Actually I agree with your sentiment. The main reason I would say this is different is because the majority of gamers I know wear glasses. Now, obviously I don't mean this to be any sort of claim that everyone does. It just seems that in my experience a large percentage of gamers do and it could be a serious defect if they didn't take that into account.
As for it being a demand for them to cater to my needs. I don't really care, just seems to be an oversight in my opinion to ignore a large percentage of their target group. Seems the makers of the glasses agreed since another comment said that the glasses come with extensions or something to fit over glasses.
I suppose one could, although I've grown quite accustomed to my good ol spectacles and I can't really see changing one of the major parts of my lifestyle and appearance merely to use a product...
Somehow this never screwed up NASA...I would think the distance you have to travel to clear earth's atmosphere would have been an important thing for space flight. Anyone want to shed some light on this? Is it just that when space is concerned 200km is pretty small?
Once you pay the government, it stops becoming your money. You don't in any way own the road I drive on just because you pay your taxes. You may get some privileges to use it, but really, not even that. I mean, when they close the road I've never successfully gotten out of my car, showed them a 1099 tax form and forced them to let me drive on MY road...
As if greasy mice and keyboards aren't bad enough. Imagine the screen being covered in it. Even simple things like sweat would degrade the surface over time. Seems like it'll be a pain to keep things clean.
Also, my finger is much bigger than a cursor, so a stylus or mouse as a secondary device becomes necessary. This would solve the problem with the greasy screen as well, but sort of takes away some of the point when you're essentially adding a peripheral back into the equation.
Only if you actually SEE perfect code in your brain. Personally when I'm coding, I'm thinking much more of a process than a picture. We're still no-where near that with just mental picture projection.
What I really look forward to is being able to project memories that can't be fully remembered. I want to see what a partial memory looks like. Generally when I have difficulty remembering, it's difficult to construct a mental image, so I wonder what results when thought processes like that are going on.
I have to agree. I'm an Electrical Engineering major and we have plenty of classes on numerical analysis. As a matter of fact we have one course called "Numerical Techniques in Engineering" that is a required second year course. Depending on the professor you get this class will contain varying amounts of Matlab, but it mainly stresses the techniques themselves.
We also have a decent programming requirement (not great, but they're working on improving it now) which requires two courses in programming for those unfamiliar with it, and one for those who pass the competency test (The classes are general in theory, but use C/C++ for the application). It used to just be a single class in C, which was almost completely practice with only 2 classes spent on anything general to programming.
So how do you reconcile the ethics of assuming every human is not hostile to the tactical reasoning of one of those innocents suddenly pulling out a gun and toasting you.
I'm actually more surprised that it was such a small percentage of soldiers who responded that civilians should be treated like insurgents. Until you're sure of their intent, basic tactical reasoning says to assume hostility (not respond with hostility, but still assume it). Seems like a trick question to me. It's also an interesting dilemma of how you would program a robot to not do that and yet still respond to threats.
New strategy! Walk up to the robot very calmly and plant a grenade on it's rear. I guarantee you wouldn't get to do that with a human soldier.
I can't say whether he was elected based on skin color or not (and I certainly hope not), but I can say that exit polls showed 98% of black voters voted for Obama...now, I realize people like the guy, but that's a REALLY high percentage.
I wonder how governments will attempt to regulate space once it becomes a truly commercial frontier (I mean aside from orbit). On the one hand, I'm against regulations on what is essentially just an un-owned patch of "space". On the other hand though...it'd be scary to have any company that can afford to send things to the moon or into space. I mean, that much equipment just floating around out there and something's bound to go catasrophically wrong.
In other words, I disagree with your implied point that these "hiccups" should not be looked at as giving focus to the real threats we face as opposed to the imagined ones.
I don't think that was my implied point at all. My statement was a response to the comment of the parent comment. His statement was that we should celebrate these events because they helped to make the internet a better and safer place (He then sarcastically added "Right?").
I then gave another (albeit different) example of exactly what he was talking about. In actuality, I agree with what you (and the original comment) are saying. We are constantly learning from these disasters, but at the same time, I don't think we learn the real lesson. We can say that the lesson of the Morris Worm is that you need security, but I think the real lesson with the Morris Worm is that complete security doesn't exist. By the same token, you can say that Katrina showed us how poor our disaster response is, but I would be more concerned about the lesson of "They built a city under sea level, and were surprised when it flooded".
I think the first mod who came across my post thought about it a little and that's why he modded it Insightful rather than Funny or Off-topic. I could be wrong though, I don't know the guy.
Well, duh. The majority of the American population isn't consulted in legislation now-a-days. We elect people and hope that they're going to act in our best interest.
Your statement was that the majority of the American population was not consulted. I was merely showing that the process then was essentially the process now. The only major difference (since I've shown the estimations of slave statistics) would be that females weren't allowed to vote. I personally think that's a rather weak argument considering I cannot see how a vote on a document that in all reality would have the exact same affect on women as it would their husbands (since most of them were married) would change. This is the constitution, it applies the exact same way to men and women, why would women voting have changed the outcome?
Actually at that point I believe you're incorrect. Most of the people in the colonies in the late 1700s were not slaves. The slave trade had an exponential growth to it that drastically increased in the early 1800's. Best estimates currently put about 450,000 blacks (not sure how many were slaves, but I'd assume a large percentage) in America at the eve of the revolution, out of a total population of about 3.9 million.
it was written 200 years ago by a small elite of white male landowners with no input from the actual majority of the population
Quite wrong, man.
Each state had to hold their own convention and ratify the constitution in order for it to be valid (7th article). Each state (eventually) did this in their own conventions where representatives (and in at least one case popular referendum) voted for or against the proposed constitution.
These representatives were chosen by the towns to represent them at the state conventions where the constitution was being ratified.
If you look at the number of people present, there were actually more voting in those conventions than there are voting on our current legislation.
So in other words, you are correct about it being white male landowners, but you are completely off base in saying that the general public had no influence on the adoption of the constitution. In reality, the process was much like the current legislative process, democratic at the base, representational farther up.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I agree with your sentiment. The main reason I would say this is different is because the majority of gamers I know wear glasses. Now, obviously I don't mean this to be any sort of claim that everyone does. It just seems that in my experience a large percentage of gamers do and it could be a serious defect if they didn't take that into account. As for it being a demand for them to cater to my needs. I don't really care, just seems to be an oversight in my opinion to ignore a large percentage of their target group. Seems the makers of the glasses agreed since another comment said that the glasses come with extensions or something to fit over glasses.
Don't even need a bullet. If/once this is possible in gas form, this could be the deadliest bioweapon ever.
Feel free to complain on my spelling when more than half of your population know on what side of the USA the atlantic and the pacific rest ..
I'm pretty sure they're not both on one side. Might want to check a map.
I suppose one could, although I've grown quite accustomed to my good ol spectacles and I can't really see changing one of the major parts of my lifestyle and appearance merely to use a product...
Seems like those glasses would not fit over mine. So I guess this product is going purely for the good vision and contact lens market?
and we have a hazmat incident. What could be worse than a gas line breach...how about a core breach!
It's in the 25th dimension. Oh wait, I mean 29th. Sorry, I was 4 off. Which just happens to be the number of dimensions in spacetime. Eureka!
Somehow this never screwed up NASA...I would think the distance you have to travel to clear earth's atmosphere would have been an important thing for space flight. Anyone want to shed some light on this? Is it just that when space is concerned 200km is pretty small?
Let me know when they come out with the nano-porsche.
Once you pay the government, it stops becoming your money. You don't in any way own the road I drive on just because you pay your taxes. You may get some privileges to use it, but really, not even that. I mean, when they close the road I've never successfully gotten out of my car, showed them a 1099 tax form and forced them to let me drive on MY road...
Agent Lawless? Please tell me that's a cover name...
As if greasy mice and keyboards aren't bad enough. Imagine the screen being covered in it. Even simple things like sweat would degrade the surface over time. Seems like it'll be a pain to keep things clean. Also, my finger is much bigger than a cursor, so a stylus or mouse as a secondary device becomes necessary. This would solve the problem with the greasy screen as well, but sort of takes away some of the point when you're essentially adding a peripheral back into the equation.
Only if you actually SEE perfect code in your brain. Personally when I'm coding, I'm thinking much more of a process than a picture. We're still no-where near that with just mental picture projection. What I really look forward to is being able to project memories that can't be fully remembered. I want to see what a partial memory looks like. Generally when I have difficulty remembering, it's difficult to construct a mental image, so I wonder what results when thought processes like that are going on.
So they're the ones who have been stealing all the paper and tape from the supply cabinet!
I have to agree. I'm an Electrical Engineering major and we have plenty of classes on numerical analysis. As a matter of fact we have one course called "Numerical Techniques in Engineering" that is a required second year course. Depending on the professor you get this class will contain varying amounts of Matlab, but it mainly stresses the techniques themselves. We also have a decent programming requirement (not great, but they're working on improving it now) which requires two courses in programming for those unfamiliar with it, and one for those who pass the competency test (The classes are general in theory, but use C/C++ for the application). It used to just be a single class in C, which was almost completely practice with only 2 classes spent on anything general to programming.
It's made to utilize gravity in a very efficient way for just such a problem.
So how do you reconcile the ethics of assuming every human is not hostile to the tactical reasoning of one of those innocents suddenly pulling out a gun and toasting you. I'm actually more surprised that it was such a small percentage of soldiers who responded that civilians should be treated like insurgents. Until you're sure of their intent, basic tactical reasoning says to assume hostility (not respond with hostility, but still assume it). Seems like a trick question to me. It's also an interesting dilemma of how you would program a robot to not do that and yet still respond to threats. New strategy! Walk up to the robot very calmly and plant a grenade on it's rear. I guarantee you wouldn't get to do that with a human soldier.
I can't say whether he was elected based on skin color or not (and I certainly hope not), but I can say that exit polls showed 98% of black voters voted for Obama...now, I realize people like the guy, but that's a REALLY high percentage.
How about "They built a city under sea level in an area where hurricanes are common, and were surprised when it flooded"?
Fair enough :-)
I wonder how governments will attempt to regulate space once it becomes a truly commercial frontier (I mean aside from orbit). On the one hand, I'm against regulations on what is essentially just an un-owned patch of "space". On the other hand though...it'd be scary to have any company that can afford to send things to the moon or into space. I mean, that much equipment just floating around out there and something's bound to go catasrophically wrong.
In other words, I disagree with your implied point that these "hiccups" should not be looked at as giving focus to the real threats we face as opposed to the imagined ones.
I don't think that was my implied point at all. My statement was a response to the comment of the parent comment. His statement was that we should celebrate these events because they helped to make the internet a better and safer place (He then sarcastically added "Right?").
I then gave another (albeit different) example of exactly what he was talking about. In actuality, I agree with what you (and the original comment) are saying. We are constantly learning from these disasters, but at the same time, I don't think we learn the real lesson. We can say that the lesson of the Morris Worm is that you need security, but I think the real lesson with the Morris Worm is that complete security doesn't exist. By the same token, you can say that Katrina showed us how poor our disaster response is, but I would be more concerned about the lesson of "They built a city under sea level, and were surprised when it flooded".
I think the first mod who came across my post thought about it a little and that's why he modded it Insightful rather than Funny or Off-topic. I could be wrong though, I don't know the guy.
*watches hurricane Katrine footage* Hey, these hiccups help make the floodplanes a better and safer place!...Right?
Well, duh. The majority of the American population isn't consulted in legislation now-a-days. We elect people and hope that they're going to act in our best interest.
Your statement was that the majority of the American population was not consulted. I was merely showing that the process then was essentially the process now.
The only major difference (since I've shown the estimations of slave statistics) would be that females weren't allowed to vote. I personally think that's a rather weak argument considering I cannot see how a vote on a document that in all reality would have the exact same affect on women as it would their husbands (since most of them were married) would change. This is the constitution, it applies the exact same way to men and women, why would women voting have changed the outcome?
Actually at that point I believe you're incorrect. Most of the people in the colonies in the late 1700s were not slaves. The slave trade had an exponential growth to it that drastically increased in the early 1800's. Best estimates currently put about 450,000 blacks (not sure how many were slaves, but I'd assume a large percentage) in America at the eve of the revolution, out of a total population of about 3.9 million.
it was written 200 years ago by a small elite of white male landowners with no input from the actual majority of the population
Quite wrong, man. Each state had to hold their own convention and ratify the constitution in order for it to be valid (7th article). Each state (eventually) did this in their own conventions where representatives (and in at least one case popular referendum) voted for or against the proposed constitution. These representatives were chosen by the towns to represent them at the state conventions where the constitution was being ratified. If you look at the number of people present, there were actually more voting in those conventions than there are voting on our current legislation. So in other words, you are correct about it being white male landowners, but you are completely off base in saying that the general public had no influence on the adoption of the constitution. In reality, the process was much like the current legislative process, democratic at the base, representational farther up.