DHS Makeover - What we know so far.....

[englanddg]

Like the fact the math behind cellphone signals is based on Hedy Lamarr's method to guide torpedo's in WW II,

http://www.billhung.net/ee20/InventerHedyLamarr.htm

She was a lot more than a pretty face and gifted skater.

Math is boring, it's not the future. Screw science. Cause, technology like the internet (oh, I'm sorry, the "cloud", which runs on 40+ year old theories, and decades old protocols, for the most part) is NEW DUDE! There's an APP for that! DUDE!

Haven't you heard of Facebook, it's where people go and post stuff about themselves online and can converse with others...NOTHING like Usenet, Prodigy, *Planet sites, Myspace, or anything else before! It's the FUTURE DUDE!

Or Twitter! That's NOTHING like IRC, OpenDiary, list goes on...

Or Youtube! That's NOTHING like ebaumsworld or the myriad other video sites that were around before it.

Or Candy Crush! That's NOTHING like Dr. Mario.

Or Angry Birds! That's NOTHING like the myriad of flash games available before.

And MEMES Haven't you heard of MEMES?!?! Or Gifs (pronounced with a J sound)? Those are NEW DUDE!

What about RFID! That's NEW MAN! Or Magicbands...think about that NEW TECH involved in those (which is really old tech that is now just really cheap to manufacture for a variety of reasons).

Well, what about programming MAN. The concepts are all NEW NOW! (no, not at all...)

Or...oh meh...yeah, I can't keep going...I have to refill my soda.

 

[englanddg]

For an isolated ride, yes. IP matters very little compared to execution for an individual attraction.

But when it comes to a fully fleshed out land based on a single IP, there has to be some longevity to the IP or else it will become dated over time. Also, a single IP land is much more restrictive in what can be added to it in the future.

That's the issue Potter will run into...eventually. But, they have at least another decade or two that they can milk out of it...and if they pull a Star Wars and reboot it in the next 10 years or so, they run a better chance of keeping it alive.

 

[englanddg]

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

I believe we are. Enlighten me.



WOAH, is that car driving itself in 1997! Wait...I thought this was the FUTURE!

 

[Matt_Black]

I beg to differ. Very little is "new", it's just polished and presented differently.

Were prosthetic limbs and synthetic replacement organs made via 3-d printers around 20 years ago?

 

[ford91exploder]

Math is boring, it's not the future. Screw science. Cause, technology like the internet (oh, I'm sorry, the "cloud", which runs on 40+ year old theories, and decades old protocols, for the most part) is NEW DUDE! There's an APP for that! DUDE!

Haven't you heard of Facebook, it's where people go and post stuff about themselves online and can converse with others...NOTHING like Usenet, Prodigy, *Planet sites, Myspace, or anything else before! It's the FUTURE DUDE!

Or Twitter! That's NOTHING like IRC, OpenDiary, list goes on...

Or Youtube! That's NOTHING like ebaumsworld or the myriad other video sites that were around before it.

Or Candy Crush! That's NOTHING like Dr. Mario.

Or Angry Birds! That's NOTHING like the myriad of flash games available before.

And MEMES Haven't you heard of MEMES?!?! Or Gifs (pronounced with a J sound)? Those are NEW DUDE!

What about RFID! That's NEW MAN! Or Magicbands...think about that NEW TECH involved in those (which is really old tech that is now just really cheap to manufacture for a variety of reasons).

Well, what about programming MAN. The concepts are all NEW NOW! (no, not at all...)

Or...oh meh...yeah, I can't keep going...I have to refill my soda.

My personal favorites 'The Cloud' or SaaS (Software as a Service) both of which date back to the beginning of the computer era where you 'Timeshared' at a 'Service Bureau' ie paid someone to access their computer and run applications which did not belong to you on their computer.

Sounds a lot like the cloud to me where you rent access to the applications and data storage...

Hmm Old wine in new sexy bottles.

 

[Matt_Black]

My personal favorites 'The Cloud' or SaaS (Software as a Service) both of which date back to the beginning of the computer era where you 'Timeshared' at a 'Service Bureau' ie paid someone to access their computer and run applications which did not belong to you on their computer.

Sounds a lot like the cloud to me where you rent access to the applications and data storage...

Hmm Old wine in new sexy bottles.

That and others are good examples, but the key point is accessibility. A smart phone is like a dozen hi-tech devices in one. In the 1960s, I bet most people thought that the idea of a computer small enough and affordable enough to be in the home at the desk was a science fiction concept, so a smart phone would be even moreso.

 

[ford91exploder]

Were prosthetic limbs and synthetic replacement organs made via 3-d printers around 20 years ago?

Prosthetics and bone inserts were made by CNC multi-axis milling machines running the same command language as 3D printers use today. There is nothing revolutionary about creating 3D objects using computer models,

3D printing is simply the next generation of machine tool which creates objects using ADDITIVE instead of SUBTRACTIVE methods.

There are even 3D printers which use METAL to create 3D objects that process is called 'Direct Metal Sintering'

 

[englanddg]

My personal favorites 'The Cloud' or SaaS (Software as a Service) both of which date back to the beginning of the computer era where you 'Timeshared' at a 'Service Bureau' ie paid someone to access their computer and run applications which did not belong to you on their computer.

Sounds a lot like the cloud to me where you rent access to the applications and data storage...

Hmm Old wine in new sexy bottles.

Back then it was called "centralized vs distributed"...and the debate was heated. As the needs increased, it was cheaper to push processing to smaller, but more dedicated, units (ahem...PCs), rather than central servers. It also distributed other issues, reducing downtime and providing a better end user experience. As networks have sped up, somewhere around the late 90s, we flipped it back to centralized systems.

But, yeap. Not new. 20+ years old (as a concept)...

My point was, though, that "technology is moving so rapidly"...it's not. At least to those who follow, I dunno...technology. It's a natural evolution.

I stand by my statement...it's not moving "rapidly"...it's just polished and presented differently. It's more "accessible"...

Not that breakthroughs and cutting edge things aren't happening, they are. But, for the most part, what the average person thinks of when they say "technology is moving rapidly"...is really old tech they just became aware of because it has a shiny new wrapper.

 

[englanddg]

Oh, yeah. My dad had that model. It drove him to work every day.

The point flew way over your head, didn't it...

Just a guess...

 

[englanddg]

That and others are good examples, but the key point is accessibility. A smart phone is like a dozen hi-tech devices in one. In the 1960s, I bet most people thought that the idea of a computer small enough and affordable enough to be in the home at the desk was a science fiction concept, so a smart phone would be even moreso.

Plenty imagined it back then. And, over time, it became reality.

You know, that whole thing EPCOT Future World is supposed to be about?

"If you can dream it, then you can do it?"

That message that has been lost, and shoved away because "technology moves too fast"? When the message was to teach you that it's not moving fast, it's evolving just as predicted by many, including many EPCOT pavilions and non-technical imagineers.

 

[englanddg]

I believe we are. Enlighten me.



WOAH, is that car driving itself in 1997! Wait...I thought this was the FUTURE!

As a side note...what is that thing he's holding in his hand during the video?

Is that a palm based computer with a touch screen?

OMG!!!

(btw, RIP Palm/PalmPilot)

 

[ford91exploder]

Another example Motorola's StarTAC ie flip phones were explicitly designed to mimic the StarTrek TOS 'Communicator' and the iPad was the PADD realized

 

[ford91exploder]

As a side note...what is that thing he's holding in his hand during the video?

Is that a palm based computer with a touch screen?

OMG!!!

(btw, RIP Palm/PalmPilot)

Always liked Graffiti it was a really good method of text entry on a handheld device much faster than hunting and pecking at a virtual keyboard.

 

[englanddg]

Smug much? Having a proof of concept and actual viable technology are not the same thing. Same idea? Sure it is, polished and repackaged not so much.

Not smug at all. I just think you are spouting tropes without thinking about them fully. And, I've pointed that out...repeatedly, using your own examples of how technology is "advancing rapidly".

What do you think is the step between proof of concept and marketing?

How old do you think those magical GPS satellites (or the ground based GPS stations) are? What tech do you think they use? What are the basic mathematical and scientific (specifically physics and wave science) principles involved in it? Do you think they are NEW? That some new Einstein (using that loosely) has come along in the last decade that has revolutionized science and math and everything refreshed in 2008 and all that happened before that was "old people thoughts" and everything after that is "the brave new world where technology moves quickly"?

Proof of concept MAKES it viable. That is the WHOLE POINT of a proof of concept test and beta tests (driving a car on a major highway isn't a "proof of concept" level test, that's left for more controlled environments, this was well past "proof of concept", it was just at a level where the concept wouldn't be accepted by the masses...as are self driving cars today...same pipe dream, won't happen anytime soon, watch.) Show me where the Tesla is beyond "proof of concept" outside of the same level as that video I posted. They still do it, with limited local approval, on local roads, using the same concepts used back then to achieve the same results, and are running into the same, hard to predict, issues...other cars, changing road conditions, animal events, and bad drivers. Shocker...

 

[englanddg]

Always liked Graffiti it was a really good method of text entry on a handheld device much faster than hunting and pecking at a virtual keyboard.

I got really good at it back in the day...

I even had a palm phone in the early 2000s that would (GASP) let me surf the web!

 

[ford91exploder]

Not smug at all. I just think you are spouting tropes without thinking about them fully. And, I've pointed that out...repeatedly, using your own examples of how technology is "advancing rapidly".

What do you think is the step between proof of concept and marketing?

How old do you think those magical GPS satellites (or the ground based GPS stations) are? What tech do you think they use? What is the basic mathematical and scientific (specifically physics and wave science) principles involved in it are? Do you think they are NEW? That some new Einstein (using that loosely) has come along in the last decade that has revolutionized science and math and everything refreshed in 2008 and all that happened before that was "old people thoughts" and everything after that is "the brave new world where technology moves quickly"?

Proof of concept MAKES it viable. That is the WHOLE POINT of a proof of concept test and beta tests (driving a car on a major highway isn't a "proof of concept" level test, that's left for more controlled environments, this was well past "proof of concept", it was just at a level where the concept wouldn't be accepted by the masses...as are self driving cars today...same pipe dream, won't happen anytime soon, watch.) Show me where the Tesla is beyond "proof of concept" outside of the same level as that video I posted. They still do it, with limited local approval, on local roads, using the same concepts used back then to achieve the same results, and are running into the same issues...other cars, changing road conditions, animal events, and bad drivers. Shocker...

GPS also known as Navstar to the US Navy works by solving the '3 body problem" the basic math for that problem was done in the 1890's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

 

[englanddg]

GPS also known as Navstar to the US Navy works by solving the '3 body problem" the basic math for that problem was done in the 1890's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

Nuh uh.

Elon Musk and Steve Jobs for LIFE!

Technology moves too fast for Futureworld (when that was NEVER the point, as Horizons hit home...the point was to dream it, and then you'll start to figure out how to do it...not that it's boring cause SMRT-1 couldn't update your twitter feed)...

It is this mentality that is part of why STEM isn't a focus in the US. We are not living in a "new age", we are living in the same age we "imagined" decades ago...

 

[GeoDonJac34]

I was about to go to bed, but decided to click on this thread to see if there was some interesting conversation about DHS. I wish I went to bed.

 

[englanddg]

To be fair to your point, I watched the whole video.

I come to the conclusion...you cherry pick to make your point.

Even in the video you posted it isn't much more than cruise control with collision detection, as far as complexity. On the side road, for example, the car takes cues from the car ahead of it (collision detection)...which basically means the driver in front of you is doing the driving, while you slave on them. If no one is driving (the "future") then the system crashes.

What happens when a sensor goes down? What happens when you are too busy watching your ABC videos (as the Telsa prompts you) to notice? What happens when the car in front of you veers out of control? None of this video deals with catastrophic situations, it deals with best case ones...which isn't a valid test for "autonomy". What about roads (which are not uncommon) where the paint is faded, or there are potholes? Not covered...and sensors are not smart enough to deal with them properly. Without appropriate infrastructure, as I said, it is a pipe dream.

It is NOT safe, and will never be more than "advanced cruise control" until infrastructure is in place which allows it to be safer and more reliable (which, IS a dream for the future, but not one that can be magically wished away by recycling 50+ year old infrastructure with 30+ year old ideas and asserting it is "new", as you do). Not to mention "Autosteer Temporarily Unavailable"...which happens in your video. Losing your cel phone signal is annoying. Losing your vehicle steering "autonomy" while you are too busy munching on your taco bell burrito while drunk on the way home from the bar, or while putting on your makeup on the way to work because "my car drives itself"...well...

I'm not sure what your point was with that video...if that isn't a crappy "proof of concept" compared to what I posted, I don't know what is. I could make the same video with my "futuristic tech" in a 2000 era Dodge Neon with cruise control buttons on the steering wheel.

He even had to take manual control repeatedly, including, but not limited to, lane choices, intersections and turns. I dunno, last time I checked "autonomous" or "self-driving" meant...no interaction from the user. I could be silly and old fashioned though. Lord knows the industry is rushing to define it clearly to prevent lawsuits.

And, the fact that he has no hands on the steering wheel, and no feet on the pedals, ready for action if needed, is NOT a positive thing. That is DANGEROUS. Especially in the second "test" he does where he is in rural traffic, considering he is in an area where an animal (or worse, a person/child) could run into the road. This is not a controlled environment, and should not be treated as such. Will "I didn't hit the kid, he ran into the road and my computer didn't break fast enough, and I was too busy watching Breaking Bad reruns on my console" be defensible in court for involuntary manslaughter?

Note, he didn't allow the car to manage ONE intersection in the entire video. He says it can't handle the "roundabout", but it doesn't handle ANY intersection. He takes over every time.

Lets see some stuff that is not so cherry picked about AutoSteer, shall we?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ws-happens-autonomous-driving-goes-wrong.html

http://mttlr.org/2015/04/08/autonomous-cars-the-legality-of-cars-on-autopilot/

As a side note, thinking it is safer to have driver focused on their LCD dash display is somehow more efficient, or safer, than having them actually focused on the road around them...is idiocy in motion. Not lunacy...idiocy.

And, again, nothing new. Just polished and packaged well.

Lets learn something, shall we? I mean, rather than quoting tropes?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370598,00.asp

 

[englanddg]

It is more than collision detection, it moderates speed and steering as well as signalling and lane changes. Is it as capable as the Nav 5? No but I couldn't buy that car nor was it ever near production. The technology wasn't there.

The technology was there. The market was not. Now we live in an era where idiots think what is basically "advanced cruise control" is "amazing", so they'll drop 100k on it PLUS it is ELECTRIC, which means they are saving the planet (while they charge it up off of a probably coal or oil based source they don't have to think about).

But that's ok, their friends are just as stupid as them, and applaud their "green" nature for driving a car that relies on lithium batteries (which must be replaced every 100k miles, part of why I didn't buy one, seriously, not to mention the upcharges they DON'T tell you about, but you get to find out about once you get into the pre-order queue...I'd rather buy a Mini, frankly...), without ever seeing what a lithium mine looks like, nor what is involved in mining it, nor understanding how toxic it is.

(as a side note, I LOVE how Tesla handles maintenance, with their mobile bays...but not sure how long that will last...it's still like Ferrari and Lamborghini (and in the same price range)...a rich man's folly, not a viable everyday vehicle, and I'm not sure they can make the jump from a very limited production with a waiting list of those willing to invest, to a mass production model of those willing to need a damned car that gets them to work...)

But, they can shop at Whole Foods and kiss their own collective rear ends, and their friends, for being "earth friendly" and crap, without understanding what that really means.

The technology (going back to my point) has been polished and presented.

The "technology" is not "new". It is an application of established technologies, in a way that isn't even "new"...

See my point? (I'm trying not to get sidetracked into a Tesla Selfdrive debate, and keep it to what you said makes no sense, my original statement)