More importantly it ignores labor costs. Simply listing the price of the materials isn't an apples to apples comparison to the robotic hand which needs someone to setup the 3D printer, and then actually assemble the hand (Probably takes someone with a working hand to perform the threading of the cables etc.)
Well, not only that but most people don't know how to operate a 3D printer, nor how to customize the hand to fit the individual. So while the $42,000 hand includes the professional services involved with fitting the device, the 3D printed one depends on a charitable donation from the 3D printing operator to do the work. It won't be much but it's all probably going to be significantly higher ($400-$1,000) for the human being to operate and configure the 3D model for the individual.
I bet there are only $100 worth of aluminum, gold, silicon and acrylic in the $42,000 hand too.
This drives me crazy when people don't include the costs of labor. It would be like someone getting a car donated to them and saying "Wow cars only cost $200 for a title and registration! Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a car!?" Because someone gave you one for free!
I work in film production. I have a $50k camera that I rent out. On most productions your total rental per day will be about $2,000 a day. Now you could say that you could shoot a TV commercial for "only $2,000 in rentals!" But that ignores the fact that cameras don't operate on their own, lights don't just place themselves, actors should be paid for their skills, assistant directors need to keep production on schedule, locations need to be paid for the rights to use their property etc. So yeah it "only costs $2,000" as long as you ignore the $20,000 per day in crew costs for a small production.
People who say a film only costs $20,000 to make are either productions that somehow shot and finished in 1 day or else they're saying that their crew's time was worth nothing.
If I spent $10,000 on a 3D printer. I couldn't just open the box and push the "Give me a 3D Prosthetic Hand" button. I would either need to spend a good week or so learning how to print ($100 an hour * 40 hours = $4,000) or else spend $1,000 on a professional to setup and configure the scene/hand for me specifically.
3D printers printing weak plastic is only temporary. It's only a matter of time before we have ceramics or plastics as strong as milled steel billets.
You couldn't find a job at any of the studios? What did you do to piss people off? I know plenty of people without any connections who are doing just fine finding animation gigs. I hate to be "that guy" but the only person who I've ever heard about making the right connections was someone who showed up in town, didn't get anything within a couple months of showing up and complained that the whole system was rigged and left. If you are blacklisted you must have been a world class asshole to a lot of people.
If you have a depth channel you could displace a 3D plane in camera space and render that in 3D. So 2.5D/3D is a bit arbitrary.
If you had a perfect 3D model and the one photo though you still wouldn't have enough information to render true Depth of Field. The real problem isn't 2.5D/3D it's the fact that there is no parallax information for occluded information. That can be interpolated well enough for simple situations but ultimately you're trying to infer data which will cause artifacts.
The problem is the focal length of the lens not the quality of the design. With such a small sensor (due to the size constraints of a cell phone package) you have to have extremely short lenses. Even if you had F0.8 in order to get a reasonable portrait focal length you're looking at single digit focal lengths.
He might not even be lying. They don't have the hard drive space or the capability to spy on everyone. Of course he doesn't want to spy on *everyone*, just suspected muslims, dissidents, homosexuals or anyone else who might not support the Kremlin.
I would remind everyone that after the Boston Bombings the Russians were very helpful in providing all of Tsarnaev's text messages. They just "happened" to have him under surveillance. What luck!
Probably the same thing that spurs paranoia about automated taxes today. The government knows enough about us that they could easily auto-file/fill our forms every year but people are afraid of admitting how much is known about us.
Well if you could double the reach of your organization to include women that would seem to be a good long term investment on 25% of your budget.
When the Boston Bomber was identified Russia was kind enough to provide investigators with all of his text messages and phone calls.
Of course they aren't surprised. They openly admitted that they were doing the same thing before Snowden was a household name. Every country is doing everything legally possible (and then some) to spy on anyone they can. That's not new. The only people surprised by Snowden's leaks were people who had a false sense of security.
Basic science has gross increased. It's only decreased as a fraction of GDP. We're putting plenty of money into basic research--we just could be putting a lot more in.
Boy, if there's one thing that could ever kill Open Source it would be being held legally liable for a commit with a bug in it.
Which is why all projects are released AS-IS without any liability.
It depends on the portfolio. How am I supposed to verify a portfolio except to have the photographer shoot some new shots on a memory card I give them and supervise through the entire process of loading into the camera and handing back to me?
Lots of people don't know about reverse image searches. In fact it's a relatively new technology. And then how do I know that other people aren't ripping off *my* photographer?
So how pray tell do I verify that someone I'm about to pay is in fact as good as they claim? The only alternative I see is to have them prove their merit. But no photographer with any self worth should ever do "practice" shots to prove they can take good pictures. That would be like going to a mechanic and saying "Hey, change my tire.. and then I'll decide if you changed it well enough to get paid."
No, if you are on medicaid you are one of the 5.9 million added to Medicaid. That's a separate group.
The 7.1 number isn't in that paper because they based their numbers on the beginning of March before procrastinators joined en-masse.
It does not include Medicaid.
Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million.
This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
The 9.3 million person increase in insurance is driven not only by enrollment in marketplace plans, but also by gains in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and Medicaid.
Enrollment in ESI increased by 8.2 million.
Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had âoeotherâ forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
