I have been saying for a number of years that UPS/FedEx should offer an evening delivery 6-10PM for an additional fee.
I would gladly pay an extra $2 to know that I will be home to get my package.
Even if a driver can only deliver 10 packages an hour, thats still an extra $20. That has GOT to cover his overtime.
I would gladly pay an extra $2 to know that I will be home to get my package.
Even if a driver can only deliver 10 packages an hour, thats still an extra $20. That has GOT to cover his overtime.
It's nice to know that the author of xkcd watches Bones.
He COULD have been talking about a SA-12, but he wasn't. While Russia did begin manufacturing the SA-12 in the late seventies, that doesn't mean that Libya had any.
Pilots are briefed about the expected missile defense capabilities of their flyover routes and he was, presumably, informed of the Libyans all-but-useless SA-2 and SA-4 capabilities.
The other responder (ikaiyoo) is correct that simply because you know you are faster doesn't mean that your heart doesn't skip a beat when you learn you are being tracked by a SAM.
But the suspenseful nature of the story is all show. He was never in any danger and, if he was a professional pilot (which presumably he was) he knew it the whole time.
Pilots are briefed about the expected missile defense capabilities of their flyover routes and he was, presumably, informed of the Libyans all-but-useless SA-2 and SA-4 capabilities.
The other responder (ikaiyoo) is correct that simply because you know you are faster doesn't mean that your heart doesn't skip a beat when you learn you are being tracked by a SAM.
But the suspenseful nature of the story is all show. He was never in any danger and, if he was a professional pilot (which presumably he was) he knew it the whole time.
I get annoyed when people shout "photoshopped" or "fake" at posts, but I also get annoyed when people lie to me and the story of "outrunning" a SA-2 SAM doesn't hold water.
The SR-71 could never reach Mach 3.2 at low altitude (the resistance would rip it to shreds) and the SA-2 couldn't reach the SR-71's cruising altitude of 80,000. It's ceilings is closer to 60,000 feet ([www.nationalmuseum.af.mil] Furthermore, the SA-2/SA-4 didn't fly at Mach 5 - they flew at mach 3.5 for the SA-2 and mach 2.5 for the SA-4.
So, in short, the SA-2 couldn't go high enough to endanger the SR-71 and the SA-4 couldn't go fast enough.
It's a fun story, but it doesn't hold water. I guess I should expect old men to embellish.
The SR-71 could never reach Mach 3.2 at low altitude (the resistance would rip it to shreds) and the SA-2 couldn't reach the SR-71's cruising altitude of 80,000. It's ceilings is closer to 60,000 feet ([www.nationalmuseum.af.mil] Furthermore, the SA-2/SA-4 didn't fly at Mach 5 - they flew at mach 3.5 for the SA-2 and mach 2.5 for the SA-4.
So, in short, the SA-2 couldn't go high enough to endanger the SR-71 and the SA-4 couldn't go fast enough.
It's a fun story, but it doesn't hold water. I guess I should expect old men to embellish.
Second day, much better questions.
While the writers didn't use any *truly* complex wordplay, at least it wasn't all "fill in the blank" style questions, though there were still many (this is where Watson shines).
When it came to pairings, comparators or clues that relied strongly on the interplay between clue and category, Watson stank.
The analysis that Jennings altered his style and therefore beat Watson to the buzzer is, of course, entirely incorrect. He tried this in game 1 (he buzzed in before he knew the answer and was left guessing - a VERY non-Jennings move - and still only got to the buzzer ONCE before Watson)
If you watched game 2 closely, for all but one question, if Watson had finished his computation (his answers pop up on the TV when he is finished) and had enough confidence to buzz in, he got to the buzzer first. Jennings did so well because Watson was only ready and able to buzz in around half the time.
Even though Watson only knew about 50% of the clues he was on top for three reasons:
1. He knows that he doesn't know. He won't buzz in if he isn't confident enough and the programmers really got this right. He issued VERY FEW wrong answers.
2. He got 2 of the 3 daily doubles. This is because he was in control more often than not and this is, once again, because
3. He has an enormous unfair advantage on the buzzer. I have seen claims that pressing the buzzer is a part of the competition (just like knowing trivia) and, while true, that is irrelevant.
If someone had issued IBM a grand challenge: "Can you make a machine that pushes a button faster than a human", I think that they would have declined. Had they taken it up, the world would have collectively yawned. OF COURSE you can build a machine that does that.
If you use that obvious conclusion as a basis for giving your machine an enormous unfair advantage in a totally different kind of challenge, then you are simply cheating.
Worst of all is that they spoke about how he had to press a physical button, as if this is relevant. This gives the illusion of fairness without actually introducing any. This is a classic con-man maneuver and the worst kind of deception.
Overall, the programmers did well in terms of programming Watson, though when the questions got tougher, he only knew about 50% of the questions (they claim in their videos that he was closer to 85% - maybe because they assume there will be easy categories).
In the presence of such lacking knowledge, Watson would have easily gotten destroyed by Jennings or Rutter in any form of fair fight.
While the writers didn't use any *truly* complex wordplay, at least it wasn't all "fill in the blank" style questions, though there were still many (this is where Watson shines).
When it came to pairings, comparators or clues that relied strongly on the interplay between clue and category, Watson stank.
The analysis that Jennings altered his style and therefore beat Watson to the buzzer is, of course, entirely incorrect. He tried this in game 1 (he buzzed in before he knew the answer and was left guessing - a VERY non-Jennings move - and still only got to the buzzer ONCE before Watson)
If you watched game 2 closely, for all but one question, if Watson had finished his computation (his answers pop up on the TV when he is finished) and had enough confidence to buzz in, he got to the buzzer first. Jennings did so well because Watson was only ready and able to buzz in around half the time.
Even though Watson only knew about 50% of the clues he was on top for three reasons:
1. He knows that he doesn't know. He won't buzz in if he isn't confident enough and the programmers really got this right. He issued VERY FEW wrong answers.
2. He got 2 of the 3 daily doubles. This is because he was in control more often than not and this is, once again, because
3. He has an enormous unfair advantage on the buzzer. I have seen claims that pressing the buzzer is a part of the competition (just like knowing trivia) and, while true, that is irrelevant.
If someone had issued IBM a grand challenge: "Can you make a machine that pushes a button faster than a human", I think that they would have declined. Had they taken it up, the world would have collectively yawned. OF COURSE you can build a machine that does that.
If you use that obvious conclusion as a basis for giving your machine an enormous unfair advantage in a totally different kind of challenge, then you are simply cheating.
Worst of all is that they spoke about how he had to press a physical button, as if this is relevant. This gives the illusion of fairness without actually introducing any. This is a classic con-man maneuver and the worst kind of deception.
Overall, the programmers did well in terms of programming Watson, though when the questions got tougher, he only knew about 50% of the questions (they claim in their videos that he was closer to 85% - maybe because they assume there will be easy categories).
In the presence of such lacking knowledge, Watson would have easily gotten destroyed by Jennings or Rutter in any form of fair fight.
I was thinking about how to make the buzzing in for Watson in line with humans.
Probably the only fair way would be to get another champion (someone who is both smart and good at the buzzer) and have them always buzz in as soon as they think they can.
If BOTH the human player AND watson are buzzing in, then Watson gets the clue.
This would still give Watson a SMALL advantage because this anonymous third player could focus all his attention on the buzzer, but at least it becomes CLOSE to fair. Right now, it's totally absurd.
Probably the only fair way would be to get another champion (someone who is both smart and good at the buzzer) and have them always buzz in as soon as they think they can.
If BOTH the human player AND watson are buzzing in, then Watson gets the clue.
This would still give Watson a SMALL advantage because this anonymous third player could focus all his attention on the buzzer, but at least it becomes CLOSE to fair. Right now, it's totally absurd.
Apparently you aren't a watcher.
Everyone knows that the daily double is anywhere in the lower 3 rows and can be in any column. That's why when Ken gets to choose, he always chooses one of those and that's what Watson did as well.
Ken's model was always about making the game a runaway and the daily doubles are a vital piece of that puzzle
Everyone knows that the daily double is anywhere in the lower 3 rows and can be in any column. That's why when Ken gets to choose, he always chooses one of those and that's what Watson did as well.
Ken's model was always about making the game a runaway and the daily doubles are a vital piece of that puzzle
Second night looks good, though the numerous and obvious unfair advantages given to Watson are what made the difference.
As I said about the first night:
1. He was, for the most part, given easy categories. No complex wordplay, easily parseable rules in the category ("US Cities"), etc...
2. He got all the daily doubles. Some of you might claim that this is simply because he is a better player and was therefore in control the whole time, but the real reason is:
3. He has a ridiculously huge advantage on the buzzer and this makes all the difference. There were a total of 4 questions in the combined 2 nights that Watson wanted to answer (he had an answer above his threshhold) but did not get to the buzzer first. This is probably because he hadn't finished his computation when the buzzer's become available.
The counter-argument says: "But he still has to press a physical button in order to buzz in." That would be meaningful if he wasn't send a signal at the exact moment that buzzing in becomes allowed.
On Jeopardy, you can only buzz in When Alex finishes talking (this was introduced in the 80s because a few people who could speed-read were cleaning up, not because they knew more, but because they could get in early). This was deemed, by the Jeopardy producers, to be an unfair advantage and so they introduced the concept that you must wait until Alex has finished talking (this is controlled by a human being who "activates" the buzzers). If you buzz in early, your controller times out for half a second and so there is an "art" to waiting until the exact moment that Alex has finished reading the question and the person behind the scenes allows you to buzz in.
But, if you were paying attention to the intro on the first day, you know that Watson can't "hear". So how does he buzz in? He is sent a signal at the exact moment that the buzzers become available and all he has to do is send a command to the servo to press the button. As such, he is has the advantage that the Jeopardy producers deemed unfair in the 80s.
But Watson actually has a greater advantage than any speed readers ever did. Because if Brad or Ken also know the answer before the buzzers become available, they are left trying to figure out when to press and if they press early, they are locked out. Watson never makes that mistake and, within microseconds of getting the signal that he can buzz in, his button is already pressed.
This is the reason that Watson has so much money. Not because he knew so many of the questions (though he clearly did well on these categories - notwithstanding the fact that they were much easier than tournament of champion level questions).
He clearly did well, but I wish that the writers would have challenged him with tougher questions and that the programmers had given him some basic voice recognition (doesnt IBM make viavoice?), not to have him "listen" to the questions, but to put him on the same playing field as everyone else when it comes to buzzing in.
It's clear to me that, had he been on a level playing field, he would have gotten trounced by Brad .
As I said about the first night:
1. He was, for the most part, given easy categories. No complex wordplay, easily parseable rules in the category ("US Cities"), etc...
2. He got all the daily doubles. Some of you might claim that this is simply because he is a better player and was therefore in control the whole time, but the real reason is:
3. He has a ridiculously huge advantage on the buzzer and this makes all the difference. There were a total of 4 questions in the combined 2 nights that Watson wanted to answer (he had an answer above his threshhold) but did not get to the buzzer first. This is probably because he hadn't finished his computation when the buzzer's become available.
The counter-argument says: "But he still has to press a physical button in order to buzz in." That would be meaningful if he wasn't send a signal at the exact moment that buzzing in becomes allowed.
On Jeopardy, you can only buzz in When Alex finishes talking (this was introduced in the 80s because a few people who could speed-read were cleaning up, not because they knew more, but because they could get in early). This was deemed, by the Jeopardy producers, to be an unfair advantage and so they introduced the concept that you must wait until Alex has finished talking (this is controlled by a human being who "activates" the buzzers). If you buzz in early, your controller times out for half a second and so there is an "art" to waiting until the exact moment that Alex has finished reading the question and the person behind the scenes allows you to buzz in.
But, if you were paying attention to the intro on the first day, you know that Watson can't "hear". So how does he buzz in? He is sent a signal at the exact moment that the buzzers become available and all he has to do is send a command to the servo to press the button. As such, he is has the advantage that the Jeopardy producers deemed unfair in the 80s.
But Watson actually has a greater advantage than any speed readers ever did. Because if Brad or Ken also know the answer before the buzzers become available, they are left trying to figure out when to press and if they press early, they are locked out. Watson never makes that mistake and, within microseconds of getting the signal that he can buzz in, his button is already pressed.
This is the reason that Watson has so much money. Not because he knew so many of the questions (though he clearly did well on these categories - notwithstanding the fact that they were much easier than tournament of champion level questions).
He clearly did well, but I wish that the writers would have challenged him with tougher questions and that the programmers had given him some basic voice recognition (doesnt IBM make viavoice?), not to have him "listen" to the questions, but to put him on the same playing field as everyone else when it comes to buzzing in.
It's clear to me that, had he been on a level playing field, he would have gotten trounced by Brad .
A few things to watch for:
1. If you noticed, Watson did MUCH better on the lower-valued questions ($200 and $400) than he did on the more valuable ones. As double jeopardy will be even tougher, this bodes poorly for watson.
2. Watson got the daily double. For those of us who are regular watchers, we know that one of the main components of Ken Jennings' streak was that he bid big on the daily doubles to make the game a runaway. Over half of Ken's games were out of reach by the end and the daily doubles were a huge part of that. Watson got lucky in round 1 by getting the daily double on his first clue selection.
3. Brad Rutter's greatest talent in the game is his speed on the buzzer. If you watched the ultimate tournament of champions you know that he destroyed Ken. Not because he knew more, but because he is simply a kung-fu master when it comes to that button. This is a point where Watson has a clear, unfair advantage that has nothing to do with computation. On nearly every question that Watson wanted to buzz in on, he got to the buzzer first. This is his other major reason for holding on as he has thus far.
4. Finally, while the two-meanings category was a little bit of wordplay, there wasn't very much in terms of complex language. And a "complete the lyric" category is something that any of us could code an engine for.
My overall point is: So far, Watson has gotten lucky, been given simple categories, has an unfair advantage at the buzzer and still did poorly when the questions started getting tougher. My hope is that he had a bad day, but I'm not too optimistic.
P.S. I can't post a comment here without saying how utterly terrible the new website design is. Random AJaX issues all over the place (page only half loads, doesn't load at all, white overlay remains after page finished loading, scrolling buttons on the bottom on right bar don't work half the time, ....), messed up CSS (random black bar in the middle of the screen on chrome when you scroll, comments and date don't actually fit in the title bar next to the gizmodo logo, +- icons on rating articles are all messed up, ....), freezes (pages randomly don't come up and I have to refresh), poor use of space (why limit us to 1024? Is this 2002?) ....
1. If you noticed, Watson did MUCH better on the lower-valued questions ($200 and $400) than he did on the more valuable ones. As double jeopardy will be even tougher, this bodes poorly for watson.
2. Watson got the daily double. For those of us who are regular watchers, we know that one of the main components of Ken Jennings' streak was that he bid big on the daily doubles to make the game a runaway. Over half of Ken's games were out of reach by the end and the daily doubles were a huge part of that. Watson got lucky in round 1 by getting the daily double on his first clue selection.
3. Brad Rutter's greatest talent in the game is his speed on the buzzer. If you watched the ultimate tournament of champions you know that he destroyed Ken. Not because he knew more, but because he is simply a kung-fu master when it comes to that button. This is a point where Watson has a clear, unfair advantage that has nothing to do with computation. On nearly every question that Watson wanted to buzz in on, he got to the buzzer first. This is his other major reason for holding on as he has thus far.
4. Finally, while the two-meanings category was a little bit of wordplay, there wasn't very much in terms of complex language. And a "complete the lyric" category is something that any of us could code an engine for.
My overall point is: So far, Watson has gotten lucky, been given simple categories, has an unfair advantage at the buzzer and still did poorly when the questions started getting tougher. My hope is that he had a bad day, but I'm not too optimistic.
P.S. I can't post a comment here without saying how utterly terrible the new website design is. Random AJaX issues all over the place (page only half loads, doesn't load at all, white overlay remains after page finished loading, scrolling buttons on the bottom on right bar don't work half the time, ....), messed up CSS (random black bar in the middle of the screen on chrome when you scroll, comments and date don't actually fit in the title bar next to the gizmodo logo, +- icons on rating articles are all messed up, ....), freezes (pages randomly don't come up and I have to refresh), poor use of space (why limit us to 1024? Is this 2002?) ....
I don't care for the new layout from a design standpoint - I think that featuring one story on your homepage is counterproductive and defeats the purpose of a homepage - but all of that notwithstanding, there are at least 2 conventional design "flaws" that you have in place here:
1. On the top right you have labels for the logged in user and the latest stories and the contrast there is simply not high enough (dark grey on not-too-dark grey rarely is).
2. At least on chrome 9, if you scroll down a little (maybe 1200px down) there is a visible seam in the background image. It goes the full width of the page and as you scroll down it moves towards the top. It looks stupid.
3. When the room you leave for the labels causes you to write them as "photograp-hy" you probably need a rethink.
In terms of why your design is bad, all you need to do is look at Pulse on the Android platform. What makes Pulse great is that its easy to navigate and use, but still maintains the vibrance of the web by using images when available. You have essentially gone the other way, taking the limitations of smartphones and brought them to the web.
The other major reason your design is bad is because you are a tech blog. If you are upgrading the site, your first goal should be to maximize the experience for your audience. Towards that end, you should definitely have tried to take advantage of higher res screens - your readership is probably much further along in this area than most sites. To crush the relevant part of the homepage to 200px width is simply foolish.
All that being said, the design would be a fine upgrade to the article pages (which had no direct means of jumping from one article to another), but the homepage should be about presenting as much content as possible. For a good example of how that could/should look, head over to nytimes.com/chrome in google chrome.
1. On the top right you have labels for the logged in user and the latest stories and the contrast there is simply not high enough (dark grey on not-too-dark grey rarely is).
2. At least on chrome 9, if you scroll down a little (maybe 1200px down) there is a visible seam in the background image. It goes the full width of the page and as you scroll down it moves towards the top. It looks stupid.
3. When the room you leave for the labels causes you to write them as "photograp-hy" you probably need a rethink.
In terms of why your design is bad, all you need to do is look at Pulse on the Android platform. What makes Pulse great is that its easy to navigate and use, but still maintains the vibrance of the web by using images when available. You have essentially gone the other way, taking the limitations of smartphones and brought them to the web.
The other major reason your design is bad is because you are a tech blog. If you are upgrading the site, your first goal should be to maximize the experience for your audience. Towards that end, you should definitely have tried to take advantage of higher res screens - your readership is probably much further along in this area than most sites. To crush the relevant part of the homepage to 200px width is simply foolish.
All that being said, the design would be a fine upgrade to the article pages (which had no direct means of jumping from one article to another), but the homepage should be about presenting as much content as possible. For a good example of how that could/should look, head over to nytimes.com/chrome in google chrome.
@wallabyhound: I'm pretty sure he just showed that it not only compared to what surefire put out, but bested it.
In the future, you might want to watch the video before commenting on it.
In the future, you might want to watch the video before commenting on it.
I've been saying for a while that they should add altimeters.
That way, they can tell which floor of the parking garage I left my car or if I'm on the lower vs. upper level of the bridge. There are lots of real-world applications and they already fit them into wristwatches (which means they are small and low-power) so why not phones?
I'm not averse to barometers, but let's get with the altimeter program already.
That way, they can tell which floor of the parking garage I left my car or if I'm on the lower vs. upper level of the bridge. There are lots of real-world applications and they already fit them into wristwatches (which means they are small and low-power) so why not phones?
I'm not averse to barometers, but let's get with the altimeter program already.
@waht: It's amazing how half of the people in this video looks like Andy Samberg dressed up as an idiot.
I think this would serve as a good model for helicopter control.
You somehow claim, with a straight face, that the reason that Verizon and Apple couldn't reach an agreement was because Verizon thinks it's the best and was too demanding?
Do you actually believe that they are MORE self-important than Apple? Do you expect any of us to believe it?
Do you actually believe that they are MORE self-important than Apple? Do you expect any of us to believe it?
If you go to Google Maps: Street View, there is a new context-menu item (in the right click menu) called "3-D View" which shows you the street with 3D (if you have those 1950s red/green glasses).
-bobjase
#tips
-bobjase
#tips
N-Trig also makes the multitouch tech for HP TouchSmart laptops.
They are nothing special. For example, they didn't release multi-touch drivers for Windows 7 for many, many months after Windows 7 came out.
They are nothing special. For example, they didn't release multi-touch drivers for Windows 7 for many, many months after Windows 7 came out.
I get the same intermittent market download failures on my Evo.
These charts are all misleading.
Spend 30 seconds searching the web and you will find tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of apps. You will find hundreds of SITES dedicated to WinMo apps and these sites date back a decade.
They aren't in an "App Store" but WinMo has (and has always had) the most apps by far.
Spend 30 seconds searching the web and you will find tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of apps. You will find hundreds of SITES dedicated to WinMo apps and these sites date back a decade.
They aren't in an "App Store" but WinMo has (and has always had) the most apps by far.
Why does EVERYONE have to re-create the wheel?
Rather than an orange button, why not just use the MS Office corner globe? It's clean, it's clear and it's going to be on millions of computers moving forward.
Rather than an orange button, why not just use the MS Office corner globe? It's clean, it's clear and it's going to be on millions of computers moving forward.
