I wonder how many calculations per second it has to do to run like that.
Probably not too many, it doesn't look like it's adjusting much to the terrain. The turns are impressive though. Only a few short years ago I remember reading that it took a room sized computer to mimic one single human hand.
Any mention anywhere of Google registering the name 'Cylon' for anything ....?
No, but.... ...the internal code name of Rubin's is (seriously) "Replicant" a la the androids in Blade Runner.
Now there's a nice homage.... ...as Replicant is, I guess, arguably warmer and fuzzier than "Terminator" (or Cylon)....
....if by warm and fuzzy you mean Goog's goal is to create super strong synthetic beings with identity crises who'll be sent on deep space missions because they've been deemed too dangerous to live on earth.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox
Wall Street and the Android Geeks eating it up, meanwhile Motorola going down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
Motorola stayed the same for a while after the Google acquisition. It wasn't until fairly recently that they've started hitting the right notes such as ditching the Motoblur android skin, pushing out OS updates in a timely fashion, and appealing to the enthusiasts by honoring the warranty of the dev edition Moto X even after they unlock the bootloader.
Gonna go off the reservation (disclaimer - I've been fascinated with and closely followed Apple since the original Steve and Steve Apple product, and own a Mac and a PC, so a fan, if always working in multiple camps):
My "one year" plan is based on assuming Apple's going to finally give me 4.5" or larger phone next year (I've looked at the 5s three times in person and its screen simply looked tiny). And I needing to tether a notebook for about that long while clearing up matters away from home without cable net,
I found that T-Mobile says they have "excellent" 4G coverage where I'm headed on their $70/mon no commitment unlimited/unthrottled plan (we shall see - lots of no coverage areas on that map, and the initial signal where I am isn't quite as advertised and we'll see how they like my video podcast/YouTube habits).
So I picked up a 32GB 4.7" Moto X on Moto's Cyber special ($150 off - $399 and on the second go-round since the first was an utter fiasco) to get me through this period.
And so far it's a sweet, apparently well-made responsive device that's enjoyable to use, seems sturdy, the apps "just work" and it has good ergonomics and a constrasty AMOLED display that's easy to enjoy (I haven't found 720p a downside with the 300+ ppi), plus the MotoMaker gimmick's actually fun to use in designing your own external touches and having everything pre-set up and signed in when it arrived, and the few software adds like touchless control are actually pretty cool.
I've also spent a lot of research time on Android sites as a result and can clearly see there's growing love for the company out there in great unwashed land. And that many there bitch about Samsung (and HTC and LG, especially over their junk software and skins) as much people do on this site.
There are downsides: The camera's mediocre, but a) I knew that going in and b) I actually carry my good point and shoot with me. Their order/fulfillment system leaves quite a bit to be desired - the phone arrived while they were still saying it hadn't shipped, and the notification it had shipped came 3 days after I got it, sans two accessories which Moto support - whose Live Chat actually works fairly well - says are now in the process of getting ready to ship.
Ergo, I have to conclude that the company under Google actually has a pulse, a direction (I liked the assembled in the US aspect as well) and further that one doesn't have to buy an iPhone to get a generally decent smart phone experience.
The big downside, though, circles back around to the article. At every step of buying, turning on, registering services, accessing info etc. I've been constantly prompted to give all my info, permissions and first born child to Google. And clearly, they're going to know more about me than the NSA's wildest dreams. It really feels draconian when you add it all up...
So with that and the robots and maybe making their own server chips, it's clear that Skynet's real world name is The Googleplex.
Bottom line, I won't be loading up on spending for apps in the hopes that Apple's going to rescue me next fall with a new phone class and an iPad with Touch ID plus whatever. And will be very interested in comparing the experiences of the two ecosystems.
If Andy Rubin can make a viable business out of this and other robotics-related Google acquisitions, then color me impressed. Something just tells me he's in over his head and that this might be some sort of vanity project.
Well, his first job was in robotics with Carl Zeiss AG in 1986. Maybe he is just getting back to his roots.
Think of a world where all food is produced by machines, all transport is done by automated machines, all homes are built by machines and every home is powered by close to 100% renewable energy. This would surely allow every human being to live a comfortable lifestyle. It would lower the cost of living to near zero, which is where we should be. Every person deserves the right to live a comfortable lifestyle without struggling for it.
Some might argue that by taking away life's hardships, it would make people lazy and advances would slow down but the advances are made to achieve this state anyway and I think it would give people the opportunity to do work that makes them content.
.
I just disagree with the belief that people are owed anything. Give people everything for nothing and you generations of spoiled, entitled fools.
Steve Jobs was a high-performing, no BS achiever because (if I may be allowed to speculate) of his feelings of dissatisfaction and his lack of tolerance for people who he felt were "stupid" or had "no taste".
Would a Steve Jobs personality come about in a society where there was no dissatisfaction?
I just disagree with the belief that people are owed anything. Give people everything for nothing and you generations of spoiled, entitled fools.
Steve Jobs was a high-performing, no BS achiever because (if I may be allowed to speculate) of his feelings of dissatisfaction and his lack of tolerance for people who he felt were "stupid" or had "no taste".
Would a Steve Jobs personality come about in a society where there was no dissatisfaction?
Agreed.
I have designed and supplied 5 items and a bunch of drawings and tech specs for a future Boston Dynamics robot, I can't say anything about it but mainly because they wouldn't actually tell me anything.
Sad to see great companies get scooped up into a conglomeration just to further a big company. I suspect that Google just want to rape BD for their IP.
I just disagree with the belief that people are owed anything. Give people everything for nothing and you generations of spoiled, entitled fools.
Steve Jobs was a high-performing, no BS achiever because (if I may be allowed to speculate) of his feelings of dissatisfaction and his lack of tolerance for people who he felt were "stupid" or had "no taste".
Would a Steve Jobs personality come about in a society where there was no dissatisfaction?
Steve Jobs was raised in a middle-class family and you wouldn't have everything for nothing, you'd have a comfortable minimum standard of living no matter your circumstances. People can be just as successful when they start with a healthy diet, a good education and a home to go to.
You wouldn't watch videos of children starving to death and think 'well, they're clearly not trying hard enough to succeed'. A sense of desperation can drive people to do more than under comfortable conditions but in most cases, it's just hardship with no justification.
No one should live on the street, no one should be forced into debt in order to live day to day, no one should go a day without food/water.
Nobody would be 'spoiled or entitled' because it would be available to everyone. These definitions only have meaning in a relative context. You aren't spoiled when you have freedom of speech or other basic human rights except relative to people who don't but we accept that everyone should have them. Owning a home and having food/water should be basic human rights.
Steve Jobs was raised in a middle-class family and you wouldn't have everything for nothing, you'd have a comfortable minimum standard of living no matter your circumstances. People can be just as successful when they start with a healthy diet, a good education and a home to go to.
You wouldn't watch videos of children starving to death and think 'well, they're clearly not trying hard enough to succeed'. A sense of desperation can drive people to do more than under comfortable conditions but in most cases, it's just hardship with no justification.
No one should live on the street, no one should be forced into debt in order to live day to day, no one should go a day without food/water.
Nobody would be 'spoiled or entitled' because it would be available to everyone. These definitions only have meaning in a relative context. You aren't spoiled when you have freedom of speech or other basic human rights except relative to people who don't but we accept that everyone should have them. Owning a home and having food/water should be basic human rights.
There is a big difference between our rights and our wants and needs. Even though food and water are essential to survival, they are not a "right". There is a cost to everything. A person lost in the wild would have to hunt for the basics. A "homeless" person in an urban environment might go to a soup kitchen, but even there none of the "free" stuff is free. And "owning a home" being a "right"? You just lost the argument.
There is a cost to everything. A person lost in the wild would have to hunt for the basics. A "homeless" person in an urban environment might go to a soup kitchen, but even there none of the "free" stuff is free. And "owning a home" being a "right"? You just lost the argument.
That's where the robotics comes in. The costs you're talking about are human labor. Take that out of the equation almost entirely. There still has to be an element of human involvement somewhere for maintenance and design but it's smaller scale and this would be where people become better off or there can be volunteers. Believe it or not, there are people who like to serve humanity as its own reward. If more people had a better education, maybe there would just be enough people like that to make it work.
When you go to a fast food chain, no more sweaty teenagers ready to wipe a part of their anatomy over your bun, it's just robots making perfect sandwiches every time and you wouldn't need to pay much at all because it's just robots and synthetic meat - robots have nothing to spend money on.
It doesn't make everyone equal, the people who offer more in the form of services or products would get a higher reward but it gives everyone a base point on which they can survive indefinitely. I don't see the need for suffering to ensure that we see advances happening; curiosity and boredom motivate people too.
Instead of quoting your entire post Marvin, I'll just reply here.
The scenario you describe is still a fantasy/science fiction concept. There are still costs associated with power, maintenance, the initial outlays and investments, etc. Although costs can and will continue to squeeze downward, I don't believe at any point "free" will be possible.
Comments
Actually you are correct, but first there was no warranty regardless if the bootloader was locked or unlocked.
Probably not too many, it doesn't look like it's adjusting much to the terrain. The turns are impressive though. Only a few short years ago I remember reading that it took a room sized computer to mimic one single human hand.
If Google gives me a free killing machine with every Android purchase, I'm making the switch.
Any mention anywhere of Google registering the name 'Cylon' for anything ....?
No, but.... ...the internal code name of Rubin's is (seriously) "Replicant" a la the androids in Blade Runner.
Now there's a nice homage.... ...as Replicant is, I guess, arguably warmer and fuzzier than "Terminator" (or Cylon)....
....if by warm and fuzzy you mean Goog's goal is to create super strong synthetic beings with identity crises who'll be sent on deep space missions because they've been deemed too dangerous to live on earth.....
Wall Street and the Android Geeks eating it up, meanwhile Motorola going down.
Quote:
Motorola stayed the same for a while after the Google acquisition. It wasn't until fairly recently that they've started hitting the right notes such as ditching the Motoblur android skin, pushing out OS updates in a timely fashion, and appealing to the enthusiasts by honoring the warranty of the dev edition Moto X even after they unlock the bootloader.
Gonna go off the reservation (disclaimer - I've been fascinated with and closely followed Apple since the original Steve and Steve Apple product, and own a Mac and a PC, so a fan, if always working in multiple camps):
My "one year" plan is based on assuming Apple's going to finally give me 4.5" or larger phone next year (I've looked at the 5s three times in person and its screen simply looked tiny). And I needing to tether a notebook for about that long while clearing up matters away from home without cable net,
I found that T-Mobile says they have "excellent" 4G coverage where I'm headed on their $70/mon no commitment unlimited/unthrottled plan (we shall see - lots of no coverage areas on that map, and the initial signal where I am isn't quite as advertised and we'll see how they like my video podcast/YouTube habits).
So I picked up a 32GB 4.7" Moto X on Moto's Cyber special ($150 off - $399 and on the second go-round since the first was an utter fiasco) to get me through this period.
And so far it's a sweet, apparently well-made responsive device that's enjoyable to use, seems sturdy, the apps "just work" and it has good ergonomics and a constrasty AMOLED display that's easy to enjoy (I haven't found 720p a downside with the 300+ ppi), plus the MotoMaker gimmick's actually fun to use in designing your own external touches and having everything pre-set up and signed in when it arrived, and the few software adds like touchless control are actually pretty cool.
I've also spent a lot of research time on Android sites as a result and can clearly see there's growing love for the company out there in great unwashed land. And that many there bitch about Samsung (and HTC and LG, especially over their junk software and skins) as much people do on this site.
There are downsides: The camera's mediocre, but a) I knew that going in and b) I actually carry my good point and shoot with me. Their order/fulfillment system leaves quite a bit to be desired - the phone arrived while they were still saying it hadn't shipped, and the notification it had shipped came 3 days after I got it, sans two accessories which Moto support - whose Live Chat actually works fairly well - says are now in the process of getting ready to ship.
Ergo, I have to conclude that the company under Google actually has a pulse, a direction (I liked the assembled in the US aspect as well) and further that one doesn't have to buy an iPhone to get a generally decent smart phone experience.
The big downside, though, circles back around to the article. At every step of buying, turning on, registering services, accessing info etc. I've been constantly prompted to give all my info, permissions and first born child to Google. And clearly, they're going to know more about me than the NSA's wildest dreams. It really feels draconian when you add it all up...
So with that and the robots and maybe making their own server chips, it's clear that Skynet's real world name is The Googleplex.
Bottom line, I won't be loading up on spending for apps in the hopes that Apple's going to rescue me next fall with a new phone class and an iPad with Touch ID plus whatever. And will be very interested in comparing the experiences of the two ecosystems.
Ready for incoming.....
If Andy Rubin can make a viable business out of this and other robotics-related Google acquisitions, then color me impressed. Something just tells me he's in over his head and that this might be some sort of vanity project.
Well, his first job was in robotics with Carl Zeiss AG in 1986. Maybe he is just getting back to his roots.
I just disagree with the belief that people are owed anything. Give people everything for nothing and you generations of spoiled, entitled fools.
Steve Jobs was a high-performing, no BS achiever because (if I may be allowed to speculate) of his feelings of dissatisfaction and his lack of tolerance for people who he felt were "stupid" or had "no taste".
Would a Steve Jobs personality come about in a society where there was no dissatisfaction?
I agree.
Agreed.
I have designed and supplied 5 items and a bunch of drawings and tech specs for a future Boston Dynamics robot, I can't say anything about it but mainly because they wouldn't actually tell me anything.
Sad to see great companies get scooped up into a conglomeration just to further a big company. I suspect that Google just want to rape BD for their IP.
Steve Jobs was raised in a middle-class family and you wouldn't have everything for nothing, you'd have a comfortable minimum standard of living no matter your circumstances. People can be just as successful when they start with a healthy diet, a good education and a home to go to.
You wouldn't watch videos of children starving to death and think 'well, they're clearly not trying hard enough to succeed'. A sense of desperation can drive people to do more than under comfortable conditions but in most cases, it's just hardship with no justification.
No one should live on the street, no one should be forced into debt in order to live day to day, no one should go a day without food/water.
Nobody would be 'spoiled or entitled' because it would be available to everyone. These definitions only have meaning in a relative context. You aren't spoiled when you have freedom of speech or other basic human rights except relative to people who don't but we accept that everyone should have them. Owning a home and having food/water should be basic human rights.
There is a big difference between our rights and our wants and needs. Even though food and water are essential to survival, they are not a "right". There is a cost to everything. A person lost in the wild would have to hunt for the basics. A "homeless" person in an urban environment might go to a soup kitchen, but even there none of the "free" stuff is free. And "owning a home" being a "right"? You just lost the argument.
So you have a right to life but not a right to the things that are essential to maintain it.
That's where the robotics comes in. The costs you're talking about are human labor. Take that out of the equation almost entirely. There still has to be an element of human involvement somewhere for maintenance and design but it's smaller scale and this would be where people become better off or there can be volunteers. Believe it or not, there are people who like to serve humanity as its own reward. If more people had a better education, maybe there would just be enough people like that to make it work.
When you go to a fast food chain, no more sweaty teenagers ready to wipe a part of their anatomy over your bun, it's just robots making perfect sandwiches every time and you wouldn't need to pay much at all because it's just robots and synthetic meat - robots have nothing to spend money on.
It doesn't make everyone equal, the people who offer more in the form of services or products would get a higher reward but it gives everyone a base point on which they can survive indefinitely. I don't see the need for suffering to ensure that we see advances happening; curiosity and boredom motivate people too.
The scenario you describe is still a fantasy/science fiction concept. There are still costs associated with power, maintenance, the initial outlays and investments, etc. Although costs can and will continue to squeeze downward, I don't believe at any point "free" will be possible.