On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Kent A. Reed <kentallanr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> From my seat in the peanut gallery, > it seems there is a divide between those who believe we have a proper > set of algorithms properly implemented that have been tested > successfully and those who believe this reported behavior must mean > either the implementation is deficient or the algorithms imperfect (or > both!). So far, the two groups of discussants seem to have been talking > past each other, both in the 2011 exchanges and now. > The only trajectory planning argument I am aware of is the "one step lookahead" argument. I don't know if this really is an artifact of the one-step lookahead or not. Seems like it might not be. If someone came up with a trajectory planner that worked better than the current one, I suspect it would be made available. So far all I see is people saying that it really should be done and then waiting for someone to do it. Right now, the people that write code prefer robustness over performance, which is a good thing in my view. This does look like a very good test case. If we can figure out why it does this then it should be possible to make inprovements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account! http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
