libvert is what communicates to the virtualized instance, and is the actual OS abstraction that runs on top of Xen in this case.
If there's no OS, we code to the metal, and there's zero "elasticity" in terms of being able to pop your process into any available machine in the cloud.
I like noodling around with some of the tech for computer visualization, but don't really care about it for media consumption.
The thing that sucked is that I wanted to watch The Hobbit in 48fps, but that was only available with the 3d version with the other goofy theater features. The 2d version was only 24fps at the theater I went to, and was showing at a more convenient time. Still, even wanting to watch it in higher framerate, I was completely fine with foregoing the 3d.
That's the line from the Secret Service, but the Israelis are responding to that with wrong fuel actually being the real issue, and that the US simply trying not to look stupid.
I suspect when all is said and done that the CIA will still have surveillance drones, and just the armed drones will go to the military (where they really should be anyway).
I'd be far less trusting of Google when it comes to running every single analytic it knows of over my data. Amazon's got far less stake in regular data processing, they just want to know about shopping habits.
Web surfing is about finding specific information and quite frankly polluting it with ads is like limiting Formula One teams by making them tow a RV and putting a ferret in their helmet.
It's far easier for a user to just take the shotgun approach and block everything than to manually cater to individual sites, even if they're otherwise supportive.
Also, lots of people have IT-savvy friends help out with their machine, so they end up with adblockers they have no clue how to configure, or even perceive that blocking is taking place.
Ads aren't just for click-through. Advertisers also want their product simply displayed and put into the minds of websurfers, so technically they are losing that form of audience when adblocking is enabled. Yeah, many of the products won't be applicable for out-of-country users, but they still might want to show their ads to local people who would never even click through.
But it's my bandwidth I pay for, it's my machine to decide what runs on it, and my choice whether to ignore sites that prevent adblocked users.
It's also a security risk. Anybody can effectively pay a few bucks to have their active content downloaded and run on users of a giant network of ad hosting sites.
If ads were limited to images (and even then there have been some attack vectors against file decoders) or text, this wouldn't be as insidious a problem.
During GWB's instigation of all of this (DHS, TSA, drone strike program, etc), many Republican civilians decided not to bear an "R" anymore, hopping to Independent or Libertarian, as none of the Republican politicians or party platform seemed to address the ridiculous unconstitutionality of it all. For most of the polls in recent years, it's interesting to see that the Independent slice of the population have been generally conservative.
I can see this having a similar effect on the Democratic party, with Obama's continuation of many of Bush's offenses. Many are toeing the party line, defending the "underdog" minority president, etc, but these actions seem to be even more out of line with the Democratic party's more populist and civil rights views than with the Republican's.
Maybe the possibility of a viable 3rd party will emerge? Please?
A citizen who has sent threatening letters to another citizen, and who has obtained a means to carry out a threat and is actively engaged in the process of planning or executing an attack and does not respond to law enforcement demands to surrender may be considered "armed and dangerous" and the only way to subdue the individual is with deadly force.
Paul and pretty much everybody agrees with this. However, your sample scenario tasks law enforcement with stopping and detaining the person, it is not an assassination order. Lethal force is an option if necessary to protect the officer's life, or as a last resort to prevent the offender from committing grievous damage, and in a highly escalated situation snipers or airstrikes are justifiably prepared if it ends up being necessary.
The question is one of due process employed when *outside of the heat of battle*. Drone strikes are a flat-out assassination order, with real examples of killing non-combatant associates, tertiary suppliers, and random vehicles leaving buildings of suspicion, not just in-process attackers. These people & targets are nothing more than suspects or associations, with no oversight as to who the executive branch can decide to kill.
Guy driving a bomb to go detonate? Hijacked plane going to deliberately crash into a building? That's not coming under question here. The exception to due process due to immediate and grave necessity is already there.
The current drone strike program has established a very flippant precedent, and the administration's tones have been such that it implies they assume the authority to carry out such assassination strikes for non-immediate or obliquely associated targets without any due process even here locally. That's the problem. It's focused here because the strikes abroad are technically part of some sort of nebulous definition of what the battlefield is; focusing on the potential of bringing it home is a much more tractable issue that should be clear-cut inadmissible, but the administration seems to claim it retains the authority to do so.
A police officer can't just go and kill somebody in person because he suspects they might be a criminal. A police officer (and any citizen in many jurisdictions) can use lethal force ONLY when a threat is actually in progress.
The actual argument in play is that the US simply blows up non-combatants in foreign countries with drones, without due process, solely due to internal suspicion or association.* Verbage from the Obama administration implies that they feel they have the authority to do kill Americans within the country as well, without due process.
Paul is saying that that is absolutely unconstitutional, that military action on American soil, and assassination within the country itself without any measure of due process, is prohibited.
The administration's responses so far have been "we have no intention of using this", while Paul and others are arguing that they have no authority to do so in the first place, regardless of lack of current intention. Separately, the government has also argued that their secret courts and internal decisions count as "due process".
The reason that "drones" are part of the argument is that it's a lot easier than getting a human assassin in, or planting a bomb that they hope will work, so use of drones seems to be used much more flippantly than prior means of assassination. Unknown vehicles have been blown up in drone strikes simply because they leave a place of suspicion, without knowing who or what is in the vehicle, for instance.
* = These arbitrary assassinations are just as horrible, but are more easily technically justified as military actions in battlezones than the local scenario in question.
That's a really interesting video, and a really cool idea for a single-monitor display! It doesn't look like those sorts of >180 fisheye projections would even take that much to get used to, but still would take a bit of retraining to gain a sense of where you are & what's around you.
However, a proper multimonitor solution doesn't even need to go that far; something similar to the last one (cubic), where each monitor has its own flat but independent viewing plane, would suffice for taking proper advantage of the multiple displays. Plus, it would still take full use of the existing flat perspective triangle rasterizers of GPUs.
All this does is increase the viewing angle of a flat display. There is no actual true wraparound, where you can look to the side and see things off to your side*. The wider it is, the more stretched the image, and if you angle the side monitors toward you, the in-game angles are all misaligned.
Have we forgotten Doom and MS Flight Sim as to how to actually do multi-monitor properly? Each display should be rendered from a different angle, allowing real viewing in multiple directions, giving you selected projections of an actual sphere of vision.
* = Due to the nature of 3rd person cameras there's a bit of this in some of those scenarios, but even that partial effect is completely lost in things like driving games and any 1st person camera perspectives.
Frankly it's irresponsible on their part if they don't have a FAQ explaining this stuff and a policy for helping customers deal with these things. To do otherwise is demeaning to their customers.
Most ISP's TOSes for home users technically disallow listening to incoming ports from the internet or any "server-like" behavior. While it really isn't enforced when your modem has a world-reachable IPv4 address, I don't think they'll be very helpful if their architecture simply doesn't allow this anymore. Heck, it might have been a desired feature of their rollout.
They're talking about something you drop into your house, where your furnace/water heater/whatever else would be. Why would you want to be prevented from tampering with your own appliance?
It was exactly correct from the manufacturer. The manufacturer's information listed the price in CAD. The DHS filled out the form for him to sign which had the manufacturer's stated CAD price copied as the USD purchase price.
The problem is that it's only selectively totalitarian. These sorts of things hit few enough people (and most do not have an audience to tell their story to) that the majority of people float by thinking that all is well. Too many people, from all walks of life, honestly buy into the "Well, if it keeps us safe from terrorists, I don't mind them doing a bit more X" scam and think systemic offenses like these (even if assuming what the agent did was proper policy) are hypothetical.
And yes, I cannot imagine it hasn't severely reduced both tourism and business travel. You're not alone in doing anything you can to avoid a US stopover.
I think this will only be true until they get the visuals and interaction to the point where it feels like you're in an expansive environment. I remember that Mario 64 was the watershed game for me; the first one where I actually felt like I was freely exploring around an actual place, not just looking at pretty effects on the screen as most 3d (on a 2d display) games were up to that point.
Right now, they all feel like you're operating a camera as part of the "experience". Once that is transparent, things should open up. Carmack's got a really good idea here, and that has direct impact on that barrier to immersion.
Nintendo's product was the Virtual Boy. It flopped in the market and they discontinued it. I never heard anything about them pulling it due to health studies; people just had general eye discomfort from the red flickery display and didn't like it. It didn't get to any sort of point where "real" injury stemmed from it.
Also note that the Virtual Boy sat fixed, it was not head-mounted so there was no motion tracking and no weird vertigo effects. Spending time where you're actually moving/looking around a simulated, slightly lagged world probably has a lot more of those sorts of problems than a fixed display.
Re:Carmack wants to strap a tablet to your head
on
Carmack On VR Latency
·
· Score: 1
I don't think you read the article. He's talking about ways to design new displays that can reduce the head-movement -> display latency to 3ms or so, without going through the GPU.
Slashdot Mirror
and yeah, "libvirt". I've had my head in too much visualization stuff. I should be in bed. :-P
libvert is what communicates to the virtualized instance, and is the actual OS abstraction that runs on top of Xen in this case.
If there's no OS, we code to the metal, and there's zero "elasticity" in terms of being able to pop your process into any available machine in the cloud.
I like noodling around with some of the tech for computer visualization, but don't really care about it for media consumption.
The thing that sucked is that I wanted to watch The Hobbit in 48fps, but that was only available with the 3d version with the other goofy theater features. The 2d version was only 24fps at the theater I went to, and was showing at a more convenient time. Still, even wanting to watch it in higher framerate, I was completely fine with foregoing the 3d.
That's the line from the Secret Service, but the Israelis are responding to that with wrong fuel actually being the real issue, and that the US simply trying not to look stupid.
I suspect when all is said and done that the CIA will still have surveillance drones, and just the armed drones will go to the military (where they really should be anyway).
At least, that'll be the public line...
Salaries of experts? Facilities with dedicated antennas and support personnel? Things add up quickly.
I'd be far less trusting of Google when it comes to running every single analytic it knows of over my data. Amazon's got far less stake in regular data processing, they just want to know about shopping habits.
Web surfing is about finding specific information and quite frankly polluting it with ads is like limiting Formula One teams by making them tow a RV and putting a ferret in their helmet.
It's far easier for a user to just take the shotgun approach and block everything than to manually cater to individual sites, even if they're otherwise supportive.
Also, lots of people have IT-savvy friends help out with their machine, so they end up with adblockers they have no clue how to configure, or even perceive that blocking is taking place.
Ads aren't just for click-through. Advertisers also want their product simply displayed and put into the minds of websurfers, so technically they are losing that form of audience when adblocking is enabled. Yeah, many of the products won't be applicable for out-of-country users, but they still might want to show their ads to local people who would never even click through.
But it's my bandwidth I pay for, it's my machine to decide what runs on it, and my choice whether to ignore sites that prevent adblocked users.
It's also a security risk. Anybody can effectively pay a few bucks to have their active content downloaded and run on users of a giant network of ad hosting sites.
If ads were limited to images (and even then there have been some attack vectors against file decoders) or text, this wouldn't be as insidious a problem.
During GWB's instigation of all of this (DHS, TSA, drone strike program, etc), many Republican civilians decided not to bear an "R" anymore, hopping to Independent or Libertarian, as none of the Republican politicians or party platform seemed to address the ridiculous unconstitutionality of it all. For most of the polls in recent years, it's interesting to see that the Independent slice of the population have been generally conservative.
I can see this having a similar effect on the Democratic party, with Obama's continuation of many of Bush's offenses. Many are toeing the party line, defending the "underdog" minority president, etc, but these actions seem to be even more out of line with the Democratic party's more populist and civil rights views than with the Republican's.
Maybe the possibility of a viable 3rd party will emerge? Please?
A citizen who has sent threatening letters to another citizen, and who has obtained a means to carry out a threat and is actively engaged in the process of planning or executing an attack and does not respond to law enforcement demands to surrender may be considered "armed and dangerous" and the only way to subdue the individual is with deadly force.
Paul and pretty much everybody agrees with this. However, your sample scenario tasks law enforcement with stopping and detaining the person, it is not an assassination order. Lethal force is an option if necessary to protect the officer's life, or as a last resort to prevent the offender from committing grievous damage, and in a highly escalated situation snipers or airstrikes are justifiably prepared if it ends up being necessary.
The question is one of due process employed when *outside of the heat of battle*. Drone strikes are a flat-out assassination order, with real examples of killing non-combatant associates, tertiary suppliers, and random vehicles leaving buildings of suspicion, not just in-process attackers. These people & targets are nothing more than suspects or associations, with no oversight as to who the executive branch can decide to kill.
Guy driving a bomb to go detonate? Hijacked plane going to deliberately crash into a building? That's not coming under question here. The exception to due process due to immediate and grave necessity is already there.
The current drone strike program has established a very flippant precedent, and the administration's tones have been such that it implies they assume the authority to carry out such assassination strikes for non-immediate or obliquely associated targets without any due process even here locally. That's the problem. It's focused here because the strikes abroad are technically part of some sort of nebulous definition of what the battlefield is; focusing on the potential of bringing it home is a much more tractable issue that should be clear-cut inadmissible, but the administration seems to claim it retains the authority to do so.
A police officer can't just go and kill somebody in person because he suspects they might be a criminal. A police officer (and any citizen in many jurisdictions) can use lethal force ONLY when a threat is actually in progress.
The actual argument in play is that the US simply blows up non-combatants in foreign countries with drones, without due process, solely due to internal suspicion or association.* Verbage from the Obama administration implies that they feel they have the authority to do kill Americans within the country as well, without due process.
Paul is saying that that is absolutely unconstitutional, that military action on American soil, and assassination within the country itself without any measure of due process, is prohibited.
The administration's responses so far have been "we have no intention of using this", while Paul and others are arguing that they have no authority to do so in the first place, regardless of lack of current intention. Separately, the government has also argued that their secret courts and internal decisions count as "due process".
The reason that "drones" are part of the argument is that it's a lot easier than getting a human assassin in, or planting a bomb that they hope will work, so use of drones seems to be used much more flippantly than prior means of assassination. Unknown vehicles have been blown up in drone strikes simply because they leave a place of suspicion, without knowing who or what is in the vehicle, for instance.
* = These arbitrary assassinations are just as horrible, but are more easily technically justified as military actions in battlezones than the local scenario in question.
That's a really interesting video, and a really cool idea for a single-monitor display! It doesn't look like those sorts of >180 fisheye projections would even take that much to get used to, but still would take a bit of retraining to gain a sense of where you are & what's around you.
However, a proper multimonitor solution doesn't even need to go that far; something similar to the last one (cubic), where each monitor has its own flat but independent viewing plane, would suffice for taking proper advantage of the multiple displays. Plus, it would still take full use of the existing flat perspective triangle rasterizers of GPUs.
All this does is increase the viewing angle of a flat display. There is no actual true wraparound, where you can look to the side and see things off to your side*. The wider it is, the more stretched the image, and if you angle the side monitors toward you, the in-game angles are all misaligned.
Have we forgotten Doom and MS Flight Sim as to how to actually do multi-monitor properly? Each display should be rendered from a different angle, allowing real viewing in multiple directions, giving you selected projections of an actual sphere of vision.
* = Due to the nature of 3rd person cameras there's a bit of this in some of those scenarios, but even that partial effect is completely lost in things like driving games and any 1st person camera perspectives.
Frankly it's irresponsible on their part if they don't have a FAQ explaining this stuff and a policy for helping customers deal with these things. To do otherwise is demeaning to their customers.
Most ISP's TOSes for home users technically disallow listening to incoming ports from the internet or any "server-like" behavior. While it really isn't enforced when your modem has a world-reachable IPv4 address, I don't think they'll be very helpful if their architecture simply doesn't allow this anymore. Heck, it might have been a desired feature of their rollout.
Or he could have been referencing this image.
And what caucus will promote the Public Domain?
They're talking about something you drop into your house, where your furnace/water heater/whatever else would be. Why would you want to be prevented from tampering with your own appliance?
It was exactly correct from the manufacturer. The manufacturer's information listed the price in CAD. The DHS filled out the form for him to sign which had the manufacturer's stated CAD price copied as the USD purchase price.
The problem is that it's only selectively totalitarian. These sorts of things hit few enough people (and most do not have an audience to tell their story to) that the majority of people float by thinking that all is well. Too many people, from all walks of life, honestly buy into the "Well, if it keeps us safe from terrorists, I don't mind them doing a bit more X" scam and think systemic offenses like these (even if assuming what the agent did was proper policy) are hypothetical.
And yes, I cannot imagine it hasn't severely reduced both tourism and business travel. You're not alone in doing anything you can to avoid a US stopover.
I think this will only be true until they get the visuals and interaction to the point where it feels like you're in an expansive environment. I remember that Mario 64 was the watershed game for me; the first one where I actually felt like I was freely exploring around an actual place, not just looking at pretty effects on the screen as most 3d (on a 2d display) games were up to that point.
Right now, they all feel like you're operating a camera as part of the "experience". Once that is transparent, things should open up. Carmack's got a really good idea here, and that has direct impact on that barrier to immersion.
Nintendo's product was the Virtual Boy. It flopped in the market and they discontinued it. I never heard anything about them pulling it due to health studies; people just had general eye discomfort from the red flickery display and didn't like it. It didn't get to any sort of point where "real" injury stemmed from it.
Also note that the Virtual Boy sat fixed, it was not head-mounted so there was no motion tracking and no weird vertigo effects. Spending time where you're actually moving/looking around a simulated, slightly lagged world probably has a lot more of those sorts of problems than a fixed display.
I don't think you read the article. He's talking about ways to design new displays that can reduce the head-movement -> display latency to 3ms or so, without going through the GPU.