Question by : Does using Kinect as a headset work good on xbox live games like halo etc.? Kinect seems like it would be cool you can liek talk out loud and stuff. does it work good tho?
Best answer:
Answer by Milk84It’s works, but not good. All of my friends who’ve used it to talk sound like they’re speaking from the end of a tunnel. Their voices sound hollow and it picks up all background noise.
Give your answer to this question below!
Related Posts:Question by : What does it take(s) for one to purchase a new product such as OLED TV?
Best answer:
Answer by SettingsTheoretically the question is simple to answer, but practically it is difficult to cajole customers to purchase a product especially when they are not versed with it. Nevertheless, it takes just “motivation, ability and opportunity” to make a purchase of OLED TV set. However, perception is the “enzyme” that can positively or negatively drive or influence one’s motivation, ability and opportunity to go for OLED TV or whatever it is. Therefore, TV industries should look for ways to make people perceive that their product is worth to be bought. In this light, I will like to sight LG Electronics as a good example in that, if you take a close look at LG’s TV sets, you will quickly notice one thing which is; “simplicity and convenience”. This of course can easily motivate a buyer for their OLED TV sets.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Related Posts:
Dell has sold various all-in-one computers for years. These systems were mostly insipid, humdrum computers not fit for anything other than being a family’s portal to Facebook. Even with touchscreens, Dell’s all-in-one systems failed to be serious contenders in the space.
Enter the XPS One 27. Announced today and detailed by Engadget, this all-in-one-system is a clone of the iMac. Even the 2560 x 1440 screen resolution is the same. To Dell’s credit, the XPS One 27 ships with Intel’s latest generation of processors while the Apple iMac is still stuck with the older chips — something Apple will no doubt address in the next revision. But it’s hard to ignore the similarities. Hell, even the computer’s support tower has a large hole for cable management a la iMac.
The XPS One 27 is powered by an Ivy Bridge Core i5 or i7 CPU with either an integrated Intel GPU or a 2GB NVIDIA GeForce GT640M dedicated graphics card. With prices starting at $ 1,399, systems can be configured with up to 16GB of memory and with a 1TB, 2TB or 32GB SSD hard drive. The backside houses four USB 3.0 and two USB 2.0 ports along with HDMI, VGA, and a gigabit Ethernet connection. There’s a slot-loading Blu-ray drive and an optional TV tuner. In all, the XPS One 27 is a fine all-in-one computer with enough power to justify a spot on even an engineer’s desk — too bad Dell didn’t have the design know-how to make an original casing though.
Dell has seemingly given up. At this point in Dell’s anemic life they are just keeping up with Joneses. There was a time when Dell was one of the trusted consumer brands. The firm has never been a design leader with systems more utilitarian than beautiful, but that formula doesn’t work in today’s marketplace. But over the years Dell has managed to release systems like the Adamo XPS and to a less extent, the Dell Streak, that showed the computer company had a bit of life left in its corporate tubes. The XPS One 27 shows the opposite. Dell might be dead.
Lenovo gets it right time and time again. The Chinese PC company consistently releases computers with new designs in novel form factors. Look at the Lenovo all-in-one lineup: Not a single model looks like an iMac while still offering serious computing power. This design-first strategy seems to be working as Lenovo as profits are soaring — something Dell cannot brag about.
There have long been whispers that Dell is looking to exit the consumer business. That division is leading Dell’s losses anyway. And consumers will not miss Dell if the company turns to simply releasing clones of iconic products.
Question by JayB-boy: Does aerospace engineering branch out into robotics/robotical engineering? I want to study aerospace or aeronautical engineering and eventually become a pilot, but i’m also very interested in robotics, so i would like to know if there is a possibility of taking a career path involving robotics after i’ve studied aersopace enigneering? Is this possible?
Best answer:
Answer by sylent_realityWhat you can do is get a degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering focusing on robotic design and get a job at an aerospace company. The aerospace industry looks for people with those degrees moreso than people with aero degrees anyway.
The aerospace degree is actually pretty useless unless you’re doing aeropropulsion, aerodynamics, or astrodynamics, or the job wants you to know the theory behind something aerospace-related.
Give your answer to this question below!
Related Posts:Question by : Ipad fully charged symbol and how long does it take to fully charge from brand new? I bought the 32GB ipad WIFI today, i have an hp 6730b laptop, i connected it to my laptop and itunes didn’t recognize it and Ipad didn’t show up. Is there any reason why?
Ipad fully charged symbol and how long does it take to fully charge from brand new?
Best answer:
Answer by Big BangIts around 2 hours.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Related Posts:Question by : Why does youtube keep force closing on my xoom tablet, how can i fix it? It works fine until I click the video for it to play the it just force closes… its really bugging me, I ever tried to reset the whole tablet, nothing,
Best answer:
Answer by rockyI dont have an answer for you because im having the same problem with youtube. Everytime i try to start a video it starts to buffer then force closes. Ive tried removing apps. Clearing the cache and still no luck. There is alot of other people having the same problem today on their tablets..im on a samsung galaxy 10.1 tablet..I will post back if i find an answer…
Give your answer to this question below!
Related Posts:Question by : When does the new Xbox 360 dashboard for kinect come out? I thought it was going to come out in October, can someone please enlighten me on its release date?
Best answer:
Answer by El Reyi think it would come out when Kinect comes out. but it would be this month or the next.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Related Posts:Question by lightingbody: How does a Bluetooth on an iPad keyboard work? I got a new keyboard for my iPad and it has Bluetooth. I don’t know how useful Bluetooths are. So what does it do? Does it allow me to get online or something?
Best answer:
Answer by DuncanBluetooth is a short-range wireless connection. Turn on the keyboard. Turn on Bluetooth in the iPad’s Settings, General, Bluetooth section and it should pair with the keyboard. You can then use the keyboard to type on the iPad.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Related Posts:Question by Me: How much does a robotics engineer make if he has a masters in robotics?
Best answer:
Answer by scifiaddictin 2001 master’s-degree candidates averaged a salary of $ 63,812 I’m not sure what exactly they get paid now, but it can’t be much different.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Related Posts:Question by Naveen k: what is robotics,how does it function and what are their applications? I want to know the complete details of robotics as i need it for my project
Best answer:
Answer by pankajtiwari.coolboyRoboticists develop man-made mechanical devices that can move by themselves, whose motion must be modelled, planned, sensed, actuated and controlled, and whose motion behaviour can be influenced by “programming”. Robots are called “intelligent” if they succeed in moving in safe interaction with an unstructured environment, while autonomously achieving their specified tasks.
This definition implies that a device can only be called a “robot” if it contains a movable mechanism, influenced by sensing, planning, actuation and control components. It does not imply that a minimum number of these components must be implemented in software, or be changeable by the “consumer” who uses the device; for example, the motion behaviour can have been hard-wired into the device by the manufacturer.
So, the presented definition, as well as the rest of the material in this part of the WEBook, covers not just “pure” robotics or only “intelligent” robots, but rather the somewhat broader domain of robotics and automation. This includes “dumb” robots such as: metal and woodworking machines, “intelligent” washing machines, dish washers and pool cleaning robots, etc. These examples all have sensing, planning and control, but often not in individually separated components. For example, the sensing and planning behaviour of the pool cleaning robot have been integrated into the mechanical design of the device, by the intelligence of the human developer.
Robotics is, to a very large extent, all about system integration, achieving a task by an actuated mechanical device, via an “intelligent” integration of components, many of which it shares with other domains, such as systems and control, computer science, character animation, machine design, computer vision, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, biomechanics, etc. In addition, the boundaries of robotics cannot be clearly defined, since also its “core” ideas, concepts and algorithms are being applied in an ever increasing number of “external” applications, and, vice versa, core technology from other domains (vision, biology, cognitive science or biomechanics, for example) are becoming crucial components in more and more modern robotic systems.
This part of the WEBook makes an effort to define what exactly is that above-mentioned core material of the robotics domain, and to describe it in a consistent and motivated structure. Nevertheless, this chosen structure is only one of the many possible “views” that one can want to have on the robotics domain.
In the same vein, the above-mentioned “definition” of robotics is not meant to be definitive or final, and it is only used as a rough framework to structure the various chapters of the WEBook. (A later phase in the WEBook development will allow different “semantic views” on the WEBook material.)
Components of robotic systems
This figure depicts the components that are part of all robotic systems. The purpose of this Section is to describe the semantics of the terminology used to classify the chapters in the WEBook: “sensing”, “planning”, “modelling”, “control”, etc.
The real robot is some mechanical device (“mechanism”) that moves around in the environment, and, in doing so, physically interacts with this environment. This interaction involves the exchange of physical energy, in some form or another. Both the robot mechanism and the environment can be the “cause” of the physical interaction through “Actuation”, or experience the “effect” of the interaction, which can be measured through “Sensing”.
Robotics as an integrated system of control interacting with the
Robotics as an integrated system of control interacting with the physical world.
Sensing and actuation are the physical ports through which the “Controller” of the robot determines the interaction of its mechanical body with the physical world. As mentioned already before, the controller can, in one extreme, consist of software only, but in the other extreme everything can also be implemented in hardware.
Within the Controller component, several sub-activities are often identified:
Modelling. The input-output relationships of all control components can (but need not) be derived from information that is stored in a model. This model can have many forms: analytical formulas, empirical look-up tables, fuzzy rules, neural networks, etc.
The name “model” often gives rise to heated discussions among different research “schools”, and the WEBook is not interested in taking a stance in this debate: within the WEBook, “model” is to be understood with its minimal semantics: “any information that is used to determine or influence the input-output relationships of components in the Controller.”
The other components discussed below can all have models inside. A “System model” can be used to tie multiple components together, but it is clear that not all robots use a System model. The “Sensing model” and “Actuation model” contain the information with which to transform raw physical data into task-dependent information for the controller, and vice versa.
Planning. This is the activity that predicts the outcome of potential actions, and selects the “best” one. Almost by definition, planning can only be done on the basis of some sort of model.
Regulation. This component processes the outputs of the sensing and planning components, to generate an actuation setpoint. Again, this regulation activity could or could not rely on some sort of (system) model.
The term “control” is often used instead of “regulation”, but it is impossible to clearly identify the domains that use one term or the other. The meaning used in the WEBook will be clear from the context.
Scales in robotic systems
The above-mentioned “components” description of a robotic system is to be complemented by a “scale” description, i.e., the following system scales have a large influence on the specific content of the planning, sensing, modelling and control components at one particular scale, and hence also on the corresponding sections of the WEBook.
Mechanical scale. The physical volume of the robot determines to a large extent the limites of what can be done with it. Roughly speaking, a large-scale robot (such as an autonomous container crane or a space shuttle) has different capabilities and control problems than a macro robot (such as an industrial robot arm), a desktop robot (such as those “sumo” robots popular with hobbyists), or milli micro or nano robots. Spatial scale. There are large differences between robots that act in 1D, 2D, 3D, or 6D (three positions and three orientations).
Time scale. There are large differences between robots that must react within hours, seconds, milliseconds, or microseconds.
Power density scale. A robot must be actuated in order to move, but actuators need space as well as energy, so the ratio between both determines some capabilities of the robot.
System complexity scale. The complexity of a robot system increases with the number of interactions between independent sub-systems, and the control components must adapt to this complexity.
Computational complexity scale. Robot controllers are inevitably running on real-world computing hardware, so they are constrained by the available number of computations, the available communication bandwidth, and the available memory storage.
Obviously, these scale parameters never apply completely independently to the same system. For example, a system that must react at microseconds time scale can not be of macro mechanical scale or involve a high number of communication interactions with subsystems.
Background sensitivity
Finally, no description of even scientific material is ever fully objective or context-free, in the sense that it is very difficult for contributors to the WEBook to “forget” their background when writing their contribution. In this respect, robotics has, roughly speaking, two faces: (i) the mathematical and engineering face, which is quite “standardized” in the sense that a large consensus exists about the tools and theories to use (“systems theory”), and (ii) the AI face, which is rather poorly standardized, not because of a lack of interest or research efforts, but because of the inherent complexity of “intelligent behaviour.” The terminology and systems-thinking of both backgrounds are significantly different, hence the WEBook will accomodate sections on the same material but written from various perspectives. This is not a “bug”, but a “feature”: having the different views in the context of the same WEBook can only lead to a better mutual understanding and respect.
Research in engineering robotics follows the bottom-up approach: existing and working systems are extended and made more versatile. Research in artificial intelligence robotics is top-down: assuming that a set of low-level primitives is available, how could one apply them in order to increase the “intelligence” of a system. The border between both approaches shifts continuously, as more and more “intelligence” is cast into algorithmic, system-theoretic form. For example, the response of a robot to sensor input was considered “intelligent behaviour” in the late seventies and even early eighties. Hence, it belonged to A.I. Later it was shown that many sensor-based tasks such as surface following or visual tracking could be formulated as control problems with algorithmic solutions. From then on, they did not belong to A.I. any more
Add your own answer in the comments!
Related Posts: