451–460 of 576 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Voice recognition under combat stress? That shit barely works under optimal conditions.
Not true, now it is very robust
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's all well and good, but maybe introspect here for a second? You're upset that your accomplishments aren't being respected, immediately after discounting the accomplishments of others. The point is that your car's modifications and the university's are similar, but different, particularly in scale and broad robustness, which adds difficulty in ways you may not be appreciating. $1.2 million may sound like a l…
The professor did gloss over briefly the difficulty in making the system work for a large number of vehicles, before arriving at a viable "signature" idea, as the article describes. Sounds like an area with a lot of false starts (heh) and time consumption, and dead ends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
QE
The Fed is the cause of QE/ZIRP, but it's not "funded by taxpayers" in any meaningful sense. The mechanism by which QE is done is that the fed prints money and uses it to buy government bonds and other assets, which pushes bond prices up, and consequently yields (and therefore interest rates) down. All of this doesn't cost the fed anything. The money is printed by them, after all. It's not like they're borrowing mone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the link to the award (I think): https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2245223&His... Probably half the award is taken up by indirect costs at the university, leaving the remainder for a few PhD students to be funded, money for the devices, and any studies where they are probably paying participants to use the device. $1.2M doesn't go that far in terms of grants. As far as whether this is a good in…
Half is taken by the university? How does that work?
I believe Stanford is 60%. My university is 54%.
Here is an explanation for the justification of this: https://spo.berkeley.edu/guide/fa.html
It does certainly feel excessive as an academic. I've never seen actual tracking of where the F&A money goes in terms of a quantifiable breakdown, e.g., what fraction goes to university accounting for doing their needed work for supporting a sponsored project, what amount goes toward electricity, etc. Universities always seem to be negotiating with the Federal government to raise the rate. When I was at an institution with a 45% rate, though, it let me stretch my grants a lot further by allowing me to fund more students.
>At the end of the three-year project, the team aims to have a commercially viable prototype that can be scaled up to commercial production, first as a theft deterrent device, and potentially later as a complete vehicle entry and control system that could replace traditional keys and fobs. What's the point of this? Modern cars already have engines that are cryptographically tied to keys[1]. They're not perfect, but i…
Exactly. What's even worse is that it takes a huge research grant to come up with this. > With a new $1.2 million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you can't legally shoot someone that walks in through an open door. You can ask them to leave, but youre going to have big problems if you shoot them and all they did up to that point was not leave instantly when asked, if they walked through an open door. If the door is locked, and they break in, you are not shooting them because they broke a lock. You are shooting them because theyve shown criminal intent by fo…
I'm curious in how many jurisdictions simply "showing criminal intent" is sufficient to mean they're legally a target to be shot at, potentially fatally. I'd be pretty horrified to know I was living in such a jurisdiction. Whereas somebody walking through my open door while clearly posing a threat to my life, or the life of family members (e.g. holding a weapon) I would have no hypothetical qualms over aiming a gun a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you get criminals to obey this nice rule?
By making it hard to obtain weapons. The US thinking to me seams to go along the lines of handing out nuclear weapons to everybody so forces are balanced...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true, now it is very robust
When shrapnel and bullets are flying and your nerves are completely shot, your voice wavering and you're croaking from smoke inhalation, do you really want to entrust your life to voice recognition? Come on dude, you're being absurd. We're talking about military hardware, not tech gadgets for your home.