So basically the tech is so raw and the problem so complex that the only people who could actually solve it are the handful of geniuses with better jobs to do? So basically it's unaffordable?I can't do this. I have just enough low level knowledge to know that the tech is there, which is what you have been denying all along. This would need the guys with the knowledge who make live time filters that separate signals into parts they wish to observe. They are probably all busy creating filters that flag our conversations as potentially harmful for security agencies or working on special effects at Marvel studios at the moment.
^OwnedThis is the worst pwnage I've seen here since Starfighter wrecked Miyagi..
^[Stream of meaningless drivel] self-ownedSo basically the tech is so raw and the problem so complex that the only people who could actually solve it are the handful of geniuses with better jobs to do? So basically it's unaffordable?
That means I'm correct FFS. I literally listed affordable as a criteria. Who the **** can afford to shell millions on the tech gurus to actually make this a reality? Just because the source code is free doesn't mean this is cheap, jfc.
The entire argument that this must be possible and the ICC is just blocking it out of political reasons or just CBF accepting an available solution is clearly false. It's clearly not possible to do this unless you take that term to the literal extent and go 'one genius with an IQ of 180 at NASA could probably whip this together'. It's clearly not affordable unless you can afford to hire said genius on retainer. The ICC didn't invest in any of the tech currently used until it was already built and stable and common enough to the point where it was cheap and accurate. It's ridiculous to assert they should in this one particular circumstance.
It's nice to know this technology is a lot closer to reality than I was aware of, clearly I was wrong, but also it clearly isn't ready enough. Like I said, all tech takes decades from being feasible to becoming useable for applications like this.
And I reject the notion entirely that something is possible and doesn't exist simply because the people who can do it just CBF. Humans don't work that way. I was clearly right. Exaggerations aside, this isn't possible otherwise someone would have built it. When only a select few people on earth are capable of making this a reality, it isn't actually possible. Affordability matters.
Another emphatic win for *****.
^BonedYou're using words but the meaning behind them is rather hard to elucidate. Just stop.
I'm thinking that if the sensor goes off, then it is a valid bowl. I get it that it won't go off if the bowler is behind the line just as much as if he steps completely over it, but figuring out if he is behind it or in front of it should not be too complicated even if you are an umpire.How will it do it though? In 10 pin the foot cant cross the line at all, so any break in the sensor is an auto foul.
In cricket, the foot can cross the line, just not all of the foot, so a break in the sensor isn't a foul. Neither is no break, because the ball could be bowled with the entire foot behind the line. So in effect you're talking a multitude of sensors to map the area to see where the foot falls, becoming more expensive and probably too cumbersome to have built in around the stumps
lol yeah even those idiots should be smart enough to figure that outshould not be too complicated even if you are an umpire.
You forget that as an Aussie, Burgey can move the line to suit his agenda.Until we have automated technology that calls Burgey whenever he steps over the line, I'm afraid he's gonna keep chucking them down