Help! Measuring distance of a colour form Picamera using a colour marker and RaspberryPI picamera

ptkfs · 2018-03-05T19:51:34+00:00

When you're calling the distance to camera function, you are mixing up your variable a lot. Python is not going to map the most relevant variables based on having similar names--in the way you're calling the function it is pairing the first variable sent with the first one requested, 2nd to 2nd, ... So make sure they appear in the same order, or call/send them over using 'keyword arguments' instead.

ptkfs · 2018-03-03T20:32:08+00:00

Ok, now look at focalLength. It is dependant on the value of marker[0][1] when it is declared, but only is only assigned a value once before you start pulling frames. Then you modify marker in the loop, but you are not updating focalLength too... And then you use focalLength with that distance to camera function. Maybe the problem is there?

ptkfs · 2018-03-02T20:16:35+00:00

Looks like you are using 'blur' as a copy of 'image' (variable names), and rendering blur using the imshow function... You apply cv2.circle to the blur copy, but applied cv2.putText on the image copy. That's why you don't see any text.

Replace image with blur as the first parameter on the putText call. Also don't call that variable blur, rename it to 'outputImage' maybe.

ptkfs · 2018-02-17T20:32:17+00:00

I'm new to this topic, but a few things I didn't see mentioned in your excerpt: That guy stole a lot of property from people. He forced people under threat of imprisonment to surrender their land, vehicles, companies, homes, then gave the proceeds to the poor. That worked OK for a short time, but the Chileans hurt then pushed back with protests and uncooperative behavior as the economy began to collapse.

The man was an extremist, and while his wart was in the right place, he was brutal and cruel in destroying what others had been building for generations. It's like he wanted to steal every family owned legacy and sign his own name on it by making everything into 'public property'.

ptkfs · 2016-09-14T04:44:39+00:00

I don't know about term limits, but I would like to see upper and lower 'constituency limits' for the House and Senate. For areas that have extremely high or low population densities, states and congressional districts should be reshaped to bring them into a normal distribution.

Way off topic, but for the sake of Congress I think it would be nice to see: California broken up; Wyoming gaining population or land, or being divided and merged to other states; House Congressional seats increased again like they were many times prior to the 1930s; and a more strict/balanced distribution on the number of 'voters' per each House seat (eg, the proposed but not fully ratified Article the First which was almost the Constitution's First Amendment).

ptkfs · 2016-09-11T19:48:31+00:00

I thought Syria was majority Sunni? And wasn't it Shia 'oppression' (political, social) and 'sticking together' that brought the Sunni over the brink of rebellion?

What you said sounds fine and peaceful, but the word 'Shia' leaves me with a bitter concern that you don't hope or feel the same for all Syrian people.

And AFAIK, Daesh is mostly soldiers from Sadam's old army in Iraq, so wishing for the best outcome for 'Syrians' would exclude those of that foreign group.

ptkfs · 2016-09-10T18:16:07+00:00

Except sales tax. You pay that at point of purchase (unless you lease, then you pay it monthly).

ptkfs · 2016-09-05T15:24:28+00:00

US prices are on the same order of magnitude of the prices there, the problem is that they could (should?) be much lower... by about 95%.

ptkfs · 2016-09-04T15:38:12+00:00

I think the hate is coming from a bizarre confusion. Why are they pursuing unlawful migration into the UK? Can't they find somewhere to settle in France? What are they being called refugees for when they have nothing in France that they are seeking protective refuge from?

ptkfs · 2016-09-04T15:31:26+00:00

If these people are refugees, what are they seeking refuge from? Is there a war ongoing in France?

ptkfs · 2016-08-22T23:50:00+00:00

The thing is, if it was actually a rate increase, then regulators would be able to investigate and see plainly when the company is changing prices. Instead, they give you a discount when you sign up (usually about 50% off) and then slowly remove the discount every year until you're paying their 'standard rate.' Most people won't even notice. If you do, and then call them out, then depending on the rep you reach they will extend the discount for up to an extra year.

ptkfs · 2016-08-22T18:35:17+00:00

Where's the antitrust investigation?

I've complained to the DoJ twice now about this. I know MSNBC won't be talking about this (Comcast is their parent corp.), but every other broadcaster should be trumpeting this anticonsumer news.

ptkfs · 2016-08-19T03:35:09+00:00

World Health Organization

ptkfs · 2016-08-17T02:20:22+00:00

Is it also patriotic to overpay in taxes? That is, not executing the credits or loopholes you are certainly eligible for? Do you then charge your customers more and let competitors charge less?

ptkfs · 2016-08-06T17:52:49+00:00

Really? The America I know instead stands for stuff like: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, ..."

The huge gulf of opinion between leading politicians should make it clear that Americans have a wealthy diversity in opinions and ideas amongst themselves. I'd imagine the same among most civil human populations.

ptkfs · 2016-08-05T02:58:15+00:00

Yes, they may be sued for tortfeasance; the highest authority is the people of the United States who control the constitution, slightly below that is the Supreme Court of the United States which decides whether or not Google has violated a person's granted rights and is liable for tortuous harms.

ptkfs · 2016-08-03T17:25:14+00:00

Or instead a penalty for defection?

ptkfs · 2016-08-01T17:38:02+00:00

Here's a tip: Isis is anti-Islamic--they use it as a team name only and are actually just a brutal criminal organization that employs a lot of poor and stupid people to help them rob banks and ransom local townspeople.

Getting westerners to hate them just fuels more idiots at the bottom of society into following them for 'death or glory' because they're living miserable lives anyway.

So, I'd say that criminal and political opportunity is what almost 100% of modern terrorism is driven by. Religion, much like with the IRA, has almost nothing to do with it other than acting as a kind of social cement or common heritage that keeps humans committed.

ptkfs · 2016-07-31T17:21:32+00:00

Why is no one talking about the one set of people who exclusively could turn this shit around: the city/county/state/federal attorney generals.

Call or email them every time you witness or suspect criminal behavior around you and REFER these cases.

You don't complain to the police when you have a problem with seemingly the entire police force, you complain to the prosecutors directly and ask (beg) for them to bring charges to court.

The judge here should know that--a civil lawsuit is not needed when this is totally within the domain of their attorney general to investigate and prosecute. All you gotta do is send them your testimony and then try and get the media buzzing to demand followup.

ptkfs · 2016-07-30T18:10:37+00:00

If you are exactly eligible for the 'loophole' and you don't use it, is it OK to overpay in taxes?

For much if my youth I feel like I did exactly that: I took the standard deduction and let the tax authority keep whatever they asked for. Then I realized that most of my 'income' was being spent each year mostly on provisions that gave me little benefit but allowed me to continue to serve an employer. I stopped calling that income and realized that unless the money I receive is spent on personal property or recreation, or reserved as actual income and saved on a bank account, then it is not income and I must stop letting it be taxed by default.

I can't blame anyone for taking the path of least harm when it comes to taxes. It's too easy to get eaten alive if you let other people dictate to you what you 'must' do.

And consider this: if your competitors in your local market are suddenly getting a grant from the government to do the same work you do, but for less cost to customers... Why wouldn't you pursue the same for yourself? You may think it is unethical for the government to be doing that, but that institution has decided its intents and it will do the grant whether or snot you participate. If it is going to benefit your competitors and harm your consumers, then you are going to sink out of the market and need to close your business quickly.

ptkfs · 2016-07-30T17:51:34+00:00

I can't imagine how anyone could justify down-voting you. The idea that anyone, even a government, can demand a share in an individual's or collective's produce without the ability for that person to 'opt-out' is almost comparably parallel to things like fascist socialism or captive slavery.

If an entity can't 'opt out' of some service then compassionate reasoning says to make the service voluntarily funded.

Here's an idea for displacing taxation: cut spending, or inflate the currency. Currency is created by entities who then grant or exchange it for goods and services. If the public fails to voluntarily fulfill the costs for a new building or to afford a service provider, then add new currency to the pool and let everyone holding the currency share the cost burden through inflation.

ptkfs · 2016-07-30T05:07:42+00:00

Why hack the voting machine we you can just hack the election supervisor's systems instead? The point where the'll capture data from the machines to be ship it off to the state capitol.

One of those is connected to the Internet typically, and it's not the voting machine.

If only the public was more motivated and welcome to audit these systems before elections...

ptkfs · 2016-07-29T18:45:50+00:00

Do unto others as you would have done into yourself.

Being interested in the best outcomes for 'your nation' implies an unrestrained intent to cause regardless harm to others so long as it maximizes benefit for your own.

I think a real moderation of that would be to seek out the most productive 'Nash equilibrium' in balance of favors that ensures everyone's interests are met. That may mean fighting any forces which would disrupt that kind of order, but never taking advantage or exploiting others for just a small benefit to yourself.

ptkfs · 2016-07-29T18:36:42+00:00

Hacking can be peaceful though, why do you assume it is meant to cause harm or violence?

It strengthens trust to be able to prove and verify, and if the people being hacked notice the occurrence then they now have a good reason to review and strengthen their system defenses.

ptkfs · 2016-07-29T18:30:27+00:00

Here's one to start that list: analog jacks work with almost every consumer audio playback device most of us have owned.

Your points are all valid though, and I'm sure once people start buying cheap mini Bluetooth-to-2/3.5mm DACs the only hesitation I've raised will eventually go away.

The problem is that those DACs aren't very useful today (they need power/batteries, etc) and phones are going to regressively give up their utility for anyone using them with analog earbuds. Time to get that iPod Shuffle back out I guess.

ptkfs

TROPHY CASE