Blowin my mind here. I wonder if this Uncanny Valley problems manifests itself in our society as a whole. I suppose if you wanted to get philosophical, you could say that cultural resistance for change and introduction of new things is an Uncanny Valley problem.
I never thought of the "Uncanny Valley" like this before. I was going to respond saying it might be the less technical not understanding the difficulties of implementing realism, resulting in a mindset of "but it can't do this!" rather than "look what this can do!"...but that's basically the Uncanny Valley problem in this context, the expectation of realism increases as you approach realistic.
Link to Original Source
"different proprietary formats of video from security cameras"
Since when are iPhone and Android devices considered security cameras?
But how is this legal? Seems to me a truly public company wouldn't be able to limit the shares bought by any entity. I always assume public meant anyone could buy into the company...the more money you put in, the more of the company you own.
I realize that. I just find it interesting that if you changed a few sentences in the instruction manual, there would be, literally, no difference between the two.
I'm confused. Isn't the movement of a limited resource the definition of an economy and the foundation of currency? How is this any different?
How long did this take you to start making a reasonable income?
Maybe being invisible is a good thing, especially when you could try to reflect/douse the area in water if you saw where it was hitting.
You'd think all of this would be illegal under The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
I imagine everyone on board will be blinded. I also imagine blinding a whole crowd of spectators would only take one piece of shiny metal.
This doesn't give full tracking, only gestures.
Since when is Core i5, Intel HD 4000, and 4GB of ram, and a screen with an absurdly high resolution, considered a netbook?
Sure, it has a netbook os installed...but that doesn't mean anything. I could also install windows 3.1...big deal.
The paper debunks that the shape has anything to do with magic and clearly states the shape, on it's own, does nothing in the first few paragraphs. Even with the increased length for part of the revolution, I assume if you integrate over the whole downward push, for both, you would get the same numbers.
You didn't read the paper.
I don't get it. There were no numbers posted in the thread. This doesn't mean placebo, this just means there are no numbers posted. The claim that it's placebo has just as much foundation that it's not. Write a benchmark and test it, you could get exactly 2 minutes of fame.
> have to do more work in order to do a single revolution.
It's inertia. It's not wasted. It'll create a force when the pedal decelerates. Since you always want the pedal spinning, this isn't so bad for cruising. It's only bad for transients, which this would help smooth out.
> related to pedals having 2 moments of inertial.
Would be no different than a straight pedal with more mass on the end.