I never really dated until college, I just didn't have the desire to date. Dating was always a stressful situation of expectations and disappointments. Even when I started dating I never felt like settling down, I was always looking for the next best thing. I was looking for that super model built like a brick house that made enough money to be my sugar mama and me her toy boy, intelligent, witty, charismatic, etc. Yes I exaggerate, but you get the idea.
After a time the years roll by and you start to realize that you are not getting any younger. If you want to accomplish things in life you have to get on top of it. You begin to realize there are more important things in life other than money and looks and if anything is going to be accomplished YOU have to do it. I had to change myself, no one was going to swoop in and change me. First I began to realize that my dream girl probably didn't exist (all right, maybe there's two women in the world with those qualifications), and even if she did, why would she want to date a schmuck such as myself? So instead of looking for the impossible I started looking for the the important qualifications. Things such as honesty, open mindedness, willing to accept me for who I am and doesn't nag me to change, some common interests, loyalty. When you make these changes in your outlook amazing things start to happen. You start to find treasure where you wouldn't have looked before.
It takes a lot of self reflection and hard work, you really have to analyze what really motivates you and why, but it's worth it. I have now been dating the sweetest, most supportive, most accepting, most open minded, with a dash of adventurous thrown in for good measure, gal in the world (and cute to boot). I like to think of it for my reward for leaving that part of my boyishness behind and growing into more of a man.
The greatest challenge in life is fessing up to who you really are and changing that if necessary.
So if you haven't taken this journey yet (Donald Trump, are you listening?), I highly recommend it.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Thesis and fuzzy logic
My last rant, I mean post, kind of ties in with my Master's thesis work. I am a graduate student in Computer Science and I'm trying to finish up my thesis while working full time. Over the past few weeks I feel I've finally put together a plan for my thesis. It has to do with robotics and spatial relationships.
Now to save some of you pain, this will get a little technical, but not terribly so. I settled on using fuzzy logic for the spatial relationships. Why? It lends itself well to uncertainties in the environment, such as "near" or "slightly". So you can say something like the blue ball is in front of and slightly to the left of the red ball and fuzzy logic can express this concept in a formalized way. The poem "fuzzy wuzzy was a bear" helps to explain the concept of fuzzy logic. The poem goes like this:
fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had no hair.
fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?
fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had one hair.
fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?
fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had two hairs.
fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?
...
And so on and so forth. So the idea is, how many hairs does it take before fuzzy wuzzy becomes fuzzy? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 22,352? The point here is, we don't exactly know. There is no one hair where before the hair is added he is not fuzzy and after the hair is added he is suddenly fuzzy. Fuzzy logic assigns a value to the "goodness" of a measure. For instance, when fuzzy wuzzy has 100 hairs we might say the fuzzy value is 0.01 and when he has 10,000 hairs the fuzzy value might be 0.4 and when he has 100,000 hairs perhaps 0.9. The fuzzy values range in value between 0 and 1 where 0 is not at all and 1 is absolutely.
Now fuzzy logic is not to be confused with probability which also assigns values to events ranging between 0 and 1. If we said fuzzy wuzzy has 0.4 probability of being fuzzy with 10,000 hairs this means that fuzzy wuzzy has a 40% chance of being fuzzy. So if you find fuzzy wuzzy falls below 40% then he is not fuzzy, and if he falls above he is fuzzy, there is no in between. Where fuzzy logic assigns a fuzzy value of 0.4 which could mean more equivalently that he is "somewhat" fuzzy as opposed to the all or nothing of probability.
Now back to spatial relationships and fuzzy logic. If we say the red ball is in front of and slightly to the left of the blue ball, then "in front of" is pretty definite so this might have a value of 0.9 and "slightly to the left" is not very definitive so this might have a value of "0.2". So fuzzy logic can lend itself well to these linguistic hedges as they are called.
On my next thesis post I will talk about the robot and how it figures out the spatial relationships using fuzzy logic.
Till next time.
Now to save some of you pain, this will get a little technical, but not terribly so. I settled on using fuzzy logic for the spatial relationships. Why? It lends itself well to uncertainties in the environment, such as "near" or "slightly". So you can say something like the blue ball is in front of and slightly to the left of the red ball and fuzzy logic can express this concept in a formalized way. The poem "fuzzy wuzzy was a bear" helps to explain the concept of fuzzy logic. The poem goes like this:
fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had no hair.
fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?
fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had one hair.
fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?
fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had two hairs.
fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?
...
And so on and so forth. So the idea is, how many hairs does it take before fuzzy wuzzy becomes fuzzy? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 22,352? The point here is, we don't exactly know. There is no one hair where before the hair is added he is not fuzzy and after the hair is added he is suddenly fuzzy. Fuzzy logic assigns a value to the "goodness" of a measure. For instance, when fuzzy wuzzy has 100 hairs we might say the fuzzy value is 0.01 and when he has 10,000 hairs the fuzzy value might be 0.4 and when he has 100,000 hairs perhaps 0.9. The fuzzy values range in value between 0 and 1 where 0 is not at all and 1 is absolutely.
Now fuzzy logic is not to be confused with probability which also assigns values to events ranging between 0 and 1. If we said fuzzy wuzzy has 0.4 probability of being fuzzy with 10,000 hairs this means that fuzzy wuzzy has a 40% chance of being fuzzy. So if you find fuzzy wuzzy falls below 40% then he is not fuzzy, and if he falls above he is fuzzy, there is no in between. Where fuzzy logic assigns a fuzzy value of 0.4 which could mean more equivalently that he is "somewhat" fuzzy as opposed to the all or nothing of probability.
Now back to spatial relationships and fuzzy logic. If we say the red ball is in front of and slightly to the left of the blue ball, then "in front of" is pretty definite so this might have a value of 0.9 and "slightly to the left" is not very definitive so this might have a value of "0.2". So fuzzy logic can lend itself well to these linguistic hedges as they are called.
On my next thesis post I will talk about the robot and how it figures out the spatial relationships using fuzzy logic.
Till next time.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Cars, Cars everywhere and not a safe one around.
OK, this is my first official rant. As you can surmise from the title this is about automobiles and the lack of safety.
Some 40,000 people a year die on the roads, and yet we seem to take it for granted, like it's OK or something. Yes, we all have places to go, and my beef is not with the fact that people drive, but with the fact there are so many things that can be done to increase motorist safety that are not being done.
One is money. We spend many tens of billions of dollars on the war against terrorism (including the war in Iraq and Afghanistan), yet you have a better chance of suffocating in bed then dying in a terrorist attack. Granted, if we had done nothing after 9/11 then there may have been a couple of more terrorist attacks, but look at this, how many lives have been lost in terrorist attacks versus car accidents? Let's see, over the last seven years approximately 280,000 people have died in car accidents and only a relatively few private American citizens have died in terrorist attacks, all on foreign soil. Even if we had done nothing since 9/11, then what would it be? 2,000, 3,000? Still a paltry number when compared to car accidents. I am not trying to marginalize the devastating effect of terrorist attacks here, but let me put it this way; if you have x amount of dollars to spend, and if you spend it on preventing terrorist attacks you might save 1,000 lives total and if you spend it on preventing car accidents, you could maybe save 10,000 lives a year. Of course I'm just using these numbers as a possible example, but you get the idea.
My next part on car accidents is with public perception. For almost all of us, DRIVING IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITY YOU WILL EVER PERFORM. Want me to say it again? DRIVING IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITY YOU WILL EVER PERFORM. So take is seriously, it is not a game, you can die a horrible death. Pay attention when you drive, do not drive drunk, under the influence, or too tired. Do not talk on your cell phone, put on makeup, or shave, or eat. Do not fight with the kids in the back or reach onto the floor board, do not drive with your knees. It takes all of 2 SECONDS OF DISTRACTION TO CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. Do not weave in and out of traffic, tail gate or speed excessively or cut people off. Most of all, drive less, it can save your life. Enough said.
Now on driving less. We are partly to blame on the amount of driving we have to do and city planners and local governments are partly to blame. With the advent of the car, everyone wanted to move out to suburbia to live the American dream, with a yard, a dog and 2.6 kids. All this housing out and away from the city forced us to driving to run errands, get to work, go to school etc. The city planners, politicians, and builders gave it to us, which in general they should, but in retrospect there may be better ways. With decentralized, spread out cities, walking, biking and public transportation simply become ineffective. It might very well be a better idea to plan and build cities for first walking, then biking, the public transportation, then cars. Not only would this save lives, but it would conserve fuel, reduce pollution and potentially reduce the obesity epidemic.
On to driving privileges. Yes, driving is a privilege, not a right. That is why you must show you are minimally competent before receiving your license. Driving is also a potentially deadly activity. One simple mistake and somebody could die. Penalties for mistakes should be much more severe. When someone drives drunk, it should be a year in jail, no questions asked. Driving drunk is the equivalent of being drunk and waving a loaded pistol around a bunch of people. Second drunk driving penalty should be five years in jail and life suspension of your license. Strict penalties do help to deter people from bad activity. The other group this pertains to are young drivers. As a group 16-24 year old's cause more accidents then anyone else. Many states have started a driving restriction program, such as not driving at night, for the first year of driving. These programs work. I think they should be stricter, such as only 7 points allowed for 16-24 year old's on a license before it is taken away instead of the normal 12 (in NC). Also, the driving test should be more rigorous, especially the driving portion. I remember when I received by license, all I had to do was go out of the parking log, make a three point turn, then come back.
I still have not addressed potential uses of the money that might be diverted from the war on terror. One is road improvement. Another is new technologies for auto safety, such as a warning system when you are coming up on a red traffic light too quickly. Perhaps more speeding cameras and traffic light cameras to keep people honest. More public transportation could be installed. But the biggest improvement would be cars that drive themselves, yes you heard me right. For those of you that have not heard of the DARPA challenge, 6 cars successfully navigates 120 miles of desert, through tunnels and dodging rocks, holes, etc., entirely on their own, no driver or remote control. Then there was the DARPA Urban Challenge where again six robotic cars successfully navigated through an urban environment on their own. No, it's not ready for prime time, but this demonstrates the potential. I think with enough funding, autonomous vehicles could be ready within 10 years. Now before you go off and say "I don't want no computer controlling my car" then let me put it to you this way, do you want you or someone you know to die in a car accident in your lifetime or not? Because the way things are currently, probably someone will. With properly developed and tested automated vehicles, the number of accidents would probably approach a small number, like a few thousand as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of accidents that occur every year now. Also computers do not get drunk, tired or distracted. They do not get road rage. They also can drive more efficiently, reducing traffic congestion.
So now you have it, my thoughts and opinions on the state of autos. Hope you got something out of it.
Some 40,000 people a year die on the roads, and yet we seem to take it for granted, like it's OK or something. Yes, we all have places to go, and my beef is not with the fact that people drive, but with the fact there are so many things that can be done to increase motorist safety that are not being done.
One is money. We spend many tens of billions of dollars on the war against terrorism (including the war in Iraq and Afghanistan), yet you have a better chance of suffocating in bed then dying in a terrorist attack. Granted, if we had done nothing after 9/11 then there may have been a couple of more terrorist attacks, but look at this, how many lives have been lost in terrorist attacks versus car accidents? Let's see, over the last seven years approximately 280,000 people have died in car accidents and only a relatively few private American citizens have died in terrorist attacks, all on foreign soil. Even if we had done nothing since 9/11, then what would it be? 2,000, 3,000? Still a paltry number when compared to car accidents. I am not trying to marginalize the devastating effect of terrorist attacks here, but let me put it this way; if you have x amount of dollars to spend, and if you spend it on preventing terrorist attacks you might save 1,000 lives total and if you spend it on preventing car accidents, you could maybe save 10,000 lives a year. Of course I'm just using these numbers as a possible example, but you get the idea.
My next part on car accidents is with public perception. For almost all of us, DRIVING IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITY YOU WILL EVER PERFORM. Want me to say it again? DRIVING IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITY YOU WILL EVER PERFORM. So take is seriously, it is not a game, you can die a horrible death. Pay attention when you drive, do not drive drunk, under the influence, or too tired. Do not talk on your cell phone, put on makeup, or shave, or eat. Do not fight with the kids in the back or reach onto the floor board, do not drive with your knees. It takes all of 2 SECONDS OF DISTRACTION TO CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. Do not weave in and out of traffic, tail gate or speed excessively or cut people off. Most of all, drive less, it can save your life. Enough said.
Now on driving less. We are partly to blame on the amount of driving we have to do and city planners and local governments are partly to blame. With the advent of the car, everyone wanted to move out to suburbia to live the American dream, with a yard, a dog and 2.6 kids. All this housing out and away from the city forced us to driving to run errands, get to work, go to school etc. The city planners, politicians, and builders gave it to us, which in general they should, but in retrospect there may be better ways. With decentralized, spread out cities, walking, biking and public transportation simply become ineffective. It might very well be a better idea to plan and build cities for first walking, then biking, the public transportation, then cars. Not only would this save lives, but it would conserve fuel, reduce pollution and potentially reduce the obesity epidemic.
On to driving privileges. Yes, driving is a privilege, not a right. That is why you must show you are minimally competent before receiving your license. Driving is also a potentially deadly activity. One simple mistake and somebody could die. Penalties for mistakes should be much more severe. When someone drives drunk, it should be a year in jail, no questions asked. Driving drunk is the equivalent of being drunk and waving a loaded pistol around a bunch of people. Second drunk driving penalty should be five years in jail and life suspension of your license. Strict penalties do help to deter people from bad activity. The other group this pertains to are young drivers. As a group 16-24 year old's cause more accidents then anyone else. Many states have started a driving restriction program, such as not driving at night, for the first year of driving. These programs work. I think they should be stricter, such as only 7 points allowed for 16-24 year old's on a license before it is taken away instead of the normal 12 (in NC). Also, the driving test should be more rigorous, especially the driving portion. I remember when I received by license, all I had to do was go out of the parking log, make a three point turn, then come back.
I still have not addressed potential uses of the money that might be diverted from the war on terror. One is road improvement. Another is new technologies for auto safety, such as a warning system when you are coming up on a red traffic light too quickly. Perhaps more speeding cameras and traffic light cameras to keep people honest. More public transportation could be installed. But the biggest improvement would be cars that drive themselves, yes you heard me right. For those of you that have not heard of the DARPA challenge, 6 cars successfully navigates 120 miles of desert, through tunnels and dodging rocks, holes, etc., entirely on their own, no driver or remote control. Then there was the DARPA Urban Challenge where again six robotic cars successfully navigated through an urban environment on their own. No, it's not ready for prime time, but this demonstrates the potential. I think with enough funding, autonomous vehicles could be ready within 10 years. Now before you go off and say "I don't want no computer controlling my car" then let me put it to you this way, do you want you or someone you know to die in a car accident in your lifetime or not? Because the way things are currently, probably someone will. With properly developed and tested automated vehicles, the number of accidents would probably approach a small number, like a few thousand as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of accidents that occur every year now. Also computers do not get drunk, tired or distracted. They do not get road rage. They also can drive more efficiently, reducing traffic congestion.
So now you have it, my thoughts and opinions on the state of autos. Hope you got something out of it.
Why a great experiment? Why a blog?
I'll answer the second question first: Why a blog?
Why a blog indeed, everyone else and his brother, sister, mother, aunt, uncle, niece nephew and a few more family relations has a blog. Why clutter the Internet with another one? Well, this blog is more for me than for anyone else. Everyone is free to read it, but this is where I can rant and rave to my heart's content and just let it all out. There are a few things that tend to frustrate me to no end about life, people and society in general and instead of heaping it all on my girlfriend I can talk about it here. Though all my posts are subject to approval from the boss. :) But I'll also talk some about what's happening in my life and some random thoughts as they come up.
Now for the first question, why call it "Jim's Great Experiment"? Well for me, this blog is something of a "great experiment". In a way it's a little bit of therapy for me, so it's an experiment as to whether it will serve it's purpose in this respect. Also it's an experiment as to whether anyone reads it (probably not) and to whether anyone agrees with my opinions or if people just throw rotten vegetables my way. So it might fail miserably or maybe there might be some modicum of success. Time will tell. So, till next time.
Salute,
Jim
Why a blog indeed, everyone else and his brother, sister, mother, aunt, uncle, niece nephew and a few more family relations has a blog. Why clutter the Internet with another one? Well, this blog is more for me than for anyone else. Everyone is free to read it, but this is where I can rant and rave to my heart's content and just let it all out. There are a few things that tend to frustrate me to no end about life, people and society in general and instead of heaping it all on my girlfriend I can talk about it here. Though all my posts are subject to approval from the boss. :) But I'll also talk some about what's happening in my life and some random thoughts as they come up.
Now for the first question, why call it "Jim's Great Experiment"? Well for me, this blog is something of a "great experiment". In a way it's a little bit of therapy for me, so it's an experiment as to whether it will serve it's purpose in this respect. Also it's an experiment as to whether anyone reads it (probably not) and to whether anyone agrees with my opinions or if people just throw rotten vegetables my way. So it might fail miserably or maybe there might be some modicum of success. Time will tell. So, till next time.
Salute,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)