Several other posters have complained about the "carry-over" effect with respect to moving from one scene to another, and I thought "meh, whatever". But you sir have convinced me of the real danger involved with carry over.
"What!?! No honey, I was watching the fishing channel!"
They don't. The Angewandte Chemie article title is "An X–Y Addressable Matrix Odor-Releasing System Using an On–Off Switchable Device". Nowhere in the article (which I'm reading now) does it mention smell-o-vision.
It might even be handy for some applications in flavor and fragrance labs: punch in a formula, get out a sample instantly rather than having to drag out all of the source materials and mix them up. That's tedious and time-consuming work, and if you have to tweak, you generally have to start over.
Or it would be, but it doesn't appear to mix or even allow proportional control of the single aromas. So really, it's equivalent of opening a pre-mixed bottle.
Actually, he'd probably smell of the fancy herbal shampoo and body wash he used that morning while staying in the fancy Marriott hotel between shooting his "survival" show.
An often trotted out use, but how exactly? Considering that you have to physically send the smell to the consumer in the first place, isn't it easier just to tell them to smell the thing on paper (like in magazines) rather than tell them to put it in some expensive Rube Goldberg machine to do the same thing?
Yep. Every few years they insist there's a huge untapped consumer market for this and then they disappear without a trace. See iSmell and Trisenx for two examples.
No. Despite centuries of trying, nobody has identified a set of primary smells. People still aren'tsure how the nose even manages the trick of smelling in the first place.
It's looking increasingly like this year is going to be the year of the hacker. It's a new security breach every week (often several per week). It's getting to be quite dizzying.
Gonna be a tough year for IT security "professionals".
That's not an argument. Why should it be made public domain? If I (as Google in this hypothetical situation) spend billions of dollars to buy Oracle, what do I get for making Java public domain? How does it add value to the shareholders?
Paying a large sum of money to acquire a company, dump one of it's prime assets for free and then selling it again (no doubt at a huge loss since it has less assets now) makes no sense at all. The shareholders would rightly crucify them.
I certainly wouldn't want to run a server at home, but I would bet that there are a handful of hard-core racing sim enthusiasts who would do exactly that, putting all the time and expense in for no reason other than their love of the game. Why should a publisher prevent that? And if those people don't exist, so what? From the publisher perspective, they are still in the same place.
It maybe true that a lot of people that they won't play it again 3 years later (on the other hand, there may also be a lot of people, probably not as many, buying it for the first time 3 years later because it's on sale) but what annoys people is that it is an arbitrary decision to simply take it away from players. If they had allowed dedicated servers, this wouldn't be an issue. Sure, it'll get gradually harder and harder to find like-minded individuals who are still playing the game 10 years from now, but if that's what you want, why should Codemasters put a sudden stop to it?
Probably no. I would expect buried somewhere in the EULA or even on the box is some blurb about being able to discontinue service whenever they feel like it (usually with 30 days notice or something similar).
Good guys in the business world are like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. They don't fucking exist. Java already has wide acceptance, so why make it public domain?
But he is a repairman. Could he not have rewired the LED to NOT come on? Seems like it would be fairly trivial if you've already got the computer open.
But (if you read my comment further down), if I already know what you look like (for example, I just interviewed you for a job) and I search for "John Smith" and come across a picture in your "friends" public profile that I immediately recognize as you, and it has you in a compromising position...it could be a problem. Sure it's might be a bigger deal if your name is "Egbert Havernshorham III".
I'm not sure if it is substantially different; maybe because of the scale of Facebook? How many people do you know who blog? Now how many people do you know who use Facebook?
And if that photo is public, and somebody searches for your name, and already knows what you look like (maybe because they just interviewed you for a job) and finds that drunken picture your "friend" posted to their Facebook page....so yes, in theory, Facebook could bite you in the ass even if you have never used it.
Sure this is less of a problem if your name is John Smith.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not. There is no reason why a pizza smell couldn't be put on paper for a consumer to smell. It's a much simpler and cheaper solution.
Also, I hate pizza!
Several other posters have complained about the "carry-over" effect with respect to moving from one scene to another, and I thought "meh, whatever". But you sir have convinced me of the real danger involved with carry over.
"What!?! No honey, I was watching the fishing channel!"
They don't. The Angewandte Chemie article title is "An X–Y Addressable Matrix Odor-Releasing System Using an On–Off Switchable Device". Nowhere in the article (which I'm reading now) does it mention smell-o-vision.
It might even be handy for some applications in flavor and fragrance labs: punch in a formula, get out a sample instantly rather than having to drag out all of the source materials and mix them up. That's tedious and time-consuming work, and if you have to tweak, you generally have to start over.
Or it would be, but it doesn't appear to mix or even allow proportional control of the single aromas. So really, it's equivalent of opening a pre-mixed bottle.
Actually, he'd probably smell of the fancy herbal shampoo and body wash he used that morning while staying in the fancy Marriott hotel between shooting his "survival" show.
A) it's great for advertisers.
An often trotted out use, but how exactly? Considering that you have to physically send the smell to the consumer in the first place, isn't it easier just to tell them to smell the thing on paper (like in magazines) rather than tell them to put it in some expensive Rube Goldberg machine to do the same thing?
Yep. Every few years they insist there's a huge untapped consumer market for this and then they disappear without a trace. See iSmell and Trisenx for two examples.
No. Despite centuries of trying, nobody has identified a set of primary smells. People still aren't sure how the nose even manages the trick of smelling in the first place.
That was kinda my point. It's going to be the year when the "professionals" get separated from the Professionals.
Yes. I don't consider them heroes either. At best they are an angry mob, and mob rule isn't a desirable thing either.
It's looking increasingly like this year is going to be the year of the hacker. It's a new security breach every week (often several per week). It's getting to be quite dizzying.
Gonna be a tough year for IT security "professionals".
What time and expense?
Don't tell me, tell the GP.
Wikipedia didn't seem to think so. But frankly, I don't care.
That's not an argument. Why should it be made public domain? If I (as Google in this hypothetical situation) spend billions of dollars to buy Oracle, what do I get for making Java public domain? How does it add value to the shareholders?
Paying a large sum of money to acquire a company, dump one of it's prime assets for free and then selling it again (no doubt at a huge loss since it has less assets now) makes no sense at all. The shareholders would rightly crucify them.
I certainly wouldn't want to run a server at home, but I would bet that there are a handful of hard-core racing sim enthusiasts who would do exactly that, putting all the time and expense in for no reason other than their love of the game. Why should a publisher prevent that? And if those people don't exist, so what? From the publisher perspective, they are still in the same place.
It maybe true that a lot of people that they won't play it again 3 years later (on the other hand, there may also be a lot of people, probably not as many, buying it for the first time 3 years later because it's on sale) but what annoys people is that it is an arbitrary decision to simply take it away from players. If they had allowed dedicated servers, this wouldn't be an issue. Sure, it'll get gradually harder and harder to find like-minded individuals who are still playing the game 10 years from now, but if that's what you want, why should Codemasters put a sudden stop to it?
Probably no. I would expect buried somewhere in the EULA or even on the box is some blurb about being able to discontinue service whenever they feel like it (usually with 30 days notice or something similar).
...I'm sure a sequel is just around the corner. So you'll still be able to play online just as soon as you fork over another $50/$60 for Grid II!
Good guys in the business world are like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. They don't fucking exist. Java already has wide acceptance, so why make it public domain?
Even if your strategy wasn't impractical, what would make you think that Google would want to make Java public domain?
But he is a repairman. Could he not have rewired the LED to NOT come on? Seems like it would be fairly trivial if you've already got the computer open.
Good for you. If you every have something useful to say, please feel free to post again.
But (if you read my comment further down), if I already know what you look like (for example, I just interviewed you for a job) and I search for "John Smith" and come across a picture in your "friends" public profile that I immediately recognize as you, and it has you in a compromising position...it could be a problem. Sure it's might be a bigger deal if your name is "Egbert Havernshorham III".
I'm not sure if it is substantially different; maybe because of the scale of Facebook? How many people do you know who blog? Now how many people do you know who use Facebook?
And if that photo is public, and somebody searches for your name, and already knows what you look like (maybe because they just interviewed you for a job) and finds that drunken picture your "friend" posted to their Facebook page....so yes, in theory, Facebook could bite you in the ass even if you have never used it.
Sure this is less of a problem if your name is John Smith.