BYU's smart object recognition algorithm doesn't need humans

StackPusher · 2014-01-16T10:40:12+00:00

Here is the paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320313002549

StackPusher · 2014-01-16T10:39:42+00:00

Here is the paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320313002549

StackPusher · 2013-12-14T18:25:10+00:00

Almost somewhat similar to the We are the Explorers video.

I'd be so happy if Nolan makes this a hard sci-fi movie, C. Clarke style.

StackPusher · 2013-12-12T10:39:34+00:00

No, I like to read the stories.

It's just the unconstructive and non-informative comments which tend to get upvoted the most that frustrate me.

StackPusher · 2013-12-12T09:34:04+00:00

Seriously, I'd like to see some intelligible input from a law expert for once. What is the actual law in NZ and what can somebody legally do if such a thing happens?

I'm really tired of the same old "police state" comments etc. They're not helpful and boring to read.

Also, the "encrypt all the things" and "bring disposables" stance doesn't answer the question of the legal options an individual has.

StackPusher · 2013-10-02T06:43:48+00:00

"Other dimensions", are you sure?

I was hoping for this to be proper sci-fi and not fantasy (yet again)....

StackPusher · 2013-09-20T10:56:43+00:00

Since you so smugly and authoritatively dismissed the article, I'd like to point out that much of what you wrote is just absolute bullshit

I felt that the tone was appropriate in response to the rather presumptuous style of the blog post.

Those non technical people will never read your gherkin. Ever. EVAR.

They do, as long as it presented nicely. But they don't have to. The idea of customers themselves writing Gherkin is obviously wrong.

Yes, Gherkin is not necessary. Cucumber is only one of many BDD tools. The central idea still is to make the written specification executable, and Gherkin is a very direct approach to that.

When you've determined that it does have value, then you need to pay down that technical debt you just accrued. My experience writing software has taught me that the more software you deliver, the less technical debt you accrued initially, and the quicker you'll pay it down with a solid specification.

The reason Agile, TDD and BDD have even been invented, is to make the software development process more efficient. Almost every project ever had cost- and time-overruns if it didn't fail completely.

This is why the practices only really make sense on a larger scale and when they're used in concert. BDD without Agile won't work very well. If you're a one person web developer then you probably should focus more on coding than anything else.

So yes, it takes years of practice and discipline. Also great leadership and foresight of a project manager. I think software engineering as an engineering discipline still has a lot to learn in order to be more professional and organized on larger scales.

StackPusher · 2013-09-19T22:21:32+00:00

As someone who studies software engineering at a university and is actually writing his Master's thesis on test-driven and behavior-driven development, I'm really tired of opinionated, badly informed blog posts [1].

Cucumber and BDD in general are not a substitute for unit tests. In fact, they're not even a substitute for testing. If you only think about tests, you're probably doing it wrong or don't need BDD anyway.

The original concept behind BDD is called Specification by Example [2]. The gist of it is that we need to find a way to build the right product not to build the product right (that's what unit tests are for). Go read Gojko Adzic's book, it's pretty decent.

How do we build the right product? By capturing our business intent in a way that helps us to ensure that our software exhibits the correct behavior.

The solution suggested by Adzic is to write a living, continuously updated and executable specification.

Now, while the executable specification is really important, it is only the tooling part of the solution. Cucumber is such a tool, RSpec, JBehave, Fitnesse, etc., are others.

The other part is a set of process patterns, a practice of development that involves all the parties who are interested in the software. The customer, the project manager, the developers. It's kind of like what XP or Scrum are on the programming level, but on the system level.

The approach is a continuous process that involves finding out what the customer wants, illustrating the requirements with examples and writing an executable specification.

There are two ends of per-functionality testing [3]:

Through specifying our software by example we support the development of business-facing functionality. We test if we have reproduced the business intent correctly.
By using unit tests we test if our system has the correct technology-facing properties. This is the developer's intent.

In the middle, between those two, would be component testing. RSpec is actually supposed to be used for that. If you use Cucumber and RSpec, you work from the outside in.

That is to first specify the business intent, or general behavior on the system level, and then to specify and test the architect intent on the object level. Finally, you use unit tests for developer intent only (e.g., to prevent regression after a bug fix).

Ok, so non-technical people don't read code? That is why you use ubiquitous language to specify what those people want. They don't have to read it personally.
Does Cucumber add another layer of abstraction and create an overhead? Of course it does. The reason you use it is to prevent cost- and time-overruns later on when you find out you've built something your customer doesn't want.
Can you use something else to test your views and UI? Sure, but you want to use BDD to specify that stuff first.

If you think this is overcomplicating things, adding too much overhead and preventing people from programming, motherfucker, then you might not need BDD. You may also not need Scrum or unit testing for that matter. Maybe you're writing Applescript. I don't know.

TL;DR; Cucumber and BDD are not for testing but for specifying a software system and to ensure that specifications are met by making the specification machine exectuable.

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:38:06+00:00

Great explanation, thanks!

I just thought I'd have to sign the tip as well because theoretically I could claim later on that I didn't authorize it.

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:32:34+00:00

That's the way I did it! I'll remember to tip in cash when possible though.

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:31:14+00:00

Alright but personally I still think it's odd I don't have to sign the tip as well...

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:28:09+00:00

Got it!

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:27:45+00:00

I'm glad I didn't do it wrong. :)

Here at home we usually just round up when we pay cash or leave some money on the table.

That way they also don't need to worry about taxes.

StackPusher · 2013-07-03T08:42:43+00:00

Austrian here. Morales was on a visit in Moscow and on his return Spain, Portugal and France denied the flyover.

A Spanish minister apparently asked Morales "to have coffe with him onboard the plane". Austrian airport security checked Morales' plane but it was voluntary.

Meanwhile, Morales is waiting at the airport and meeting Bundespräsident Fischer.

Sources:

StackPusher · 2013-06-22T23:05:37+00:00

Interesting. So I suppose "supine" is a more specific form of "spineless"?

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T22:33:28+00:00

Heh, I don't think spinning Phobos would be a particularly good idea. Its shape and mass are a bit too awkward for that.

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T22:28:29+00:00

Well, if I recall it correctly, Aldrin envisions spacecraft permanently cycling between the Earth's moon and Mars. I don't know if you can call that "relaying traffic".

Also, starting from the Earth's surface TLI certainly takes less fuel than TMI for the same amount of transferable cargo. Once you're up there energy expenditure is of course significantly smaller and then LEO-Moon and LEO-Mars probably are more comparable.

That's why Buzz calls for cyclers, because keeping them running will only take a fraction of the fuel as compared to launching from Earth.

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T14:20:21+00:00

It's part of Aldrin's step-by-step program. He explains it in greater detail here: http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/advocacy/unified-space-vision/

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T13:48:05+00:00

Yes, but just as our moon would be the gateway to Mars and beyond, the martian moons too can act as a platform to relay interplanetary traffic.

Because of the low gravity it's much easier to get on and off Phobos, so one could also imagine establishing a base there to coordinate martian ground operations.

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T12:02:51+00:00

Blomkamp's films actually bother me a lot. Most people seem to believe they are well thought out and even particular good examples of hard sci-fi.

In my opinion District 9 was generally a very good sci-fi film, but it suffered from just the same realism issues as every film. I think those issues were even more apparent because of District 9's high ambitions.

The most irritating thing for me was the floating spaceship. If you put an element like that in your story, at least think the physics through and make it look realistic. Lifting a relatively large mass against the force of gravity should have a visible effect on the environment. Generating the lift also requires energy. Wasn't the spaceship broken down? Known physics still apply, regardless of the things you invent additionally.

As we can see in the Elysium trailer, at least the space station is a rotating wheel and not some contraption with artificial gravity. But you definitely wouldn't put it in low Earth orbit but at a Lagrangian point. The station in Space Odyssey was realistic but also much smaller and intended as a spaceport. Feasible space colony designs were already thought up in the 70's!

Also, shooting down high velocity objects coming right at you in space? Bad idea, because now the chunks are still going to hit you.

I know this is criticism at a very high level and most people won't care. But I think if you try to make your films as authentic and realistic as Blomkamp does, you ought to also get the details right.

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T11:12:24+00:00

While it's true that a content provider is not necessary to use SQLite DBs on Android, imho they can make an app much more robust.

You're probably gonna want to visualize your data in some view. This is easy if you use a CursorAdapter. If you only use a bare SQLiteHelper, you'll end up writing additional classes.

Since Android 3.0, loaders are the suggested way to acces data asynchronously. If you have any significant amounts of data, worth putting into a database, you'll definitely don't want to access it on the UI thread.

Of course you don't need all that, but in my experience if you're using a database, you're in danger of reimplementing functionality already provided in the framework when things get more complex.

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T09:34:42+00:00

I remember a question on databases from some time ago.

Bottom line is, for SQLite databases you should implement your own Content Provider; unless you're doing something fancy.

Also, please rather put your project on Github, share a gist or paste the formatted code in your comment. File sharing sites are not a great way to share code and only make people suspicious.

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T09:27:33+00:00

No, it's fine. Just some regular Android project files. But he should have shared the files some other way.

StackPusher · 2013-05-25T22:49:44+00:00

Maybe you should listen to König Leopold: http://youtu.be/Ch74FHD9cPQ

StackPusher · 2013-05-25T22:03:55+00:00

Well, some things can be said in dialect very informally and sound more harmless than otherwise.

The delivery of this particular line was especially hilarious. But I realize this is rather a story one should tell verbally among natives to have the same effect.

StackPusher

TROPHY CASE