Guarantee Of Performance: Fill & Download for Free

With due regard to some of our organisations like ISRO etc.I was also thinking for a long time that why any IITian has not rewarded any noble prize, though in the field of PCM they are almost the best brains of India (or even world). Reason is very simple: Nobel prize is given for research work and basically to scientists. And in India scientist is a job just like other jobs. Five days a week, all gazetted holidays etc. Pay and perks are also like other jobs. File work, more attention in transfer posting etc. We all know the working of government jobs.Research work is a passion not a job. It is a field of brain. Einstein, Newton etc. had passion of science subjects. For them this was not a job.In modern days passion has also related to return in financial and other terms. I personally don’t think that it’s unethical.Increase the salaries of scientists to 5–10 lakhs per month (performance based), give them freedom of work, very good facilities and status like DM and link all promotions with their performance.I mean to say, attract IITians to join as a scientist (but promotions and guarantee of job should strictly on the basis of performance). Once IITians will start joining as a real scientist I am sure we will receive Noble prize every year. Today tell me how many IITians join as a scientist. I assume percentage is negligible or very small.

The F-15, with AWACS support, has an enviable combat record.However, there have been interesting exercise cases, such as the time when two British Tornado F.3s - with AWACS guidance via Link-16 - defeated eight F-15Cs that were operating on their own resources in a simulated fight over the North Sea. It’s not that the Tonka is a better dogfighter than the Eagle (though it’s a decent interceptor), it’s the value of the support.The F-15 was the best air-combat platform of its time and is still highly capable now, but its design is nearly fifty years old and newer platforms are more capable. The F-15 hasn’t, for instance, faced a competently-flown Su-27 Flanker, for example (the Flanker was designed in response to the Eagle…) This is why the US developed the F-22, Eurofighter built the Typhoon and Dassault built the Rafale; past performance against an evolving threat is no guarantee of future performance.

For the most part, it doesn't.Boston Dynamic's secret sauce is a “stack” of very carefully hand-designed classic control laws. This is both good and bad. It's good because classic control theory provides strong mathematical guarantees of stability and performance, and this does not require *any* “training”. It just works, right out of the box, assuming you get the control design right.It's bad because the scope of ability of classic controls, applied to robotics, is pretty limited. The control stack has to be designed specifically to perform a range of tasks. If you change the task, you have to redesign the control laws. So while they are robust, they are also somewhat brittle.Nobody has yet figured out how to apply machine learning to robotic motor control in a practical way. Machine learning takes far too much data, typically hundreds of thousands to millions of trials. You can't collect that much data on a real robot. And simulation isn't good enough, yet, for simulated data to transfer without change onto real robotic hardware.