There's a big difference between professional reviews selected for marketing material and a public forum for user reviews. The former doesn't imply that it is a fair representation of all feedback, but the latter does.
Actually, I have been involved in open source biosensor projects such as ECG and EEG that are still in the development stage. There are others out there: http://openeeg.sourceforge.net... Also, open source and profit are not mutually exclusive.
They are custom-fitted, high precision medical devices that as such are also subjected to intense regulatory and lawsuit considerations. If you want to stick a cone of paper in your ear and save a few bucks go ahead, but you'll look like a moron. There is also a lot of testing that is involved with selecting an appropriate hearing assist device.
None of those factors prevent them from being open source.
There are separate images displayed to each eye. A wrap-around screen wouldn't be in 3D, because you wouldn't get the depth perception cues from parallax (as Agent0013 mentioned). You could get increased field of view though. However, a wrap-around screen with 3D glasses might be feasible. Still, if you want to do head tracking, so that you can lean around obstacles etc, you'd still need to update the screen quickly enough that you won't get sick.
VR will never become a thing. It will be too expensive and require too much space and fiddling around with, not to mention the eyestrain and motion sickness issues. People aren't going to want that.
Yeah, and home computers will never become a thing. They take up an entire room, and they require so much electricity to operate, not to mention the punch cards and vacuum tubes.
There are obvious obstacles to wide-spread adoption of VR technology, and there are probably a lot of non obvious obstacles as well. However, that level of immersion has so much potential in so many applications. VR is probably viable just from the entertainment market alone, but there are also communication, data visualization, education, and health science applications.
After ten years of development in display quality and processing speed, eyestrain and motion sickness won't be a problem.
It now seems clear to me that Uber wants to be a provider of autonomous livery vehicles. No wonder they don't seem overly concerned with their employee -- I mean independent contractor -- satisfaction: they plan to get rid of them as soon as possible.
It sounds like you've read Ubik by P. K. Dick, or you've seen that episode of Black Mirror about the socioeconomic system based on virtual avatars.
I can imagine a lot of those scenarios playing out in the not-too-distant future, but I hope that people will have the freedom to avoid products or services that cause those problems. The worst part will be when alternatives are no longer available or when participation is mandatory.
...most of them are better off than we were before our brains evolved to their current state.
That was my initial reaction when I read that quote. However, was he talking about the safety of humans or of the world in general? While humans are certainly safer now, we have caused a good deal of destruction to the rest of the biosphere. There is certainly some evidence that the world is more dangerous for other species now that humans have evolved brains capable of changing so much so quickly.
Similarly, in the Jesus resurrection story he is not a zombie. He was simply returned to life, as in properly restored to being "alive" as he was before death, not as in "undead", or transformed by his death into a new being.
I think generally when people say "using Skype," they mean using it for video or voice, as those are the specific functions that set it apart from the countless ways people can send text messages to and from each other. If someone asks you to use your phone, I expect that you'd be put out if they used it to scrape off their boots, even though that could be described as "using the phone."
I understand your cynicism. However, the fact that they held a steady state for as long as they could maintain power is significant. They still need to work on supplying the necessary power for longer periods, but they now have one fewer obstacle.
A Note 3 or a Note 5? The issue is for a Note 5, as others have said that the styles for the Note 3 has a different design that isn't susceptible to the issue.
I completely agree with your sentiment, and such simple protections do generally keep people from getting themselves into trouble inadvertently. However, I am a bit leery about the false sense of security that comes with regulations that people don't really understand. Also, I'd hate to see the relationship between commercial drone operators and the FAA develop to the point where regulations on non-exempt drones become a huge barrier to entry for startups etc. that don't already have said exemptions.
Then of course there's MADD. I assure you that more than one of the neoprohibitionist protofascists behind that organization is crosseyed with rage at the idea of cars that can safely take people home even if they've committed the mortal sin of alcohol consumption. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some MADD type had gotten so angry that she kicked her little yapping lap dog right through the living room picture window at the mere thought of an autonomous vehicle.
"MADD is excited about the possibilities of self-driving vehicles. We support the development of advanced technology that will reduce crashes, fatalities and injuries on our roadways. Both the self-driving technology and the DADSS (Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety) technology, which automatically detects a driver’s blood alcohol concentration, hold tremendous promise for a safer tomorrow. We look forward to future advancements that will eventually eliminate drunk driving completely."
I do agree with you as far as law enforcement revenue, but I'm sure cities will just find another way to monetize the transportation infrastructure.
"One opportunity for the industry could be selling more coverage to carmakers and other companies developing the automated features for cars.... When the technology fails, manufacturers could get stuck with big liabilities that they will want to cover by buying more insurance."
Would major car manufacturers really pay for insurance? The entire insurance company business model depends on the fact that premiums end up costing more than payouts over the long term average. Consumers choose to pay more over time to avoid the risk of huge one-time costs, but wouldn't car companies prefer to cover these costs themselves so as to save money in the long run?
It's annoying because the subject line and the body perform different functions. The information in the subject line should give an idea as to the content of the body, but the body should be able to stand alone without the subject line. If someone reads the subject, they may or may not decide to read the body. If someone decides to read the body without reading the subject, they shouldn't have to go back to the subject after they encounter a sentence fragment.
"Moby Dick" isn't named "Call" and it's opening line isn't "Me Ishmael."
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big difference between professional reviews selected for marketing material and a public forum for user reviews. The former doesn't imply that it is a fair representation of all feedback, but the latter does.
Actually, I have been involved in open source biosensor projects such as ECG and EEG that are still in the development stage. There are others out there: http://openeeg.sourceforge.net... Also, open source and profit are not mutually exclusive.
They are custom-fitted, high precision medical devices that as such are also subjected to intense regulatory and lawsuit considerations. If you want to stick a cone of paper in your ear and save a few bucks go ahead, but you'll look like a moron. There is also a lot of testing that is involved with selecting an appropriate hearing assist device.
None of those factors prevent them from being open source.
Yes, one trillion in France would be called one quintillion in the US. See the wikipedia article on long and short scales, linked by turkeydance.
There are separate images displayed to each eye. A wrap-around screen wouldn't be in 3D, because you wouldn't get the depth perception cues from parallax (as Agent0013 mentioned). You could get increased field of view though. However, a wrap-around screen with 3D glasses might be feasible. Still, if you want to do head tracking, so that you can lean around obstacles etc, you'd still need to update the screen quickly enough that you won't get sick.
VR will never become a thing. It will be too expensive and require too much space and fiddling around with, not to mention the eyestrain and motion sickness issues. People aren't going to want that.
Yeah, and home computers will never become a thing. They take up an entire room, and they require so much electricity to operate, not to mention the punch cards and vacuum tubes.
There are obvious obstacles to wide-spread adoption of VR technology, and there are probably a lot of non obvious obstacles as well. However, that level of immersion has so much potential in so many applications. VR is probably viable just from the entertainment market alone, but there are also communication, data visualization, education, and health science applications.
After ten years of development in display quality and processing speed, eyestrain and motion sickness won't be a problem.
It now seems clear to me that Uber wants to be a provider of autonomous livery vehicles. No wonder they don't seem overly concerned with their employee -- I mean independent contractor -- satisfaction: they plan to get rid of them as soon as possible.
Targeted advertisement marketing firms HATE THIS.
It sounds like you've read Ubik by P. K. Dick, or you've seen that episode of Black Mirror about the socioeconomic system based on virtual avatars. I can imagine a lot of those scenarios playing out in the not-too-distant future, but I hope that people will have the freedom to avoid products or services that cause those problems. The worst part will be when alternatives are no longer available or when participation is mandatory.
...most of them are better off than we were before our brains evolved to their current state.
That was my initial reaction when I read that quote. However, was he talking about the safety of humans or of the world in general? While humans are certainly safer now, we have caused a good deal of destruction to the rest of the biosphere. There is certainly some evidence that the world is more dangerous for other species now that humans have evolved brains capable of changing so much so quickly.
Similarly, in the Jesus resurrection story he is not a zombie. He was simply returned to life, as in properly restored to being "alive" as he was before death, not as in "undead", or transformed by his death into a new being.
So did he get all his experience back?
I think generally when people say "using Skype," they mean using it for video or voice, as those are the specific functions that set it apart from the countless ways people can send text messages to and from each other. If someone asks you to use your phone, I expect that you'd be put out if they used it to scrape off their boots, even though that could be described as "using the phone."
I understand your cynicism. However, the fact that they held a steady state for as long as they could maintain power is significant. They still need to work on supplying the necessary power for longer periods, but they now have one fewer obstacle.
I just got my note 3 5 a few days ago.
A Note 3 or a Note 5? The issue is for a Note 5, as others have said that the styles for the Note 3 has a different design that isn't susceptible to the issue.
"screwed up enough to get a scan = can't be fixed"
Except that the scan identifies who will respond well to treatment...
Maybe he meant logical or.
I completely agree with your sentiment, and such simple protections do generally keep people from getting themselves into trouble inadvertently. However, I am a bit leery about the false sense of security that comes with regulations that people don't really understand. Also, I'd hate to see the relationship between commercial drone operators and the FAA develop to the point where regulations on non-exempt drones become a huge barrier to entry for startups etc. that don't already have said exemptions.
"...geofencing software that could prohibit a done from flying higher than 500 feet, and keep it two miles away from any airport or sensitive area."
...for those law-abiding drone operators who choose to use it.
Then of course there's MADD. I assure you that more than one of the neoprohibitionist protofascists behind that organization is crosseyed with rage at the idea of cars that can safely take people home even if they've committed the mortal sin of alcohol consumption. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some MADD type had gotten so angry that she kicked her little yapping lap dog right through the living room picture window at the mere thought of an autonomous vehicle.
http://www.madd.org/blog/2014/...
"MADD is excited about the possibilities of self-driving vehicles. We support the development of advanced technology that will reduce crashes, fatalities and injuries on our roadways. Both the self-driving technology and the DADSS (Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety) technology, which automatically detects a driver’s blood alcohol concentration, hold tremendous promise for a safer tomorrow. We look forward to future advancements that will eventually eliminate drunk driving completely."
I do agree with you as far as law enforcement revenue, but I'm sure cities will just find another way to monetize the transportation infrastructure.
"One opportunity for the industry could be selling more coverage to carmakers and other companies developing the automated features for cars. ... When the technology fails, manufacturers could get stuck with big liabilities that they will want to cover by buying more insurance."
Would major car manufacturers really pay for insurance? The entire insurance company business model depends on the fact that premiums end up costing more than payouts over the long term average. Consumers choose to pay more over time to avoid the risk of huge one-time costs, but wouldn't car companies prefer to cover these costs themselves so as to save money in the long run?
This isn't new. They had to correct for Pioneers microwave thrust. Heat thrust is the accepted explanation for the Pioneer anomaly.
This isn't heat thrust; the EM Drive doesn't emit the microwaves.
Take a look at the technician in the background. Does he look familiar? He should. It's Al Franken.
Too bad he didn't go on to be elected to the Senate or anything like that.
Yeah, but he's not on the Committee to Regulate Live Sketch Comedy.
It's annoying because the subject line and the body perform different functions. The information in the subject line should give an idea as to the content of the body, but the body should be able to stand alone without the subject line. If someone reads the subject, they may or may not decide to read the body. If someone decides to read the body without reading the subject, they shouldn't have to go back to the subject after they encounter a sentence fragment. "Moby Dick" isn't named "Call" and it's opening line isn't "Me Ishmael."
9. ?
10. Profit!