing a ton of web development and XML stuff, had no idea what they were talking about - at either a high or low level.
In conclusion - If they want to get users and developers on board with OpenID - their going to have to do a hell of a better job. Either that, I'm just too stupid to understand their "OpenID for Dummies" web site.
Now I'm of course just an engineer and developer - I'm sure users like my parents, grandparents and kids would understand this stuff much better.
On a serious note...this competition is very cool, and I believe no true Slashdotter would disagree.
I have been taking my kids (now 2,4 and 6) to the Granite State (New Hampshire) Regional since they were born, and they love it!
I told my 4-year old son that the video was going to be released over the weekend, and he hounded me for days about it! After I downloaded it, he watched it 20 times!
If you haven't been to one you probably wouldn't believe it - but it is truly a spectacle - and interesting for the 1-year-olds as it is for the 38-year-olds! (My 1-year old daughter [last year] was literally on the edge of her seat [my lap] fascinated with the game-play!).
As much of a "theatrical" even as it is - you're not just sitting in one place the whole time. You are free to enter and roam the "pits" where the teams work on and test their robots, etc.
I highly recommend all to check out your regional finals, around late February, and early March!
I think the big deciding factor is: "Does the CPU you are going with have an MMU or not?"
I will explain the reasoning:
If you have an MMU, it esentially means you can use any kernel, distro, apps, etc. without really much thought involved. Therefore, you might as well use 2.6 for all the reasons aforementioned.
If you do not have an MMU, it means you more than likely have to/are using uCLinux. uCLinux, is not just a kernel, it is a whole distro. This is largly due to the fact that MMY-less kernels cannot support fork, etc. and all the apps are slightly customized.
My experience (as of a couple years ago) has been that uCLinux is not quite "up to snuff", and is a little flakey - particularly in support of the 2.6 kernel.
This may have changed in the past few years, by my experience was that 2.6 was not as well supported in uCLinux as 2.4, and I wound up going with 2.4 just to avoid various complications.
I never watched the show before Tennant - but I really like him. He has this fabulous quirky quality about him.
I never heard about this whole "regeneration" thing before. I am not exactly an expert on the show - I never watched it before 6 months ago - and have just been watching reruns out-of-order, but am completely hooked.
Anyway - I think it will be hard for someone else to measure up to Tennant!
Touchscreens - here's a technology that's been lingering for what, 20? 30 years?
Just because we can build them, does not mean we should. They never have been in mainstream use, and never will be.
The proof is in the actual usage.
The reasoning is simple. Touchscreen technology may be cool for a second, but having to raise your hands for an extended period of time (touchscreen) is exhastive and prohibitive, vs. lying them flat (keyboard, mouse) is easy to do for prolonged periods of time.
In conclusion, this may be just yet another round of "touchscreen fads".
btw - one possible good use would be multitouch with "surface" computing. But that would be more of a "tablet" or "surface" PC vs. a "laptop" - and that would be a bit more of a shift in overall UI (and hardware).
Getting the launch vehicle to enough speed to "catch up" to the Cycler means that it will have to go as fast as the Cycler. The Cycler will need to be going faster than Mars' escape velocity in order to stay out of Mars' orbit.
So for illustration - say Mars is the same mass (and gravity) as Earth. (I know it's smaller, I just said for illustration).
This means that the craft would have to do the equivalent of what a regular Earth orbiter has to do. That means a tiny bit of fuel and time to get "up" - but a hell of a lot more of both to get going "fast". For example, SpaceShip One got "up" there, but no project like it has gone fast enough to get into orbit - that's like 10x the energy (I think).
What's the smallest/lightest/cheapest vehicle on Earth that can do this today? Probably the Souyuz (with it's associated rocket).
What this means - in conclusion - is to make any return trip possible, you're going to need to put the equivalent of a Souyuz (/rocket) on Mars - with whatever infrastructure is needed to launch it - to get it back - or to get anything back.
I don't know how we're going to do it. I haven't even seen any plans that address this - let alone any plans for an unmanned mission/test of this.
The day we can have a robot return a rock from Mars, we'll know we can do it - but so far, honestly, we don't even have a plan.
People responsible for things like airport security are ultimately bureaucrats. They are not experts, nor do they have the time or attention to get down to brass-tacks. The only thing they can do is throw money at the problem.
This how everything works from Airport Security, to product development and Q/A, to passing Financial Bailout legislation.
People who are in-charge of things often are 'executives' - meaning that they oversee a "big picture". These are usually people who are not experts in specific areas.
People who are experts in specific areas will rarley have 'executive' position (I use the work "executive" literally - meaning high-level overseers).
Example: a brilliant scientist spends his entire life solving equations, coming up with theories, designing and building rockets. He/she is revered in his/her work and excels, and is well know. Does this person will ultimately become a "lab fellow", or a "tenured professor", etc. etc. etc, they will not generally become the head of NASA. These are different positions, and different skillets. The "big-picture" guys are always the "political" ones. Mitt Romney would become the head of NASA before a scientist like I mentioned. And it that scientist were offered the position - their heads would be too into mathematical formulas and rocket designs to ever shift gears and worry about budgets and crap.
So the system is set up such that those at the help are the executives, not the experts.
Executives don't know any better than to react - It's only the experts that really think proactively - because that's what they do. Furthermore, executives (like in the TSA) aren't really hired to "make us safe" - they're hired to "make us feel safe".
I've been saying this for 20 years: "If we were serious about airport security, we'd do what they do in Israel". Their security is incredible, and obviously not the work of a pencil-pushing bureaucrat. They're security was obviously devised and executed by people who were heavily, heavily invested in and dedicated to it - on both professional and very personal levels.
Israeli security would never take the crap that we do and call "security". 9/11 would never have taken place there for more reasons than I could count.
This is why after after Richard Reed tried to ignite an explosive in his left brown leather loafer, the TSA now mandates that everyone remove their left brown leather loafer for inspection.
If the TSA was serious, they'd make Bruce the head.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if your a high school, or an elementary school Brownie troupe - there's a league for you!
Check it out!
First, it is (arguably) the best out there.
Second, it is an extremely powerful, cross-platform transcoder for every format under the sun.
Third, it is an extremely diverse media player (mplayer)
Fouth, it is the bassis for a countless number of media player and transcoding projects.
As someone who manipulates digital video on both a person and professional level, ffmpeg is the #1 tool in my arsenal.
Congrats on 0.5!!!
I've recently been to Sport's Authority, twice, and each time was solicited extended warranty plans for a pair of rollerblades, and (get this), a pair of freaking ski goggles. Anything for a buck...
Maybe if their R&D Budget went more into real products, and less into bullshit patents and lawyers, they'd get a better ROI.
Not offtopic - was the first thing that I thought of too!!
Anyone who mods down is just prejudiced against Jewish clowns.
Ditto....seriously....I hadn't noticed. The article is too long to sustain my attention, so I didn't read it, but they aren't using AdBlock Plus, are they?
They can say whatever they want - in reality, there's always gonna be enough room for Benjamin Franklin...(or enough of them!)
Last time they did this over the "media player", after months of laywers and stuff, Microsoft finally agreed to come out with a version of the OS which lacked the Media player.
And the verdict?
Nobody wanted it.
If you don't want IE, do what I do. Just don't run it.
open sourcing the product also implies that the patents are void / not enforcable (sic)
Whoa - I dunno about that. Patents and trade-secrets are kind of at opposite ends of the spectrum - you can protect something by hiding it (trade secret) or patenting it, which means fully disclosing it.
Is there specific precedence for OSS-ing something "implicitly" voiding patents?
Is this even relevant anymore? Does anyone even care?
However, in these links there was no reference to this at all.
I don't think there is any truth to this.
The marketing people, at the same time were talking about "on-demand" advertising - where, on a local cable TV system, knowing exactly who was watching a program, that ads could be tailored towards the particular viewer (or household).
When I told them that removing the ability of the DVRs to skip ads was a complete "deal killer" for most people, that they would hate it, and would reject the whole DVR system, the marketing people quickly responded:
"No, but these are targeted ads that are relevant to the buyer".
In conclusion, marking people are f*cking retarded.
Hmmmm...
I checked out the "Explaining OpenID" web site referenced in the article, and it didn't make a whole lot of sense.
It did tell me that my OpenID is: www.google.com/o8/id
I undoubtedly will not remember that, nor do I believe it is even accurate.
I then read how I could integrate it into my own web site - and despite doing a ton of web development and XML stuff, had no idea what they were talking about - at either a high or low level.
In conclusion - If they want to get users and developers on board with OpenID - their going to have to do a hell of a better job. Either that, I'm just too stupid to understand their "OpenID for Dummies" web site.
Now I'm of course just an engineer and developer - I'm sure users like my parents, grandparents and kids would understand this stuff much better.
I have been taking my kids (now 2,4 and 6) to the Granite State (New Hampshire) Regional since they were born, and they love it!
I told my 4-year old son that the video was going to be released over the weekend, and he hounded me for days about it! After I downloaded it, he watched it 20 times!
If you haven't been to one you probably wouldn't believe it - but it is truly a spectacle - and interesting for the 1-year-olds as it is for the 38-year-olds! (My 1-year old daughter [last year] was literally on the edge of her seat [my lap] fascinated with the game-play!).
As much of a "theatrical" even as it is - you're not just sitting in one place the whole time. You are free to enter and roam the "pits" where the teams work on and test their robots, etc.
I highly recommend all to check out your regional finals, around late February, and early March!
I will explain the reasoning:
If you have an MMU, it esentially means you can use any kernel, distro, apps, etc. without really much thought involved. Therefore, you might as well use 2.6 for all the reasons aforementioned.
If you do not have an MMU, it means you more than likely have to/are using uCLinux. uCLinux, is not just a kernel, it is a whole distro. This is largly due to the fact that MMY-less kernels cannot support fork, etc. and all the apps are slightly customized.
My experience (as of a couple years ago) has been that uCLinux is not quite "up to snuff", and is a little flakey - particularly in support of the 2.6 kernel.
This may have changed in the past few years, by my experience was that 2.6 was not as well supported in uCLinux as 2.4, and I wound up going with 2.4 just to avoid various complications.
I never heard about this whole "regeneration" thing before. I am not exactly an expert on the show - I never watched it before 6 months ago - and have just been watching reruns out-of-order, but am completely hooked.
Anyway - I think it will be hard for someone else to measure up to Tennant!
Just because we can build them, does not mean we should. They never have been in mainstream use, and never will be.
The proof is in the actual usage.
The reasoning is simple. Touchscreen technology may be cool for a second, but having to raise your hands for an extended period of time (touchscreen) is exhastive and prohibitive, vs. lying them flat (keyboard, mouse) is easy to do for prolonged periods of time.
In conclusion, this may be just yet another round of "touchscreen fads".
btw - one possible good use would be multitouch with "surface" computing. But that would be more of a "tablet" or "surface" PC vs. a "laptop" - and that would be a bit more of a shift in overall UI (and hardware).
(I forgot about diameter vs. Radius though)
So revising my initial estimate - maybe more like 13ft.
If my calculations are correct - that would be like finding out that a random person from somewhere on earth - actually lived 27 feet away from you!
As a parent, techy and gamer - I hope no one is swallowing this load of tripe...
If you want to teach your kids to socialize - have them go out and socialize, or socialize with them!!
This is the kind of study that tells people what they want to hear.
Hey! You parents that are sticking your kids on an XBox for 6 hours a day to shut them up: You're all doing a great job! Keep up the good work!!
And for all you guys who live your lives gaming and never see the light of day - no, you're really the outgoing, social ones!
I'm going to teach my kids to smoke - to help them build up their immunity to pollution...
"CrapStore"
Throw some DRAM-style refreshing in, and it could be viable at even that lifespan.
Getting the launch vehicle to enough speed to "catch up" to the Cycler means that it will have to go as fast as the Cycler. The Cycler will need to be going faster than Mars' escape velocity in order to stay out of Mars' orbit.
So for illustration - say Mars is the same mass (and gravity) as Earth. (I know it's smaller, I just said for illustration).
This means that the craft would have to do the equivalent of what a regular Earth orbiter has to do. That means a tiny bit of fuel and time to get "up" - but a hell of a lot more of both to get going "fast". For example, SpaceShip One got "up" there, but no project like it has gone fast enough to get into orbit - that's like 10x the energy (I think).
What's the smallest/lightest/cheapest vehicle on Earth that can do this today? Probably the Souyuz (with it's associated rocket).
What this means - in conclusion - is to make any return trip possible, you're going to need to put the equivalent of a Souyuz (/rocket) on Mars - with whatever infrastructure is needed to launch it - to get it back - or to get anything back.
I don't know how we're going to do it. I haven't even seen any plans that address this - let alone any plans for an unmanned mission/test of this.
The day we can have a robot return a rock from Mars, we'll know we can do it - but so far, honestly, we don't even have a plan.
People responsible for things like airport security are ultimately bureaucrats. They are not experts, nor do they have the time or attention to get down to brass-tacks. The only thing they can do is throw money at the problem.
This how everything works from Airport Security, to product development and Q/A, to passing Financial Bailout legislation.
People who are in-charge of things often are 'executives' - meaning that they oversee a "big picture". These are usually people who are not experts in specific areas.
People who are experts in specific areas will rarley have 'executive' position (I use the work "executive" literally - meaning high-level overseers).
Example: a brilliant scientist spends his entire life solving equations, coming up with theories, designing and building rockets. He/she is revered in his/her work and excels, and is well know. Does this person will ultimately become a "lab fellow", or a "tenured professor", etc. etc. etc, they will not generally become the head of NASA. These are different positions, and different skillets. The "big-picture" guys are always the "political" ones. Mitt Romney would become the head of NASA before a scientist like I mentioned. And it that scientist were offered the position - their heads would be too into mathematical formulas and rocket designs to ever shift gears and worry about budgets and crap.
So the system is set up such that those at the help are the executives, not the experts.
Executives don't know any better than to react - It's only the experts that really think proactively - because that's what they do. Furthermore, executives (like in the TSA) aren't really hired to "make us safe" - they're hired to "make us feel safe".
I've been saying this for 20 years: "If we were serious about airport security, we'd do what they do in Israel". Their security is incredible, and obviously not the work of a pencil-pushing bureaucrat. They're security was obviously devised and executed by people who were heavily, heavily invested in and dedicated to it - on both professional and very personal levels. Israeli security would never take the crap that we do and call "security". 9/11 would never have taken place there for more reasons than I could count.
This is why after after Richard Reed tried to ignite an explosive in his left brown leather loafer, the TSA now mandates that everyone remove their left brown leather loafer for inspection.
If the TSA was serious, they'd make Bruce the head.
72.8% of all statistics are completely made up.