Wow, Windows really is reaching new lows here.

The word only here was not used to diminish the significance of the interface criticisms, but to refute the claim that Windows 8 is "Windows 8 is shit, from top to bottom." If Windows 8 is shift from bottom to top, yet the only thing people really have a problem with is the interface, then Windows 8 isn't really shit from bottom to top now is it?

Um, you can *very easily* use even stock Windows 8 without ever using the Metro interface or a metro app. Since update 1, Windows 8.1 is now even easier to use on a desktop setup. They have addressed pretty much every criticism of the Metro UI except for the start menu at this point. As far as I can tell, most of the criticisms on this site are outdated by about 6 months with regards to the Metro UI, because people here would rather talk out of their asses than from true experience.

No. Artificial neural networks are inspired by biology, but that's where the similarity ends. Any conclusion drawn from an ANN should not be cast onto their biological counterparts.

For some people, careers aren't about ROI. I wouldn't do mobile app development for a million dollars.

I agree with everything you said except fitting an IMU in the pen. I think it wouldn't be that hard or expensive to fit one of these in a pen: http://www.invensense.com/mems...

Sorry, I thought you were using a broad definition of distorted. Nominal accuracy of GPS is 1 - 10 m, depending on conditions, in my experience. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that it's accurate to 20 cm. That's the kind of accuracy you'd expect with something like DGPS. If this were the case, competitors in the DARPA Urban Challenge wouldn't have needed DGPS and expensive inertial navigation systems. Would you care to offer a citation for this claim?

When I used the term "distorted", I was referring to multipath errors you will get from GPS signals reflecting off buildings. This, combined with low satellite visibility makes GPS-only localization a poor choice in urban environments.

Unless you have a map with absolute coordinates of those landmarks you still can't position yourself on the globe, only relative to those landmarks. With GPS you can create a map as you explore (SLAM), and refine the absolute locations of those landmarks over time using sensor fusion and filtering (GPS, LIDAR, INS). With survey results (as you say, millimeter level precision) as ground truth, we can say this method achieves sub-decimeter accuracy in global pose.

Depends on what your goal is. If your only goal is to get a position, then there are better techniques. If your goal is a mobile robot that can move down a sidewalk without $60,000 worth in sensors, then sub decimeter is enough. With a wheel base of 0.6 m and an average sidewalk width of 1.5 m, a robot traveling down the center can easily be off 10 cm either way and still succeed in its operation. Typical error I've seen using the described system is around 6 cm with a minimum of 0.12 cm. This is enough to navigated sidewalks, crowds, and even through doors.

The robot makes the map itself, as I described.

But GPS is *usually* distorted, especially as you point out next to buildings, where I want my robots to work. If I want a robot to follow a track on the ground using commodity GPS solutions, this is not possible. With GPS, and visibility to 3 landmarks, I can achieve sub decimeter accuracy.

Windows 8 always had the classic desktop and you could always switch back and forth with the press of a button.

What you quoted was my response to wisnoskij, who said, "A map gives you a position on a globe." So when you replied to me with "Military grids on a map IS a system", the obvious question is "a system for what?" Given the context of this thread, and the fact this whole story is about global positioning systems, the obvious interpretation of your comment is "Military grids on a map IS a system [that gives you a position on a globe]". If you didn't mean that, then why did you reply in a thread that was about global positioning?

Regardless, the map itself still isn't a "system". It's just a map, no matter how many grid lines you put on it. Given a map, you still need to figure out where you are on the map. That part *in conjunction with a map* is a system for localization. That's even something GPS can help you with!

No, I'm saying what you do with your maps is what I do with my robots. And yes, it's very easy to do better than GPS especially in a city, where there are significant multipath errors. All you need is a laser range finder, some robust perception, and kalman filtering.

Battery life is at 9 hours, enough to get you through the day without recharging. Plus there is a keyboard with an extra battery in it that bring battery life up to ~13 hours. Even with that, the Surface 3 is still thinner and lighter than most laptops.

No the point was to show a map isn't a "system" to find where you are on the globe. See the start of this thread:

"A map gives you a position on a globe." -> "A map is not a system." -> "Military grids on a map IS a system."

Now you have you map and you have a human making all kinds of measurements, inference, and correlations. Now this kind of task is exactly what my robots do and is a system. Many of the robots I've built don't even use GPS because it's not accurate enough.

So you need the correct map to begin with. That's pretty much cheating, because you're already semi-localized to begin with. That's not a global positioning system, that's a regional positioning system.

So your system is no longer just "a map". You first have to know a general region, then have the appropriate map for that region, then have the ability to identify several landmarks, abstract those landmarks, and then find a correlation on the map between features in the map and the landmark you see in order to localize yourself.

FYI the problem I proposed is known as the "kidnapped robot problem" to us roboticists. It's basically a benchmark for localization problems for robots. You say you would be SOL if you had no idea of your general location, but robots can solve the problem using GPS and some additional perception easily.