I am not disturbed. Why would a human driver be driving an automated car? What is the security mechanisms that allow such cars to be in the streets? Isn't there a need for independent monitoring for such experiments?
All Google self driving cars have a human driver who can take control at any time. I don't know if the human was driving the car when this accident occurred, but so far there is no evidence supporting the notion that Google is lying to the cops (which would be a crime).
> Why would a human driver be driving an automated car?
Because Google cannot legally operate the car in the streets without a driver. Therefore they put a driver there and it's on him to choose how to drive the car.
> What is the security mechanisms that allow such cars to be in the streets?
The wonderful security mechanism of liability, lawsuits, and insurance.
The security mechanism _is_ the human driver, for now - the only reason they're legally allowed to run these cars is because there's a human standing by to take over control at a moment's notice.
Since Square adapter interfaces with mobile devices using the audio input, the swipe basically produces a sound (corresponding to the credit card) that is fed to the mobile device. By recording and replaying the sound, the credit card transaction can be completed without swiping the card.
But that does not mean frauds exploit it easily.
Any one who has access to the credit card already has the credit card numbers and the security code. One could always use that information and order items online. But there are security mechanisms that protect such usage. The audio recording is identical to storing the credit card number. Square uses other mechanisms (like capturing location of each transaction) to deter fraud behavior.
Should we consider this a ray of hope or an exception? Also, as per the article, the case concluded last week. I am surprised that other tech media did not cover this given the buzz around patent trolls these days.
Indeed, the written description of the patents in question expressly refuted the claim construction of the patentee-plaintiff. As a result, the district court properly found that EonNet pursued objectively baseless infringement claims.
If this set a precedent it wouldn't be against vague patents, or against suing implementations of the obvious, etc.
I have worked in machine vision projects in past. It's not going to be easy to recognize the pieces as is; I suggest that you use 2D pieces for chess. Even better, use some unique design like this one: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/experimental-chess-s...
Agree that it will be tricky to recognize the pieces, but what's the point in doing it with 2D pieces? The app would be (slightly) more exciting if it could help you record the state of any game anywhere in less than 5 seconds -- and allow you to continue playing online.
I suggested 2D if he wanted to build a system for himself. May be multi-angle snap-shots or a video capture could be processed for capturing conventional chess boards. But even that would not work for all chess-boards. I have come across some pieces that are different to distinguish.
This detail fires back on Google. Google too had a partner for bidding; just that they didn't want to partner with their competitors. They were trying to portray their defeat as a conspiracy which this post proves it was not.
I read few weeks back in Y Combinator FAQ page that the average age of Y Combinator funded entrepreneurs is 26. Vivek's survey found the average age of founders to be 40. It would be interesting to know the average age of Y Combinator applicants.
Y Combinator is supplying relatively small amounts of capital, that is only likely to be useful if you haven't been working long enough to accumulate some savings. This is going to push their average down from the industry average.
