To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 11253
     
   
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics, lugnet.dear-lego
Date: 
Fri, 7 Apr 2000 22:38:02 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
3473 times
  

In lugnet.robotics, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
[...]
See for yourselves. The link is straight off the legomindstorms.com main
page.

If your browser doesn't support JavaScript (Lynx, W3M, etc.) or if you're
running a browser that does, but you have it disabled, you won't be able to
load the page.  But if you still want to view the page, here's the page's
actual URL (double-checked with Lynx and with NN minus JS):

   http://www.legomindstorms.com/home/books/index.asp

But for the full "WTF?" effect, simply click there from the homepage.  LUGNET
and other in-the-AFOL-community webpages have Amazon.com associates links for
the same two books, but it's shocking to see TLC itself do this, especially
after it made the stink with O'Reilly last summer.  This has got to be the
most bizarrely unexpected thing I've seen on an official LEGO site yet!  :)

--Todd

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics, lugnet.dear-lego
Date: 
Fri, 7 Apr 2000 23:04:24 GMT
Viewed: 
3358 times
  

In lugnet.robotics, Todd Lehman writes:
In lugnet.robotics, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
[...]
See for yourselves. The link is straight off the legomindstorms.com main
page.

..., here's the page's
actual URL (double-checked with Lynx and with NN minus JS):

  http://www.legomindstorms.com/home/books/index.asp

But for the full "WTF?" effect, simply click there from the homepage.  LUGNET
and other in-the-AFOL-community webpages have Amazon.com associates links for
the same two books, but it's shocking to see TLC itself do this, especially
after it made the stink with O'Reilly last summer.  This has got to be the
most bizarrely unexpected thing I've seen on an official LEGO site yet!  :)

--Todd

I don't really understand how the associates stuff works: if no one collects
the referal fee, doesn't Amazon just keep it as extra profit for themselves?
Certainly the authors don't collect a smaller royalty if a referal fee is
given?  So I guess I don't see the big deal about that.  I'd appreciate it if
someone could explain why this is a Bad Thing.

What I thought was REALLY funny though was the Legal Notice at the bottom of
the page.  Especially the line: "Your linking to any other off-site pages or
other sites is at your own risk."  It makes it sound like the only place on
the web that you are safe is on LEGO's own web pages!  Could you imagine if
everyone started putting legal disclaimers on every link off their site?
(Hey, Todd, maybe you should add a legal disclaimer to the various links from
LUGNET to certain 'other' websites! :-)

Finally, what does "WTF?" mean?  What's a "WTF" effect?

--
  David Schilling

   
         
     
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics, lugnet.dear-lego
Followup-To: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Fri, 7 Apr 2000 23:48:29 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
3350 times
  

In lugnet.robotics, David Schilling writes:
I don't really understand how the associates stuff works: if no one collects
the referal fee, doesn't Amazon just keep it as extra profit for themselves?
Certainly the authors don't collect a smaller royalty if a referal fee is
given?  So I guess I don't see the big deal about that.  I'd appreciate it
if someone could explain why this is a Bad Thing.

I just think it's incredibly ironic, if not a bizarre turn of events.

It's surprising to see TLC jumping on the opportunity to take advantage of
books written by people in the AFOL community that support it.  Maybe they'll
give a portion of the fees back to the authors, that would be nice.

What's particularly ironic about it, IMHO, is that the books fill holes left
open by TLC.  Now they come in and profit from the holes they forgot to fill
themselves.  :)  See the irony?  I'm not sure whether to chuckle in admiration
from a capitalist market standpoint or whether to have a sore stomach from
what it might mean about how TLC views AFOLs.


[...]
Finally, what does "WTF?" mean?  What's a "WTF" effect?

It's an old USENET/netnews word to avoid profanity...imagine incredible
surprise or confusion, and that's what it is.

--Todd

    
          
     
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:54:23 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
2899 times
  

In article <Fso7Gt.ILF@lugnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
wrote:

I just think it's incredibly ironic, if not a bizarre turn of events.

It's surprising to see TLC jumping on the opportunity to take advantage of
books written by people in the AFOL community that support it.  Maybe they'll
give a portion of the fees back to the authors, that would be nice.

What's particularly ironic about it, IMHO, is that the books fill holes left
open by TLC.  Now they come in and profit from the holes they forgot to fill
themselves.  :)  See the irony?  I'm not sure whether to chuckle in admiration
from a capitalist market standpoint or whether to have a sore stomach from
what it might mean about how TLC views AFOLs.


I hope people don't get too worked up about all of this.  I assume TLC
decided to put links on their site, then someone had the idea that if
they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income.  From
their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?

TLC left some holes with Mindstorms, and for the last 18 months I've
been filling a couple of them (NQC and a book).  When the Mindstorms
site started accepting NQC programs, people generally looked at this as
a positive step from TLC.  I think their acknowledgments of the books -
including a link on their web site - is also a positive step.

Is it just the fact that they are profitting from AFOL contributions
that is upsetting?  To be honest, I suspect NQC's existence created more
net profit for TLC than the amazon.com link for my book will.  I'm
perfectly happy to let them derrive some profit from my efforts.  After
all, NQC and the book have brought me plenty of rewards, and neither of
those efforts would've been possible without Mindstorms.  Personally,
I'm very content in this sort of half-acknowledged symbiotic
relationship with TLC.  I can't speak for Jonathan, but I hope nobody
gets the impression that I (as an AFOL) am getting a bad deal here.

Is there a concern that the lego links will reduce the hits through
similar links on other AFOL sites?  Although I can see where this would
be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego.  Its just
free market operating with respect to referrals.  If other sites
(LUGNET, etc) were depending on such money, then we will need to find
other ways to support them.

Dave Baum

--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com

    
          
      
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:06:49 GMT
Reply-To: 
mattdm@mattdm.!spamless!org
Highlighted: 
! (details)
Viewed: 
3019 times
  

Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income.  From
their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?

I agree with Suzanne -- it looks shoddy and unprofessional. I don't think
it's immoral or anything, but it puts them on the same psychological level
as some random person with a geocities page full of banner ads.


--
Matthew Miller                      --->                  mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us                       --->             http://quotes-r-us.org/

     
           
       
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:23:32 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
3216 times
  

In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Miller writes:
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income.  From
their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?

I agree with Suzanne -- it looks shoddy and unprofessional. I don't think
it's immoral or anything, but it puts them on the same psychological level
as some random person with a geocities page full of banner ads.

Yeah! -- Well said!

Here's what was going through my mind (and mouth :) when Suzanne showed me
the page[1] earlier today:

Suz:  "Check this out...you're gonna love this..."  (sarcasm)

Todd:  (seeing page on screen)  "Ahh, [expletive deleted] cool -- [expletive
deleted] COOL!  LEGO is FINALLY supporting the AFOL books!  WOW.  Well I'll
be darned...I -never- thought they would do that."

Suz:  "Now look at the link."

Todd:  (squiting to see the full URL)  "What?!  Is that...?!  No, it's not..."

Suz:  "Yeah, look again.  And I double checked it.  It's the same format as
all the other Amazon associate links."

Todd:  "Nooowww....oh my god.  It IS!  No [expletive deleted] way.  No way.
I thought you were joking.  Oh my gawd.  No.  They didn't.  Is that real?
It IS.  No way.  No [expletive deleted] way.  Oh my gawd, that's SOOO SOOO
tacky.  I can't believe they did that.  Do they know they did that?  Oh man,
that's SO bad looking.  It's so misleading."

Complete and utter shock, in other words.  :)

--Todd

[1] http://www.legomindstorms.com/home/books/index.asp

      
            
       
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:27:48 GMT
Reply-To: 
mattdm@mattdm&stopspam&.org
Highlighted: 
! (details)
Viewed: 
3035 times
  

Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
Suz:  "Yeah, look again.  And I double checked it.  It's the same format as
all the other Amazon associate links."

Y'know, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if if it turns out that the Amazon
referrals aren't going to TLC at all, but rather to an employee of whatever
web firm they contract out to.

--
Matthew Miller                      --->                  mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us                       --->             http://quotes-r-us.org/

      
            
       
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:33:00 GMT
Viewed: 
3188 times
  

In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Miller writes:
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
Suz:  "Yeah, look again.  And I double checked it.  It's the same format as
all the other Amazon associate links."

Y'know, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if if it turns out that the Amazon
referrals aren't going to TLC at all, but rather to an employee of whatever
web firm they contract out to.

We were wondering that too.  It wouldn't surpise me too much if "management"
there was oblivious to the fact.  I guess if the URL changes anytime soon...
(smile)

--Todd

     
           
      
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 02:10:27 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
2819 times
  

In article <slrn8et1h9.qk9.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>, mattdm@mattdm.org
wrote:

Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income.  From
their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?

I agree with Suzanne -- it looks shoddy and unprofessional. I don't think
it's immoral or anything, but it puts them on the same psychological level
as some random person with a geocities page full of banner ads.

I also agree about how it looks...which is basically why I don't use an
associate link on the NQC site (1).

Dave


(1)  Acutally, I even debated about putting anything at all on the NQC
site about my book.

--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com

    
          
      
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:08:36 GMT
Highlighted: 
! (details)
Viewed: 
2911 times
  

In lugnet.robotics, Dave Baum writes:
I hope people don't get too worked up about all of this.  I assume TLC
decided to put links on their site, then someone had the idea that if
they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income.  From
their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?

That's certainly their choice.  I just hope they realize it's sending a mixed
message.  If you don't know how to recognize an Amazon.com associate ID when
you see one, it looks as though TLC is finally (yay) supporting these two
wonderful books, when in fact the opposite is true.


[...]
Is it just the fact that they are profitting from AFOL contributions
that is upsetting?  [...]

IMHO, TLC is misleading people into believing that they support the books --
which they might FAIK, who knows -- but there's clearly mixed signals.  If
they weren't receiving a kickback, then it would be clear that they
unconditionaly supported the books.

I'm happy to TLC support of AFOLs, but this still leaves me nervous and
skeptical.  :)


Is there a concern that the lego links will reduce the hits through
similar links on other AFOL sites?

I'd feel the same uncomfortable feeling even if there weren't the same types
of links on any non-TLC sites.


Although I can see where this would
be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego.

I'm not sure 'upset' is the right word.  Disappointed and uncomfortable are
closer to the right word.  LEGO is sending the wrong message to people who
stop by.

--Todd


Its just free market operating with respect to referrals.  If other sites
(LUGNET, etc) were depending on such money, then we will need to find
other ways to support them.

     
           
       
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:55:34 GMT
Viewed: 
1565 times
  

In lugnet.robotics, Todd Lehman writes:
Although I can see where this would
be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego.

I'm not sure 'upset' is the right word.  Disappointed and uncomfortable are
closer to the right word.  LEGO is sending the wrong message to people who
stop by.

(The above is from April.)

I just stumbled across this at the official LEGO Mindstorms website...

   http://lego4.legomindstorms.com/webx?14@119.40wPawM8ax6^33@.ee6e227/2

It's worth adding a link to it just for posterity since it refers to
specific articles on this thread by their URLs.

Anyway, I'm not sure who "little horn" is, but he speaks with the
defensiveness of someone who works for LEGO.  I don't get the impression
that he "gets it" (i.e., why the coat-tailing sends the wrong message).

   http://www.legomindstorms.com/home/books/index.asp

I can't help but notice the notice at the bottom of that page --

   "...These links are provided for your convenience only..."

What they really mean is something else, but the double-meaning is humorous.
:)

Oh well.  At least they're linking to the books, which helps support the
community.

--Todd

     
           
       
Subject: 
Stereo Vision
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:05:13 GMT
Original-From: 
Laurentino Martins <LMARTINS@MARKTEST.PTantispam>
Viewed: 
1617 times
  

Hi
As you may know my current project has everything to do with image recognition.
I was reading one tread in this newsgroup and suddenly it struck me that many of the problems I currently have in finding the contours of the objects can be overcome it I have stereo vision!
Then I figured that the only way to do that with just one camera was if I can place a set of mirrors in the front to the camera and split vertically the image in two, each set of mirrors giving an image a few centimeters apart.
Then all I have to do is to compare the left and the right parts of the images and find the differences between them.
Any thoughts about that?

Laurentino Martins

[ mailto:lau@netcabo.pt ]
[ http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2808/ ]

      
            
        
Subject: 
Re: Stereo Vision
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:04:42 GMT
Original-From: 
Laurentino Martins <lmartins@marktest.SPAMLESSpt>
Viewed: 
1547 times
  

This approach has several problems.
One is that the left image will show you smaller objects than the right, because the light travels a greater distance.
The second is that precision is very important and the mirrors must be fixed otherwise will make the image tremble a lot.
If you want to subtract two almost identical images to see the edges like I want to, one pixel of unalignment is too much.

Sorry the english


At 00:38 11-08-2000 Friday, Doug Weathers wrote:
You might be able to save yourself some trouble with mirrors if you mount
the camera to one side instead of in the middle.

.      .
\ .  \   .
\....\  .
\  . \ .
    .   .
    #####  <-- camera lens


Laurentino Martins

[ mailto:lau@netcabo.pt ]
[ http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2808/ ]

      
            
       
Subject: 
Re: Stereo Vision (docs)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:54:58 GMT
Original-From: 
Marco C. <MARCO@SOPORCEL.spamcakePT>
Viewed: 
1739 times
  

Check this out ;)

Recognizing Three-Dimensional Objects by Comparing Two-Dimensional Images.
Daniel P. Huttenlocher, Liana M. Lorigo. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision
and Pattern Recognition. June 1996, San Francisco, CA, USA
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/liana/cvpr-2col.ps.gz


____________________
Marco C. aka McViper

     
           
       
Subject: 
Re: Stereo Vision
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:30:56 GMT
Original-From: 
Marco C. <marco@soporcel.SPAMLESSpt>
Viewed: 
1547 times
  

Yup :)

I thought of, *after dealing with the mono vision*, going for a stereo
approach, because this is one way of dealing with distance measuring, or at
least, better object evaluation/recognition.

At first I thought of using two USB cams, but then, after thinking about
the technical problems dealing with two video sources, I thought of that
solution exactly. Using a kind of technic common to professional binocullars:

    Left     Right
     :        :
    \:..\**/..:/
    *\  :\/:  /* 4 Mirrors
        :  :
       |:  :|
       Camera

Well... in theory this works, but, in practice, I was expecting
difficulties when setting the angles of the mirrors correctly.

If more motor outputs were available, one could control the outside
mirrors, to deflect or inflect (just like we do with the eyes)
With angle-sensors attached, one could even do a crude distance measuring,
when trying to focus an individual object/point of reference.

Anyway, without the pair of motor/angle-sensor attached, it's still
possible to do crude distance measuring with the fixed angle.

Like this, we get better edge/object recognition

Oh well... when I have the time... but, anyway :) Laurentino, keep us up to
date with your project :)

At 11:05 10-08-2000 +0100, you wrote:
Hi
As you may know my current project has everything to do with image • recognition.
I was reading one tread in this newsgroup and suddenly it struck me that
many of the problems I currently have in finding the contours of the
objects can be overcome it I have stereo vision!
Then I figured that the only way to do that with just one camera was if I
can place a set of mirrors in the front to the camera and split vertically
the image in two, each set of mirrors giving an image a few centimeters apart.
Then all I have to do is to compare the left and the right parts of the • images and find the differences between them.
Any thoughts about that?
Laurentino Martins

____________________
Marco C. aka McViper

     
           
      
Subject: 
Re: Stereo Vision
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:36:29 GMT
Original-From: 
Marco C. <marco@soporcel.SPAMLESSpt>
Viewed: 
1497 times
  

At 13:45 10-08-2000 +0200, you wrote:
If more motor outputs were available, one could control...
LOL! I wonder when LEGO actually will put in more I/O in the RCX :)
Keep up the good thinking and have a nice day!

I'm planning to add a RCX to my CyberMaster, hopefully, this Xmas.

I've done tests with MotorOutput->SensorInput direct connection and it
works, using the Off() and Float() commands to simulate the On/Off state.

Using a simple comms rotine, similar to the VLL code available already in
legOS and NQC source code, or similar to bar-code reader code, one can
devise a bidirectional serial comm with the CyberMaster<->RCX.

Advantages ? PC RF-comms and/or IR-comms with 4 sensors and 4 or even 5
outputs (a pair of each assigned to the comms, so only 4 from the 6 available)

I could save a RCX output, I dunno, by connecting like this:
CyberMaster_Input_1 <= Bumper1...
CyberMaster_Input_2 <= Bumper2...
CyberMaster_Output_A => LeftMoveMotor
CyberMaster_Output_B => RightMoveMotor (or something like that)
CyberMaster_Output_C =>-\
CyberMaster_Input_3 <=--|
RCX_Input_1 <=>---------/
RCX_Input_2 <= LeftEyeAngleSensor
RCX_Input_3 <= RightEyeAngleSensor
RCX_Output_A => LeftEyeAngleMotor
RCX_Output_B => RightEyeAngleMotor
RCX_Output_C => UpDownEyeAngleMotor

So, it's possible to have one pBrick do all the walking, and the other
pBrick obey cmds to move the "eyes" and even, with the possible 3rd output,
control the up/down movement of the eyes.

Or if considered a luxury the Independent Eye movement, the RCX would do
the "arm" controlling instead. ...or both, with a 2nd RCX, because the 1st
could pass along CyberMaster comands through IR messages to any other
possible RCX's we might want to add.

$$$ :)
____________________
Marco C. aka McViper

    
          
      
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:11:34 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
1633 times
  

I like the mindstorms site.If this small amount of cash help further
develop/justify it power to them. I'd rather the 15% went to TLC rather than
AMAZON, as I've found them to be a little shoddy in the past. It is good
that TLC is willing to recognise the work others are doing, rather than just
copying Dave et al.  & produce a equivalent text for much more $$.

Scott A

Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote in message
news:dbaum-344EC6.19542307042000@lugnet.com...
In article <Fso7Gt.ILF@lugnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
wrote:

I just think it's incredibly ironic, if not a bizarre turn of events.

It's surprising to see TLC jumping on the opportunity to take advantage • of
books written by people in the AFOL community that support it.  Maybe • they'll
give a portion of the fees back to the authors, that would be nice.

What's particularly ironic about it, IMHO, is that the books fill holes • left
open by TLC.  Now they come in and profit from the holes they forgot to • fill
themselves.  :)  See the irony?  I'm not sure whether to chuckle in • admiration
from a capitalist market standpoint or whether to have a sore stomach • from
what it might mean about how TLC views AFOLs.


I hope people don't get too worked up about all of this.  I assume TLC
decided to put links on their site, then someone had the idea that if
they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income.  From
their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?

TLC left some holes with Mindstorms, and for the last 18 months I've
been filling a couple of them (NQC and a book).  When the Mindstorms
site started accepting NQC programs, people generally looked at this as
a positive step from TLC.  I think their acknowledgments of the books -
including a link on their web site - is also a positive step.

Is it just the fact that they are profitting from AFOL contributions
that is upsetting?  To be honest, I suspect NQC's existence created more
net profit for TLC than the amazon.com link for my book will.  I'm
perfectly happy to let them derrive some profit from my efforts.  After
all, NQC and the book have brought me plenty of rewards, and neither of
those efforts would've been possible without Mindstorms.  Personally,
I'm very content in this sort of half-acknowledged symbiotic
relationship with TLC.  I can't speak for Jonathan, but I hope nobody
gets the impression that I (as an AFOL) am getting a bad deal here.

Is there a concern that the lego links will reduce the hits through
similar links on other AFOL sites?  Although I can see where this would
be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego.  Its just
free market operating with respect to referrals.  If other sites
(LUGNET, etc) were depending on such money, then we will need to find
other ways to support them.

Dave Baum

--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com

    
          
      
Subject: 
Re: Stereo Vision
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:38:59 GMT
Viewed: 
1871 times
  

in article 4.3.2.7.0.20000810105740.00b35ff0@mail.marktest.pt, Laurentino
Martins at lego-robotics@crynwr.com wrote on 8/10/00 3:05 AM:

Hi
As you may know my current project has everything to do with image
recognition.
I was reading one tread in this newsgroup and suddenly it struck me that many
of the problems I currently have in finding the contours of the objects can be
overcome it I have stereo vision!
Then I figured that the only way to do that with just one camera was if I can
place a set of mirrors in the front to the camera and split vertically the
image in two, each set of mirrors giving an image a few centimeters apart.
Then all I have to do is to compare the left and the right parts of the images
and find the differences between them.
Any thoughts about that?

Always!  You can rely on me to have thoughts.  No guarantees about the
usefulness of my thoughts, however.  Use at your own risk.

You might be able to save yourself some trouble with mirrors if you mount
the camera to one side instead of in the middle.

  .      .
\ .  \   .
\....\  .
  \  . \ .
     .   .
     #####  <-- camera lens

Let the unmodified image fall on half of the lens, and cover up the other
half with the center mirror.  You can move the outside mirror away from and
towards the middle to change the separation between your "eyes" to give you
better stereo separation.

If you motorize this and control it from your robot, you can compare the
scene at different settings and figure out the relative distance of the
various objects in the scene (assuming you can distinguish the objects with
your software).



Laurentino Martins

[ mailto:lau@netcabo.pt ]
[ http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2808/ ]



--
Doug Weathers, http://www.rdrop.com/~dougw
Portland, Oregon, USA
Don't spam me - I know how to use http://www.spamcop.net
"On a clear disk you can seek forever"

    
          
     
Subject: 
Re: Stereo Vision (aka mirrors)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:50:44 GMT
Original-From: 
Marco C. <marco@soporcel.ptIHATESPAM>
Viewed: 
1444 times
  

At 23:38 10-08-2000 GMT, Doug Weathers wrote:
in article 4.3.2.7.0.20000810105740.00b35ff0@mail.marktest.pt, Laurentino
Martins at lego-robotics@crynwr.com wrote on 8/10/00 3:05 AM:
I was reading one tread in this newsgroup and suddenly it struck me that • many
of the problems I currently have in finding the contours of the objects • can be
overcome it I have stereo vision!
Any thoughts about that?
You might be able to save yourself some trouble with mirrors if you mount
the camera to one side instead of in the middle.
.      .
\ .  \   .
\....\  .
\  . \ .
    .   .
    #####  <-- camera lens
Let the unmodified image fall on half of the lens, and cover up the other
half with the center mirror.  You can move the outside mirror away from and
towards the middle to change the separation between your "eyes" to give you
better stereo separation.
If you motorize this and control it from your robot, you can compare the
scene at different settings and figure out the relative distance of the
various objects in the scene (assuming you can distinguish the objects with
your software).

Cool :) that might work too, and save about the other half of material to
be used (+2 mirrors, +1 motor, +1 angle-sensor).

er... I feel like having "my" solution simply slashed in the middle ;) eheheh

This is really all about having an horizontal periscope. In the first case
two, in this case, only one. If it proves a workable solution, it's, of
course, a cheaper solution (and that's *always* welcome ;)

I'm curious about the effect of having a one moving and one fixed "eye".

Talking about mirrors, one of my recent experiment, was putting a Camcorder
in vertical posicion, and on the top, having a 45º mirror (taken from a
toy-periscope) with 360º rotation freedom controlled by my CyberMaster. It
was kewl. Less hassle with moving parts (mirror's lighter than the cam ;)
no cable problems, etc...

This mirror controlling stuff is something I'll get back to, in the future,
cause it consumes much less battery, and the mechanics tend to become
simpler, because of smaller and lighter object to control (the mirror).
____________________
Marco C. aka McViper

   
         
     
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:10:43 GMT
Original-From: 
Sean Kelly <kelly@ad1440.{nospam}net>
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
2860 times
  

So I guess I don't see the big deal about that.  I'd appreciate it if
someone could explain why this is a Bad Thing.

I suppose after paying $200 for a LEGO set that most people would be
unhappy that LEGO got yet more money after buying a book from a third party
that filled gaps in their original product.

--Sean

   
         
     
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics, lugnet.dear-lego
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:48:17 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
3330 times
  

In lugnet.robotics, David Schilling writes:
[...]
I don't really understand how the associates stuff works: if no one collects
the referal fee, doesn't Amazon just keep it as extra profit for themselves?

From what I understand, Amazon makes no profit when a book is 30% off list and
then grants a 15% referral fee.[1]  The 15% is a maximum. A visitor to their
site would need to buy directly through that link and the book must be on
discount of 15-30%(?)I don't remember the numbers. often it's 5% or zero
referal.


Certainly the authors don't collect a smaller royalty if a referral fee is
given?

No, I don't think it affects the publisher or author.[2] I guess if LEGO is
helping sell more copies of Dave's and Jonathan's books then that makes me
happy. It is a Good Thing. And it's good for all the users that are helped. It
wasn't seeing their books on the site that disturbed me.

So I guess I don't see the big deal about that.  I'd appreciate it if
someone could explain why this is a Bad Thing.

I did not say that LEGO was doing a Bad Thing. But I think in this case they are
acting in an unprofessional manner. For such a large company, who is attempting
to appear as strong and worldly, to scrape nickles off books written by others
about their product (ironically in the gaps left by them) looks (to me) sad and
cheap.

Basically: TLC would have looked more respectful (to me) if they, being
originator of the product, were to have linked to the authors' sites or their
publishers' sites. Instead, the way TLC mentions the books seems cold and less
helpful than it could be.

I could see collecting profit from Amazon.com as reasonable if TLC were putting
the funds toward something kind and related. like, I don't know.. donating more
copies of the books to high schools or libraries or something.. but I can find
no evidence of that being the case.

I feel that TLC owes those two authors and their publishers a great thanks, and
I just don't see it coming from TLC. I am personally disapointed.

But I'm sorry that my post here seemed so curious to readers. :-/

LEGO's current "outsider book-on-official site" relationship is understandable
from a certain view out LEGO's windows now, But I wish they had been on the
sidewalk with everyone last fall. I believe there were things they could have
done from the get-go. But that being history, I should be quiet, calm down, and
let what happens happen.

-Suz
[1]
Last I heard, Amazon.com had yet to make a profit as a whole company. Amazon
benefits from associates by exposure and specialty sub-sites.

[2]
I don't know about exact effects, like those on distributors... I forget who
even owns INGRAM now... certainly it hurts retail stores, local bookshops and
the like. The print publishing industry as a whole is changing due to the
internet's growing use -- I don't know how that will affect royalties in future.
Usually publishing is so slow to change -- now they have to be quick on their
toes. but that's another matter.

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 19:37:52 GMT
Original-From: 
Mika Tuupola <tuupola@appelsiini.=ihatespam=net>
Viewed: 
1536 times
  

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, David Schilling wrote:

What I thought was REALLY funny though was the Legal Notice at the bottom of
the page.  Especially the line: "Your linking to any other off-site pages or
other sites is at your own risk."  It makes it sound like the only place on
the web that you are safe is on LEGO's own web pages!  Could you imagine if
everyone started putting legal disclaimers on every link off their site?

This is what Internet _is_ today. Even though this might
seem quite amusing, especially big companies just have to
cover their back. There allways are people who are trying
to sue (for reasons which are not undertandable to a netizen,
but lawyer-type-of-human can do a case out of it) in
hope to get some money.

--
Mika Tuupola                      http://www.appelsiini.net/~tuupola/

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: O'Reilly book news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:55:07 GMT
Original-From: 
Blake Winton <[bwinton@tor]Spamless[.dhs.org]>
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
1501 times
  

* Mika Tuupola <tuupola@appelsiini.net> [000408 09:44]:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, David Schilling wrote:
"Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites is at your
own risk."
This is what Internet _is_ today. Even though this might
seem quite amusing, especially big companies just have to
cover their back. There allways are people who are trying
to sue (for reasons which are not undertandable to a netizen,
but lawyer-type-of-human can do a case out of it) in
hope to get some money.

For a differing viewpoint, check out http://www.cluetrain.com/

Later,
Blake.
--
9:53am up 10 days, 10:27, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR