I'm sorry, but where in anything you wrote would leave me to believe you have a more informed opinion. Absolutely nothing. If you just said, "Hey, I'm an expert in this field and you are wrong", fine. You did not. Am I supposed to accept that your "facts" about this topic (of which you offered none) are right and my comment is wide of the mark (which you have not supported with any facts) merely because you say so? I don't get it.
It's stupid for anyone to state they are "expert in the field" as a way to bolster their arguments. It's also stupid for anyone to accept that. Anyone can write anything here. I provided reasonable support for my contention that you were wrong - it's documented by neither R&A experts nor by manufacturers that this is a major problem for them, let alone the major problem. It might be reasonable for you to ask me to prove the absence of such documentation. But no. Instead, you insinuate the possibility that, without being in the field, you might know better. No wonder you don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
I do not feel my statement was arrogant, but I feel that you are not making any sense. I did not say anything about other experts feeling differently, nor did I state that I was not in the field. My stating that perhaps he/she is an expert was an attempt on my part to elicit some expert information from someone dead set on "proving me wrong", yet who up to that point offered no cogent and informed rebuttal. It's fascinating that you just made a bunch of stuff up, to what, amuse yourself? For the record, I am not an expert in robotics, but would love to actually hear from one who can intelligently and informatively comment on what I did write. One thing that I can do very well is logically follow an argument and articulate my point of view. Perhaps you have some basis for amusement, but your curiosity about a set of statements I did not make defies my own curiosity.
I did comment informatively on what you wrote - you were wrong. Concise but informative. A humbler person than you would say, "Damn. Thanks for pointing that out."
I do not feel my statement was arrogant, but I feel that you are not making any sense. I did not say anything about other experts feeling differently, nor did I state that I was not in the field. My stating that perhaps he/she is an expert was an attempt on my part to elicit some expert information from someone dead set on "proving me wrong", yet who up to that point offered no cogent and informed rebuttal. It's fascinating that you just made a bunch of stuff up, to what, amuse yourself? For the record, I am not an expert in robotics, but would love to actually hear from one who can intelligently and informatively comment on what I did write. One thing that I can do very well is logically follow an argument and articulate my point of view. Perhaps you have some basis for amusement, but your curiosity about a set of statements I did not make defies my own curiosity.
I made up nothing. But feel free to continue stating your opinion. It's not my fight anyhow.
Ever since Apple's acquisition of PASemi the company has enjoyed a particularly close relationship with the U.S. Dept. of Defense to the extent that Apple is pretty much becoming the standard for military computing. The military is also heavily invested in designing and building advanced combat robotics. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Segway group is working both on the robotics within multiple Robotics groups and developing software on OS X to interface with the developing robotics. Whether any of this ever makes it's way to the consumer level is unknown, but what tech engineering geek doesn't have wet dreams about being part of a small clandestine organization working on top secret military projects?
It's stupid for anyone to state they are "expert in the field" as a way to bolster their arguments. It's also stupid for anyone to accept that. Anyone can write anything here. I provided reasonable support for my contention that you were wrong - it's documented by neither R&A experts nor by manufacturers that this is a major problem for them, let alone the major problem. It might be reasonable for you to ask me to prove the absence of such documentation. But no. Instead, you insinuate the possibility that, without being in the field, you might know better. No wonder you don't get it.
I did comment informatively on what you wrote - you were wrong. Concise but informative. A humbler person than you would say, "Damn. Thanks for pointing that out."
So, I should not believe anyone who says they are an expert, but I should believe someone who repeats a simple statement that "neither R&A experts nor ...manufacturers" have documented that it is a major problem and who actually considers that as concise, convincing evidence. Got it.
Ever since Apple's acquisition of PASemi the company has enjoyed a particularly close relationship with the U.S. Dept. of Defense to the extent that Apple is pretty much becoming the standard for military computing. The military is also heavily invested in designing and building advanced combat robotics. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Segway group is working both on the robotics within multiple Robotics groups and developing software on OS X to interface with the developing robotics. Whether any of this ever makes it's way to the consumer level is unknown, but what tech engineering geek doesn't have wet dreams about being part of a small clandestine organization working on top secret military projects?
Is Apple really the standard for military computing? What does that mean? Military computing is a broad, broad umbrella spanning distributed clusters to "standard" desktop computing to battlefield computing to ... In which areas is Apple the standard choice for the military?
What does it mean to develop software on OSX to interface with developing robotics? Are you referring to real-time control? Navigational control? HMI? Is this for R&D purposes only or battlefield robotics?
So, I should not believe anyone who says they are an expert, but I should believe someone who repeats a simple statement that "neither R&A experts nor ...manufacturers" have documented that it is a major problem and who actually considers that as concise, convincing evidence. Got it.
Are you arguing that I wasn't concise? Heh ...
Like I said before, if you had challenged me on this front earlier, it would have made some sense. But, instead, you dismissed "the annals of science". I think that's why someone called you arrogant.
For someone who doesn't want the last word, you just keep going and going and going and going and going ...
Since you are so sure that the major challenge to overcome in R&A is HMI. Can you explain what that means?
Recently rumored devices %u2013 iWatch, iRing %u2013 might be used to capture and interpret the user's movements and mechanics for gestures or sports analytics. This could be right up his alley. The same kinds of engineering and design he might have done at Yale could be done at Apple instead. And he could see the designs make it into production sooner and on a far larger scale, with far greater impact.
3) Honestly, John M. is "wicked smaht," as we say in New England, but I'm not sure what all he'd be going after. If Apple suddenly hires Jon Stevens away from Segway (or either of the Heinzman brothers away from DEKA or Harvest AI, respectively), THEN I might start thinking a "dynamic" solution. But thus-far, aside from John, they don't have any of the core developers or dynamics engineers that dealt specifically with what makes Segway... well, Segway.
Never say never, but if Apple's looking to do anything out-of-the-box with Segway talent, they're taking an awfully slow road to get there.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
I'm sorry, but where in anything you wrote would leave me to believe you have a more informed opinion. Absolutely nothing. If you just said, "Hey, I'm an expert in this field and you are wrong", fine. You did not. Am I supposed to accept that your "facts" about this topic (of which you offered none) are right and my comment is wide of the mark (which you have not supported with any facts) merely because you say so? I don't get it.
It's stupid for anyone to state they are "expert in the field" as a way to bolster their arguments. It's also stupid for anyone to accept that. Anyone can write anything here. I provided reasonable support for my contention that you were wrong - it's documented by neither R&A experts nor by manufacturers that this is a major problem for them, let alone the major problem. It might be reasonable for you to ask me to prove the absence of such documentation. But no. Instead, you insinuate the possibility that, without being in the field, you might know better. No wonder you don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
I do not feel my statement was arrogant, but I feel that you are not making any sense. I did not say anything about other experts feeling differently, nor did I state that I was not in the field. My stating that perhaps he/she is an expert was an attempt on my part to elicit some expert information from someone dead set on "proving me wrong", yet who up to that point offered no cogent and informed rebuttal. It's fascinating that you just made a bunch of stuff up, to what, amuse yourself? For the record, I am not an expert in robotics, but would love to actually hear from one who can intelligently and informatively comment on what I did write. One thing that I can do very well is logically follow an argument and articulate my point of view. Perhaps you have some basis for amusement, but your curiosity about a set of statements I did not make defies my own curiosity.
I did comment informatively on what you wrote - you were wrong. Concise but informative. A humbler person than you would say, "Damn. Thanks for pointing that out."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
I do not feel my statement was arrogant, but I feel that you are not making any sense. I did not say anything about other experts feeling differently, nor did I state that I was not in the field. My stating that perhaps he/she is an expert was an attempt on my part to elicit some expert information from someone dead set on "proving me wrong", yet who up to that point offered no cogent and informed rebuttal. It's fascinating that you just made a bunch of stuff up, to what, amuse yourself? For the record, I am not an expert in robotics, but would love to actually hear from one who can intelligently and informatively comment on what I did write. One thing that I can do very well is logically follow an argument and articulate my point of view. Perhaps you have some basis for amusement, but your curiosity about a set of statements I did not make defies my own curiosity.
I made up nothing. But feel free to continue stating your opinion. It's not my fight anyhow.
Ever since Apple's acquisition of PASemi the company has enjoyed a particularly close relationship with the U.S. Dept. of Defense to the extent that Apple is pretty much becoming the standard for military computing. The military is also heavily invested in designing and building advanced combat robotics. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Segway group is working both on the robotics within multiple Robotics groups and developing software on OS X to interface with the developing robotics. Whether any of this ever makes it's way to the consumer level is unknown, but what tech engineering geek doesn't have wet dreams about being part of a small clandestine organization working on top secret military projects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
It's stupid for anyone to state they are "expert in the field" as a way to bolster their arguments. It's also stupid for anyone to accept that. Anyone can write anything here. I provided reasonable support for my contention that you were wrong - it's documented by neither R&A experts nor by manufacturers that this is a major problem for them, let alone the major problem. It might be reasonable for you to ask me to prove the absence of such documentation. But no. Instead, you insinuate the possibility that, without being in the field, you might know better. No wonder you don't get it.
I did comment informatively on what you wrote - you were wrong. Concise but informative. A humbler person than you would say, "Damn. Thanks for pointing that out."
So, I should not believe anyone who says they are an expert, but I should believe someone who repeats a simple statement that "neither R&A experts nor ...manufacturers" have documented that it is a major problem and who actually considers that as concise, convincing evidence. Got it.
Is Apple really the standard for military computing? What does that mean? Military computing is a broad, broad umbrella spanning distributed clusters to "standard" desktop computing to battlefield computing to ... In which areas is Apple the standard choice for the military?
What does it mean to develop software on OSX to interface with developing robotics? Are you referring to real-time control? Navigational control? HMI? Is this for R&D purposes only or battlefield robotics?
Are you arguing that I wasn't concise? Heh ...
Like I said before, if you had challenged me on this front earlier, it would have made some sense. But, instead, you dismissed "the annals of science". I think that's why someone called you arrogant.
For someone who doesn't want the last word, you just keep going and going and going and going and going ...
Since you are so sure that the major challenge to overcome in R&A is HMI. Can you explain what that means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen
Tomorrow Samsung publishes pictures of their vision of Segway that happened to be in works for several years.
The Koreans are way out in front on this research. Behold the E4U... /s
1) It wasn't the CEO.
2) Embedded systems? Errrrrrrrruummmm... whatchya think the iPad, iPhone, Nano, etc., qualify as?
3) Honestly, John M. is "wicked smaht," as we say in New England, but I'm not sure what all he'd be going after. If Apple suddenly hires Jon Stevens away from Segway (or either of the Heinzman brothers away from DEKA or Harvest AI, respectively), THEN I might start thinking a "dynamic" solution. But thus-far, aside from John, they don't have any of the core developers or dynamics engineers that dealt specifically with what makes Segway... well, Segway.
Never say never, but if Apple's looking to do anything out-of-the-box with Segway talent, they're taking an awfully slow road to get there.