>> ^grinter:

Couldn't each ground unit just flash with a unique id code? ...and couldn't each instruction from the aerial unit then use a coded prefix to direct individual ground units? ...and couldn't that happen on the millisecond time scale?
The disco lights don't seem very efficient?


The problem is that the "skybot/drone" is using a relatively inexpensive webcam. These things don't have a very good framerate, and there are a lot of factors that ccould drop frames. If any frame is dropped, then it would misinterpret the "ID" of the ground robot. A webcam is good at discerning red vs. green vs. blue. Something that is faster- IR from a TV remote- has the problem of being non-dimensional, so the drone wouldn't know which ground robot was "talking". Something that might be neat would be the 2D IR sensor from a WiiMote, but I'm not sure what kind of framerate those are capable of.

Also, adding extra sensors to the drone, or getting better ones, or using a faster cpu, would not only increase cost, but more importantly decrease battery life of the drone.

Probably the speed of the LED blinking identification was slowed down for this demo, so it could be explained to the viewers. It's likely capable of going much faster.

The main problem I see in "real world" application is daylight - if it's bright outside, it's much harder to discern color. But at least if our robot overlords attack at night, we'll see them coming in rainbow glory!

>> ^L0cky:

Real Time Reflections!
Mandatory staple of graphics demos since bump mapping retired.


It's odd that reflections aren't used everywhere. I seem to remember that Duke Nukem 3D had reflections. It's certainly nothing new but even many new, high spec games still use silly silver surfaces. I suspect it's not that it's hard to implement, but that it's so expensive in terms of CPU,GPU and VRAM requirements that it's not worth the fairly marginal visual quality improvement. Hopefully CryEngine does this cheaply enough so it can be used without sacrificing much else.

If I was posting this on Bluesnews someone would blame consoles and they may have a point - when you're try to make ever prettier graphics using the same 5 year old hardware, something's got to give.

>> ^deathcow:

I believe these minecraft computers will evolve until they are more powerful than the cpu they are running on. I have just read that they are porting the Apache web server to minecraft currently using cube expressions. It is finally a perfectly object oriented development environment, the first to pass the Jefferson Test of true object orientation - where the objects can be physically picked up and carried around. This is a first. It is pioneering work and eventually your bionic kidneys will probably be running an embedded minecraft operating system.

How is it possible to run a virtual CPU faster than the one its running on? Surely the "real" cpu still has to do all the leg work, the whole thing has to be stored in "real" memory etc. Don't get me wrong, its still amazing to build something like that in a virtual world, but its still really just a simulation.

Unless your saying that one day you could build a minecraft computer that is faster than todays ones...then yah I could see that being possible.

I believe these minecraft computers will evolve until they are more powerful than the cpu they are running on. I have just read that they are porting the Apache web server to minecraft currently using cube expressions. It is finally a perfectly object oriented development environment, the first to pass the Jefferson Test of true object orientation - where the objects can be physically picked up and carried around. This is a first. It is pioneering work and eventually your bionic kidneys will probably be running an embedded minecraft operating system.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Actually I have to say that typing full words out on a keyboard is incredibly tedious. Seriously, typing in notepad or textedit or word or whatever is way slower than it needs to be.
Text editors need to take a serious look at the innovations that are happening all around them. Look at mobile phones or code editors. Computers these days have spare CPU power to burn, and yet I still have type out the entire word when the app should easily be able to guess the word I want from context and first few letters.


Oh, god, no. NO! FOR GOD'S SAKE NO! Predictive text, autocorrect, and all of that bullshit is the most painful thing about using touchscreen phones.

Actually I have to say that typing full words out on a keyboard is incredibly tedious. Seriously, typing in notepad or textedit or word or whatever is way slower than it needs to be.

Text editors need to take a serious look at the innovations that are happening all around them. Look at mobile phones or code editors. Computers these days have spare CPU power to burn, and yet I still have type out the entire word when the app should easily be able to guess the word I want from context and first few letters.

Sometimes flash uses 105% (or more) of my CPU processes all by itself. I don't remember videos doing that "back in the day."

>> ^longde:

-Pretty sure embedding a fractal pattern on realistic bones would cost more than $1M
-Computers that combust at a critical temperature? Nope. They're made of balsa wood? Plus, a CPU would lock up at a critical temperature.
That said, props for a vivid imagination. I think its a cool concept.


But wouldn't you love to be the guy that just walks up and pulls out the plug, police squad style?

I've burnt up a few computers - releasing the magic smoke, as they say. Computers tend to run quite hot, and even a few minutes with a faulty fan can do it, particularly in essential components with less heat-sink like the southbridge. But, like @swedishfriend said, there's no reason it should light on fire like that.
>> ^longde:

Interesting. I've heard of batteries combusting, and CPU packaging melting, but never heard of combustion of a CPU or its packaging. How would this happen? What material in the packaging would be susceptible to becoming inflamed?
Also, I know some CPUs have thermal sensors built in to "lock up" at a particular temperature (at least some Intel CPUs). Why wouldn't these kick in? >> ^swedishfriend:
CPUs do combust. It happens all the time. Don't know why there would be more than some smoke though as it wouldn't be surrounded by many materials that would fuel a fire like that. Reading malformed data may cause a system to malfunction which may leave it open for someone to attack it but as stated before there is no reason the data on its own would be executed as a program. Pretty dumb overall. Is this from a spoof type show, I didn't recognize it at all.

Interesting. I've heard of batteries combusting, and CPU packaging melting, but never heard of combustion of a CPU or its packaging. How would this happen? What material in the packaging would be susceptible to becoming inflamed?

Also, I know some CPUs have thermal sensors built in to "lock up" at a particular temperature (at least some Intel CPUs). Why wouldn't these kick in? >> ^swedishfriend:

CPUs do combust. It happens all the time. Don't know why there would be more than some smoke though as it wouldn't be surrounded by many materials that would fuel a fire like that. Reading malformed data may cause a system to malfunction which may leave it open for someone to attack it but as stated before there is no reason the data on its own would be executed as a program. Pretty dumb overall. Is this from a spoof type show, I didn't recognize it at all.

-Pretty sure embedding a fractal pattern on realistic bones would cost more than $1M
-Computers that combust at a critical temperature? Nope. They're made of balsa wood? Plus, a CPU would lock up at a critical temperature.

That said, props for a vivid imagination. I think its a cool concept.

1.5 bottles of wine since 5 hours ago when I started building this new computer. It is lighting fucking fast. I did not realize the cpu came with a heat sink so I had picked up a 50 dollar one, when I have them side by side it is laughable and the size difference. The aftermarket cooler is four times the size, I am going to over clock the shit outta this thing.

Thanks for the thought out reply. Before I get to specifics, let me throw out three thoughts:

1. First, let me define faith: complete trust in something, without personally verifiable proof.

2. I am in the same boat as you. I absolutely accept what has been taught to me in most science courses and books. But, aside from my own area of expertise, I take it for granted that past a certain point, I can't possibly reproduce the experiments and body of work in any particular field. So, my acceptance of, say, the results of organic chemistry is based on faith as defined above.

3. From my experience in the mill of American scientific academia and national laboratory culture, scientists DO NOT have an incentive to prove scientific 'canon' wrong. Especially in the politically strife world of academia, where tenure and grants are dependent not only upon good intellectual work, but upon soft skills and reputation. Too much in the fringe can sink you.

>> ^gwiz665:

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).
My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.
While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.
Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.
MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.
Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.
For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)
Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.
I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).

My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.

While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.

Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.

MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.

Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.

For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)

Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.

I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

Ah, right, ok. So I just went to the website for it, which linked to the market for it, which showed that it's incompatible with my LG Optimus One

Why?

What can a newsreading app possibly need that my phone doesn't have?

Except if it has been coded using Flex then it'll need an ARM7 CPU, which mine isn't... that's about the only thing I could think of

I guess Pulse will have to do for me.

[edit] OK, it's f*cking region based. It's not available to me because I don't live in the bloody US of A.

God this is really starting to shit me with Google. First Google Music, now this. You're supposed to be a GLOBAL company damnit.

USA is the center of the bloody world