I remember when back a decent arcade game cost $3000-$5000 and weighed about 200 pounds, and they were nevertheless quite popular. Of course, almost nobody ever bought one; rather they went to an arcade and played on the machines that were available there.
Given VR's cost and space requirements, I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an effort to develop "VR arcades".
So you're saying that government jobs programs work. Fantastic, let's bring back the WPA and get the unemployment rate down a few more percentage points. #MAGA!
Nothing requires you to do anything about them; just treat them as meaningless noise, and act the same as you would have acted if their unhelpful post did not exist.
Nice for those hospitals who can afford high tech entertainment devices and the attendant communication systems required.
According to the article, one of the benefits of the VR is that it is cheaper than the additional drugs that would have to be given without it. i.e. you buy one Gear VR and keep using indefinitely, rather than having to buy more sedatives for every patient.
As for hypnosis, the requirement for a skilled operator is the catch. How many doctors are also sufficiently good at hypnosis that they could rely on it to sedate a patient?
I like the idea of posting all voting results publicly, where you are identified by something like a randomly generated UUID given to you at the time of voting (or some hash of your various personal information like name and SSN, etc.).
Although it doesn't address "extra" votes, you would at least be able to verify that your vote got counted as you intended, which is something...
The problem is that your boss (who has promised to fire you unless you vote for his candidate, and/or has offered to pay $20 to every employee who can prove they voted for his candidate) can also use this mechanism to verify that you voted the way he told you to.
Keeping peoples' votes private is important to avoid that sort of abuse, and I don't think there is any reliable way to allow a voter to verify his own vote without also allowing someone else to lean on that voter for evidence that they voted "correctly".
Apple doesn't care about backward compatibility If they can deliver a next gen chip with zero support of existing apps, they may have the money to pull it off.
It sounds like Apple does care about backwards compatibility, which is why the ARM is only designed to work as a co-processor to offload a few specific tasks from the Intel CPU, rather than as a general-purpose CPU for developers to target.
That said, Apple has changed CPU architectures before without (significantly) breaking compatibility; you may recall Rosetta, which allowed x86-based Macs to run PowerPC MacOS/X executables for a number of years (until Apple made it an optional install, and then later dropped it entirely). Presumably they could do that again if they wanted to, although performance might suffer under emulation.
Ah, I guess you missed the part of the article where it described a time-crystal as a structure that repeats its pattern over time, instead of (or in addition to) across space. Hence the name, "time crystal".
My counter-wonder: what happened to the quality of Slashdot commentary?
It all went downhill after people decided that gratuitous insults were more worthwhile than engaging in polite discussion of the topic at hand. This was especially embarrassing in cases where it turned out their alleged "gotcha" was in fact a product of their own lack of understanding of the subject.
Solar panels require a lot of maintenance to keep them in their optimal conditions
The workaround for that problem is simple -- don't bother keeping them in their optimal conditions. It's cheaper to plan ahead and install a few additional panels to compensate for dust buildup than it is to send someone out to wash them every week. In areas that receive at least a small amount of rain, the rain will clean the panels well enough.
They're also very expensive to produce, don't recycle well and don't last nearly as long as advertised.
Those talking points would be more convincing if you were able to back them up with a citation. Raw assertions are meaningless.
And ideal energy source would employ next to no people, yet generate massive amounts of clean energy.
Hmm, that description fits solar power pretty well, once the panels have been installed. The only people you have to employ are the occasional panel-washers, and even they aren't necessary if you live in an area where the occasional rainfall will clean the panels for you.
I wonder, would an asteroid (or even the Earth itself) qualify as a time crystal? They also move continually in a pattern, without expending energy to do so.
I think you responded to the literal interpretation of GP's argument, without addressing the more reasonable interpretation, that is, are there better things to be researching?
For the people who are interested in doing this particular study, no, there is nothing better for them to research.
If someone told you to abandon a project you are interested in doing, and go do something else instead, simply because they think their project is more worthy than the one you are currently working on, what would say to them?
Unless you are Mother Theresa, you'd quite likely tell them to go do it themselves if they think it's so bloody important, and I think that is also what these scientists would say to you.
There is no universal agreement about what is important and what isn't, and there is no mandate for anyone to redirect their time and resources to what you think is important.
Basic research generates new ideas, principles, and theories, which may not be immediately utilized but nonetheless form the basis of progress and development in different fields. Today's computers, for example, could not exist without research in pure mathematics conducted over a century ago, for which there was no known practical application at the time. Basic research rarely helps practitioners directly with their everyday concerns; nevertheless, it stimulates new ways of thinking that have the potential to revolutionize and dramatically improve how practitioners deal with a problem in the future.[5]
Why not hyperloop trains? You've already got the airtight tube "for free", so the extra cost to partially evacuate it is minimal and the potential efficiency/speed gains are significant.
Cancer might not be caused by lack of quality healthcare, but dying of cancer certainly can be. i.e. People who have access to quality cancer treatments are more likely to survive than people who don't.
As a C++ programmer, I don't know if I'll ever use "concepts" in my own code.
That said, I'm nevertheless very much looking forward to them becoming part of the language, if only so that when I do something wrong when using an STL class, the compiler can come back with an error that tells me what I did wrong, rather then five pages of incomprehensible gibberish.
Many C++ features are like this, aimed not primarily at the average C++ user, but rather at the STL developers.
You're not wrong about younger people, but I think the trend will be more towards Uber (and similar services) than towards public transit, with the possible exception of metro within large cities.
You people see one person out of ten thousand driving erratically and all of a sudden everyone sucks at driving.
Everyone does suck at driving, at least occasionally. If you haven't screwed up on the road yet, just wait, you will. And it only takes one lapse to get people killed.
The smart ones already had great driving records. It is the stupid ones you are protecting with this technology.
Being smart doesn't protect you from stupid people's actions -- you can be a perfect driver and still get rear-ended by someone who never saw you slow down because they were texting.
This technology protects stupid people and the smart people who have to share the roads with them.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when back a decent arcade game cost $3000-$5000 and weighed about 200 pounds, and they were nevertheless quite popular. Of course, almost nobody ever bought one; rather they went to an arcade and played on the machines that were available there.
Given VR's cost and space requirements, I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an effort to develop "VR arcades".
So you're saying that government jobs programs work. Fantastic, let's bring back the WPA and get the unemployment rate down a few more percentage points. #MAGA!
Nothing requires you to do anything about them; just treat them as meaningless noise, and act the same as you would have acted if their unhelpful post did not exist.
Nice for those hospitals who can afford high tech entertainment devices and the attendant communication systems required.
According to the article, one of the benefits of the VR is that it is cheaper than the additional drugs that would have to be given without it. i.e. you buy one Gear VR and keep using indefinitely, rather than having to buy more sedatives for every patient.
As for hypnosis, the requirement for a skilled operator is the catch. How many doctors are also sufficiently good at hypnosis that they could rely on it to sedate a patient?
I like the idea of posting all voting results publicly, where you are identified by something like a randomly generated UUID given to you at the time of voting (or some hash of your various personal information like name and SSN, etc.).
Although it doesn't address "extra" votes, you would at least be able to verify that your vote got counted as you intended, which is something...
The problem is that your boss (who has promised to fire you unless you vote for his candidate, and/or has offered to pay $20 to every employee who can prove they voted for his candidate) can also use this mechanism to verify that you voted the way he told you to.
Keeping peoples' votes private is important to avoid that sort of abuse, and I don't think there is any reliable way to allow a voter to verify his own vote without also allowing someone else to lean on that voter for evidence that they voted "correctly".
I buy Macs because I enjoy using MacOS/X more than using Linux (and much more than using Windows).
And believe me, I don't look hip.
Apple doesn't care about backward compatibility If they can deliver a next gen chip with zero support of existing apps, they may have the money to pull it off.
It sounds like Apple does care about backwards compatibility, which is why the ARM is only designed to work as a co-processor to offload a few specific tasks from the Intel CPU, rather than as a general-purpose CPU for developers to target.
That said, Apple has changed CPU architectures before without (significantly) breaking compatibility; you may recall Rosetta, which allowed x86-based Macs to run PowerPC MacOS/X executables for a number of years (until Apple made it an optional install, and then later dropped it entirely). Presumably they could do that again if they wanted to, although performance might suffer under emulation.
No, because it is not a crystal.
Ah, I guess you missed the part of the article where it described a time-crystal as a structure that repeats its pattern over time, instead of (or in addition to) across space. Hence the name, "time crystal".
My counter-wonder: what happened to the quality of Slashdot commentary?
It all went downhill after people decided that gratuitous insults were more worthwhile than engaging in polite discussion of the topic at hand. This was especially embarrassing in cases where it turned out their alleged "gotcha" was in fact a product of their own lack of understanding of the subject.
Solar panels require a lot of maintenance to keep them in their optimal conditions
The workaround for that problem is simple -- don't bother keeping them in their optimal conditions. It's cheaper to plan ahead and install a few additional panels to compensate for dust buildup than it is to send someone out to wash them every week. In areas that receive at least a small amount of rain, the rain will clean the panels well enough.
They're also very expensive to produce, don't recycle well and don't last nearly as long as advertised.
Those talking points would be more convincing if you were able to back them up with a citation. Raw assertions are meaningless.
Robots could clean windows on high rise buildings as well. But I haven't seen any.
Well, you're in luck -- now's your chance to see one.
In 30+ years [solar energy] still hasn't taken off, primarily due to cost.
Err, hasn't it? I guess you can make that argument, but it sure seems like moving the goalposts.
And ideal energy source would employ next to no people, yet generate massive amounts of clean energy.
Hmm, that description fits solar power pretty well, once the panels have been installed. The only people you have to employ are the occasional panel-washers, and even they aren't necessary if you live in an area where the occasional rainfall will clean the panels for you.
The goal is energy, not employment. We don't build factories and plants to keep people busy...
Correct. We build walls and overengineered military hardware to keep people busy. That way we retain our fig leaf.
I wonder, would an asteroid (or even the Earth itself) qualify as a time crystal? They also move continually in a pattern, without expending energy to do so.
I think you responded to the literal interpretation of GP's argument, without addressing the more reasonable interpretation, that is, are there better things to be researching?
For the people who are interested in doing this particular study, no, there is nothing better for them to research.
If someone told you to abandon a project you are interested in doing, and go do something else instead, simply because they think their project is more worthy than the one you are currently working on, what would say to them?
Unless you are Mother Theresa, you'd quite likely tell them to go do it themselves if they think it's so bloody important, and I think that is also what these scientists would say to you.
There is no universal agreement about what is important and what isn't, and there is no mandate for anyone to redirect their time and resources to what you think is important.
A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by.
Not a problem, as we have ready access to a generous supply of irrational NIMBY arguments as well :)
Here's Wikipedia's take on the issue:
Basic research generates new ideas, principles, and theories, which may not be immediately utilized but nonetheless form the basis of progress and development in different fields. Today's computers, for example, could not exist without research in pure mathematics conducted over a century ago, for which there was no known practical application at the time. Basic research rarely helps practitioners directly with their everyday concerns; nevertheless, it stimulates new ways of thinking that have the potential to revolutionize and dramatically improve how practitioners deal with a problem in the future.[5]
Why not hyperloop trains? You've already got the airtight tube "for free", so the extra cost to partially evacuate it is minimal and the potential efficiency/speed gains are significant.
Cancer might not be caused by lack of quality healthcare, but dying of cancer certainly can be. i.e. People who have access to quality cancer treatments are more likely to survive than people who don't.
Why would they go back to C, when they could instead just stick to using whatever subset of C++ that they find useful?
The fact that feature X is available doesn't mean you are required to use it.
As a C++ programmer, I don't know if I'll ever use "concepts" in my own code.
That said, I'm nevertheless very much looking forward to them becoming part of the language, if only so that when I do something wrong when using an STL class, the compiler can come back with an error that tells me what I did wrong, rather then five pages of incomprehensible gibberish.
Many C++ features are like this, aimed not primarily at the average C++ user, but rather at the STL developers.
At the polls, more people were afraid of someone who has been trying her hardest to appear presidential for the last 24 years.
As Trump likes to say: wrong.
You're not wrong about younger people, but I think the trend will be more towards Uber (and similar services) than towards public transit, with the possible exception of metro within large cities.
You people see one person out of ten thousand driving erratically and all of a sudden everyone sucks at driving.
Everyone does suck at driving, at least occasionally. If you haven't screwed up on the road yet, just wait, you will. And it only takes one lapse to get people killed.
The smart ones already had great driving records. It is the stupid ones you are protecting with this technology.
Being smart doesn't protect you from stupid people's actions -- you can be a perfect driver and still get rear-ended by someone who never saw you slow down because they were texting.
This technology protects stupid people and the smart people who have to share the roads with them.