It's not that async is hard, it's that callback-based frameworks like node.js force the programmer to structure their code in an entirely different (and more verbose!) way to what they would writing synchronous code. It doesn't help that the shortest way of declaring a function in Javascript is function(){...};
Look at coroutine-based frameworks like gevent if you want to see what easy async looks like. You'll still have to remember you're writing async code, but instead of do_lots_of_io(function(){wrap_up_afterwards();}); you can just do_lots_of_io();wrap_up_afterwards();. It makes code infinitely more readable.
This is a bit too pessimistic, even for me. Technology is only going to get better, and the quadcopters will become quieter, and with less vibration, with longer battery lives.
As quadcopter technology and things like computer vision become more advanced, it really does seem like there's a lot of possibilities for these types of devices.
I've been daydreaming of the day when I have my own personal swarm of quadcopters that continuously circle my house with a wireless camera, and then land to recharge, and another one takes off. Not that I'm particularly worried about security (my barred windows, landmines and laser booby traps are more than enough protection), but it would be fun to see that.
The other thing that would be fun with quadcopters is if you could give it your gear, like your cellphone, wallet, etc, and have it fly above you everywhere, and whenever you needed something, you could just summon it. It's like the old school Dungeons and Dragons concept of having a familiar that you can summon whenever you needed it. You could also video yourself, from a WoW-like view, just for fun.
Except they're insanely loud when they get in close to you.
Which also is a (potential) feature. Consider a burglar alarm at your home, when it goes off you can just launch the quadcopter from wherever you are to investigate (and at the same time make the burglar aware of your presence). A lot of deterrents go out of their way to be visible. It gives you the opportunity to cancel the alarm or call in the police quickly.
And as for video productions and art, there quite a few products targeting this already, where you can preprogram movements etc. that just wasn't possible before.
> Aren't there already unmanned blimps built to solve exactly this problem?
This solution might be less expensive, more flexible, and easier to control on a windy day. Not that a model helicopter would be easy to control in a high wind, but compared to a blimp -- no contest.
Also I think the setup and takedown time for a model helicopter would be much less than for a blimp.
> Except they're insanely loud when they get in close to you.
Not an electric one -- they're surprisingly quiet. I was thinking of a battery-operated helicopter, to make the system easier to use as well as quieter.
Murder (n) - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Nobody is debating the definition of murder, the debate is over the definition of "human". When does an unborn child get the rights of a human? Is it at conception? At 3 months? At birth?
It's one thing to make a Pacman-like game. But this is being called the trademarked name Pacman, and you've copied the artwork straight from Pacman.
Seems certain this isn't an official licensed version. In which case, you should change all those items immediately. It's illegal and it's just not cool.
Here are the guys you are ripping off. Tōru Iwatani and his friends at Namco. Tōru is a very nice guy:
where did you find him ripping Pacman off? If true (I searched through his sites, but couldnt find anything relevant), this would be like the comment of the month to me :)
Also, just like being a "nice guy" or "an asshole" would make a difference, whether or not its OK to rip someone off...
It's flawed though, which is why it doesn't make sense.
There are tons of doodle jump alikes. In fact doodle jump was a clone of an existing iOS game (papi jump). We aren't complaining about imitating gameplay. Can you show me a PAC man clone that's called "Pac-man" and uses the exact same artwork?
If if called this "HTML jump" and made original artwork, no one would be complaining. It's clear why he copied it exactly. He wants people to be confused or to recognize his work because it rides on the reputation of doodle jump.
The point is that scatter plots are harder to read than histograms. It's not two histograms vs. one scatter plot, it's replacing the current single histogram system with a single scatter plot.
Also, side-by-side histograms aren't the only way to display two parameters in a single histogram. What about stacked histograms? They scale up to an arbitrary number of parameters and everybody who can read a histogram can read a stacked histogram. Scatter plots seem like thermonuclear overkill for a problem which most movie sites seem to consider to be "solved".
I imagine it as more of an attempt to engage with the bystanders, maybe to try and tell them that he can do better. "Ugh! I failed", he says, trying to smile in the direction of the onlooking girls. A quick attempt at a chuckle to make light of the situation and he swims away.
OTOH it does sound like the kid in question was a lot younger than 16, especially considering his reaction and the fact that he was at the pool with his mother.
There are cameras on the autonomous cars, I'm sure they'd do the trick just fine.
> Second, I still have no idea how on Earth would AC riding on a highway know that it is a black cat, not a black bag laying on the street.
LIDAR. A black bag laying on the street is virtually invisible to it.
> The bottom line: sooner or later AC will make a mistake.
True, but they'll have to make a lot of mistakes to be worse than humans.
> Last, who is liable when the system makes a mistake?
That's a good question, and not one that can be answered categorically for all classes of motor vehicle accident. I'd imagine that the driver of an autonomous car would be liable for their actions in the same sense that a pilot is when they place their plane on autopilot (or a skipper when the use an autotiller to steer their ship). If it can be proven to be poor engineering on the manufacturer's part, then likely the manufacturer will be held responsible. Otherwise it will probably be the driver getting sent to jail. Or maybe a mixture of both if both parties can be proven to have acted negligently.
> ...but I can throw myself under riding AC.
Yet you're incapable of throwing yourself under a normal car? Doesn't this contradict your previous point about sabotage?
Though admittedly sabotage is a very common concern with automatic cars - what if somebody papers over a street sign or throws rocks at the car whilst it is on a sharp corner? In reality, malicious third parties are of concern, but not any more than if the vehicle was not autonomous. Human drivers can still be distracted by noisy passengers, intoxicated by alcohol and blinded by lasers; all you're doing by putting a robot in control is swapping the weaknesses of one system for the weaknesses of another. Ideally, there would be a mechanical backup system which could be controlled by the driver in the case of an emergency, which would effectively make autonomous cars more reliable than normal ones.
> LIDAR. A black bag laying on the street is virtually invisible to it.
so when the cats lays in front of it -- it will just run over it, not being able to see it?
> If it can be proven to be poor engineering
Usually after 10 years of deep investigation, given the parties have enough monetary resources to keep the momentum on the law wheel. Read the case I sent about the guy wrongly jailed. Had they not discovered, eventually that it was a car malfunction, he would have still been in jail.
> Yet you're incapable of throwing yourself under a normal car? Doesn't this contradict your previous point about sabotage?
I guess what I was trying to say is that I think getting killed by a car driven by machine feels easier on your conscious than being killed by a car who is driven by a human. I cant explain why.
> so when the cats lays in front of it -- it will just run over it, not being able to see it?
LIDAR stands for Light Detection And Ranging. Much like sonar (which is also used on an autonomous car) it is used to map 3D environments, producing models which can then be analysed by the computer. A plastic bag lying perfectly flat on a road would look like sensor noise, whereas a cat would be a noticeable obstacle (much like a fallen garbage bin or a basketball). This clip[0] from Udacity's CS373 class is great if you want to find out what an autonomous car "sees". In short, if you're a two dimensional cat, you're in trouble. Otherwise you should be fine :)
> Usually after 10 years of deep investigation,
What? I said "I'd imagine..." because that part of my post was pure speculation since AFAIK nobody has ever been in a serious autonomous car accident.
> I guess what I was trying to say is that I think getting killed by a car driven by machine feels easier on your conscious than being killed by a car who is driven by a human.
When was the last time any professional software developer was forced to do any real development on someone elses computer? In that case it is likely that one will miss his keyboard, desktop shortcuts, shell aliases, browser bookmarks much more than tour ide.
Help in this context means discussion, advice, him showing me what he had done, me suggesting quick solution, or talking to him what to type, similar to pair programming. If _I_ had to actually write more than few lines of code, we'd just switch to my computer.
Look at coroutine-based frameworks like gevent if you want to see what easy async looks like. You'll still have to remember you're writing async code, but instead of do_lots_of_io(function(){wrap_up_afterwards();}); you can just do_lots_of_io();wrap_up_afterwards();. It makes code infinitely more readable.