103141

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!bert.eecs.uic.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u59985
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 12:24:45 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Best Radar Detector - VALENTINE-1?
References: <[e-mail]>
 <1r3ghp$[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Lines: 21

I've had a Valentine for about 9 months now and I agree that it is the best det
ector available. The point here is trust and reliability. I've been able to "tr
ust" the Valentine more than any other detector I've owend. If the Valentine sa
ys that there is a moderate to strong radar source in front of me, then it's mo
re than likely to be a speed trap. With my other detectors, I've gotten so many
 falses that I've begun to ignore someo of the warnings because I didn't want t
o drive like I had one foot on the brake and one on the gas pedal.

That directional indicator really, really helps. Plus, more info is almost alwa
ys better than less info. No matter how smart radar detectors get, the human br
ain is usually smarter. So, if I'm going to make a decisio based on information
 at hand, I want all the info I can get. Plus, if you divide the overall streng
th of the radar signal by the number of bogeys reported, you'll find that each
bogey is pretty weak and therefore not a radar threat. With other detectors, yo
u'll just get one strong warning. My logic may be faulty on this, but I think i
t works okay.

Although, I must admit that I haven't really noticed the reflection problem of
one radar souce.

Thomas