Specifically it detects and interprets what are known as P300 event-related potentials in the EEG-signals of a person that is selecting characters from a display presenting alternate rows and columns of characters.
It sounds like they haven't made any progress in speed what-so-fucking-ever, they've simply made it more comfortable to wear, and changed the interface very slightly.
If they want to speed it up, why not use the predictive texting stuff? It's usually fairly accurate, and if it doesn't bring up the word they want, they keep doing the letter-by-letter.
Yeah, I'd predict an October-ish launch. That'll give them lots of opportunity to get supply high, parents can buy it and hide it for Christmas, but demand as Christmas presents won't wipe out the supply for those who want it NOW.
Pachter wrote, "The PDLC would be sold for $10 or $15 through Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, and would essentially be a very long game demo, along the lines of 2009’s Battlefield 1943."
He added, "A full-blown packaged game would follow shortly after the release of the PDLC, bearing a full retail price. Mr. Earl believes that the release of the PDLC first limits the risk of completing and marketing the full packaged version, and serves as a low-cost marketing tool."
No, they're going to make a long demo, charge you for it, then charge you full price when the actual game comes out. Doesn't read like there's any discounts OR product-improvements planned as part of this program.
That's not a democracy, that's anarchy. Anyone who doesn't like how the game's going can pick up their ball and go home. Democracy is about building consensus. It's about taking everyone's view point and building the best out of it. It's not "my way or the highway."
However, you're still right, and this is a Troll story. Just because this one project is being run as an aristocracy doesn't mean all projects are.
The summary is bullshit, and you know it. Take a gander at "burying inconvenient facts." The summary was organized in such a way as to be misleading, and phrased in such a way to lend itself to casual misinterpretation.
Those have pretty much converged at this point... but contrary to Mr. Schell's assertion you can't fit either in your pocket.
*parry* No, but they are in and of themselves oversized pockets, or in other words, a space where weight and size are more important than pure functionality. If I'm carrying a netbook around already, or a small notebook/laptop, then the iPad needs to be either lighter, smaller, or much more useful than the netbook in order to be worth the space.
*riposte* If my phone has most or all of the same functionality as the iPad, just scaled down, and my netbook covers much of the rest, scaled up, then the iPad is not a device to fit in the "pocket convergence" area. Thus, the generalization does hold.
If the judgement stands, it becomes a precedent with legal force, requiring companies to follow it, since they'd be open to civil liabilities. That means it comes from the government.
Nice try, but that's done shit. There Is. No. Accepted. Standard. Trust me. We've got digital distribution contracts with 4 different e-libraries, and not a single one of them wants content in the same format. However, they're willing to take a copy of the book and convert it themselves. And then they keep that. The only one that gives it after they've covered their conversion costs is the one that converts it to standard pdf.
It almost certainly doesn't have a 1080p screen. It can (supposedly) do 1080p video playback. A 10" 1080p screen would be silly.
Oh blah. I feel silly, obviously didn't read that one properly. I dunno about a 1080p screen being silly, but it would be rather overkill at this time. Frankly, if they don't go with a highish-rez screen (720p would be good, I think) and pdfs, I think it'll be a waste of time. Higher rez is easier to read for longer periods of time (in my experience), and like I said, would give the ability to zoom in nicely on pictures/figures. Some engineering texts I've seen are rather brutally detailed.
If they really want to be a paper textbook replacement, they shouldn't worry about video too much. Battery and readability are WAY more important.
You're rather optimistic, aren't you? If you did nothing but unformatted text, you might get most human knowledge on 32GB, after a good compression algorithm was used, but without pictures and figures, it'd be nearly useless.
For a 1080p screen, I think they'd jack up the resolution, so that you could zoom in on figures for finer detail. Since I've seen hi-res printer pdfs come in at 500MB+, I'd say they'd probably go with the average being 100MB, and then around 250MB for the larger ones.
Nice buzzword usage, but see, I actually WORK at a University Press, and we make textbooks. And we're doing pdfs for the majority of our ebooks.
The *real* reason that textbook publishers don't make more ebooks is much less sinister:
There's no universal standard for ebooks. It costs money to get something converted to a format and checked for errors, and you don't want to fragment your efforts too much, so out of the several dozen implementations of ebook formats, you pick one or two, then you pick which version of THAT you want to support, and you try and learn about them. And since it takes two years or more just to make a textbook, by the time you've got a format learned sufficiently to get it in to your workflow, you've still got a two year lag before books start showing up in that format.
But oh hey! In the meantime, the standard shifted. So you're back to trying to learn the standard and get that merged in to your workflow. You think the RIAA and MPAA handled the change in the technology of their field badly? Books have been printed basically the same for centuries, not decades. Since the printing press, there's not been many advances that effect publishing. The offset printing press, and use of computers to do layout and editing. No, seriously, that's about it. Books are long enough that few people wanted to have to sit and stare at a screen for hours on end, so they never had to worry about digital distribution until laptops became common, and even then, people still didn't want to read things hundreds of pages long on a screen. It's only been in about the last 10 years or so that it's even been mentioned, and it wasn't anything close to a viable idea until the kindle came out in 2007. And remember what I said about textbooks taking at least 2 years to get through the publishing process?
No, you'll start seeing textbooks for e-readers when the formats are more stable. Until then, you'll get most publishers playing it safe and not wasting their cash on converting.
Exactly. Maybe if the company had a working prototype on demo, or something. With all those claims, we'll probably see a product similar to what was announced...some time in 2015.
I guess all these things are tweakable and it's up to games to make the right trade off between accuracy and responsiveness depending on what kind of game they are.
You *guess* they're tweakable. Okay, let's go with that premise.
Name a game where you'd be willing to have an input lag of a half-second for perfect accuracy. Pretty much any game-type you can name would be better played with either a controller or a mouse.
Now, name a game where you'd trade accuracy for instant responsiveness. Again, any game that requires instant responsiveness is going to also require accuracy to a high degree, and would be better served with either a controller or a mouse.
For the real game-killer though, going from game to game, even within the game genre, and receiving differing responsiveness is going to drive players insane. If I'm playing Modern Warfare, and can do a snap shot in.5 seconds, but in Bad Company 2, it takes.75 seconds, I'm going to notice that, moreso than the "increased accuracy." So, developers will crank it to performance, rather than accuracy. Now you can act nearly instantly, but your accuracy's for shit. How do you fix that? Auto-assist. The ultimate pussification of games of ANY type. The game would need to tweak its responses to compensate for the accuracy loss. That jump you would have missed if you'd been using a controller? Well, the game just gives it to you since your accuracy is lowered, and maybe you might have actually made it. That shot you were going to take? Gives you that one. Permanently lowered difficulty levels. And people are already bitching about how some games are too damn easy (Demon's Souls got all the hype just because it was HARD, after all). So now we're going to institute a system that will either way require lowering difficulty levels in order to compensate for the input issues.
Generally by the time developers get their hands on something, it's set. You're not going to see any improvements in that response time in this gen of tech. What's worse is the 133 is going to be on top of any network latency, meaning this is going to be well-nigh impossible to use for any multiplayer game that isn't split-screen. Most twitch-based shooters are balanced at 60-100 latency since that's the average connection. 200 and you start to notice shit. This will be *starting you out* at 200, the 60 from your network, and the 133 from the controller. And your experience will rapidly deteriorate from there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in filesharing cases, they're usually statutory damages, not punitive, no? In this case, I'd think it's punitive damages, thus allowing the discrepancy in what people are accepting.
Alternatively, if I'm not correct about the statutory damages, in both cases, people are trying to destroy a broken business model. The RIAA's by disallowing massive fines being used as a sledgehammer against people so they can continue doing business the way they want, rather than how the market will allow, and spammers by using fines to break a business model that thrives generally on scams and using other people's resources to promote their business at a greatly reduced cost (tons of spam sent through botnets, after all).
Uh, enjoy your botnet? I dunno. You're running XP anyway, I suppose, so what's another exploit or two. I'm running Win 7, so Windows Update is actually useful.
As for optimization, I'd figure that maintaining a minimum number of vectors necessary for updating would be optimization.
Well, I can say it alerted me to one attempted drive-by trojan install, isolated the file, and deleted it, all before I did anything to react to the initial notice. First time I've gotten any sort of notice not related to tracking cookies in a few years.
Slashdot Mirror
Got any case law that says they can't be?
Yeah, I thought so.
Specifically it detects and interprets what are known as P300 event-related potentials in the EEG-signals of a person that is selecting characters from a display presenting alternate rows and columns of characters.
It sounds like they haven't made any progress in speed what-so-fucking-ever, they've simply made it more comfortable to wear, and changed the interface very slightly.
If they want to speed it up, why not use the predictive texting stuff? It's usually fairly accurate, and if it doesn't bring up the word they want, they keep doing the letter-by-letter.
Colourizing old B&W movies is a crime against humanity, and was a fad. Now, MAKING movies with colour and sound. That was an improvement.
Yeah, I'd predict an October-ish launch. That'll give them lots of opportunity to get supply high, parents can buy it and hide it for Christmas, but demand as Christmas presents won't wipe out the supply for those who want it NOW.
Pachter wrote, "The PDLC would be sold for $10 or $15 through Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, and would essentially be a very long game demo, along the lines of 2009’s Battlefield 1943."
He added, "A full-blown packaged game would follow shortly after the release of the PDLC, bearing a full retail price. Mr. Earl believes that the release of the PDLC first limits the risk of completing and marketing the full packaged version, and serves as a low-cost marketing tool."
No, they're going to make a long demo, charge you for it, then charge you full price when the actual game comes out. Doesn't read like there's any discounts OR product-improvements planned as part of this program.
That's not a democracy, that's anarchy. Anyone who doesn't like how the game's going can pick up their ball and go home. Democracy is about building consensus. It's about taking everyone's view point and building the best out of it. It's not "my way or the highway."
However, you're still right, and this is a Troll story. Just because this one project is being run as an aristocracy doesn't mean all projects are.
Since reading is so fundamental, here's something you may enjoy:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18458_6-subtle-ways-news-media-disguises-bullshit-as-fact.html
The summary is bullshit, and you know it. Take a gander at "burying inconvenient facts." The summary was organized in such a way as to be misleading, and phrased in such a way to lend itself to casual misinterpretation.
Those have pretty much converged at this point... but contrary to Mr. Schell's assertion you can't fit either in your pocket.
*parry*
No, but they are in and of themselves oversized pockets, or in other words, a space where weight and size are more important than pure functionality. If I'm carrying a netbook around already, or a small notebook/laptop, then the iPad needs to be either lighter, smaller, or much more useful than the netbook in order to be worth the space.
*riposte*
If my phone has most or all of the same functionality as the iPad, just scaled down, and my netbook covers much of the rest, scaled up, then the iPad is not a device to fit in the "pocket convergence" area. Thus, the generalization does hold.
If the judgement stands, it becomes a precedent with legal force, requiring companies to follow it, since they'd be open to civil liabilities. That means it comes from the government.
Nice try, but that's done shit. There Is. No. Accepted. Standard. Trust me. We've got digital distribution contracts with 4 different e-libraries, and not a single one of them wants content in the same format. However, they're willing to take a copy of the book and convert it themselves. And then they keep that. The only one that gives it after they've covered their conversion costs is the one that converts it to standard pdf.
It almost certainly doesn't have a 1080p screen. It can (supposedly) do 1080p video playback. A 10" 1080p screen would be silly.
Oh blah. I feel silly, obviously didn't read that one properly. I dunno about a 1080p screen being silly, but it would be rather overkill at this time. Frankly, if they don't go with a highish-rez screen (720p would be good, I think) and pdfs, I think it'll be a waste of time. Higher rez is easier to read for longer periods of time (in my experience), and like I said, would give the ability to zoom in nicely on pictures/figures. Some engineering texts I've seen are rather brutally detailed.
If they really want to be a paper textbook replacement, they shouldn't worry about video too much. Battery and readability are WAY more important.
You're rather optimistic, aren't you? If you did nothing but unformatted text, you might get most human knowledge on 32GB, after a good compression algorithm was used, but without pictures and figures, it'd be nearly useless.
Microsoft?
For a 1080p screen, I think they'd jack up the resolution, so that you could zoom in on figures for finer detail. Since I've seen hi-res printer pdfs come in at 500MB+, I'd say they'd probably go with the average being 100MB, and then around 250MB for the larger ones.
Nice buzzword usage, but see, I actually WORK at a University Press, and we make textbooks. And we're doing pdfs for the majority of our ebooks.
The *real* reason that textbook publishers don't make more ebooks is much less sinister:
There's no universal standard for ebooks. It costs money to get something converted to a format and checked for errors, and you don't want to fragment your efforts too much, so out of the several dozen implementations of ebook formats, you pick one or two, then you pick which version of THAT you want to support, and you try and learn about them. And since it takes two years or more just to make a textbook, by the time you've got a format learned sufficiently to get it in to your workflow, you've still got a two year lag before books start showing up in that format.
But oh hey! In the meantime, the standard shifted. So you're back to trying to learn the standard and get that merged in to your workflow. You think the RIAA and MPAA handled the change in the technology of their field badly? Books have been printed basically the same for centuries, not decades. Since the printing press, there's not been many advances that effect publishing. The offset printing press, and use of computers to do layout and editing. No, seriously, that's about it. Books are long enough that few people wanted to have to sit and stare at a screen for hours on end, so they never had to worry about digital distribution until laptops became common, and even then, people still didn't want to read things hundreds of pages long on a screen. It's only been in about the last 10 years or so that it's even been mentioned, and it wasn't anything close to a viable idea until the kindle came out in 2007. And remember what I said about textbooks taking at least 2 years to get through the publishing process?
No, you'll start seeing textbooks for e-readers when the formats are more stable. Until then, you'll get most publishers playing it safe and not wasting their cash on converting.
Exactly. Maybe if the company had a working prototype on demo, or something. With all those claims, we'll probably see a product similar to what was announced...some time in 2015.
Yeah, that's Locke's sig.
I guess all these things are tweakable and it's up to games to make the right trade off between accuracy and responsiveness depending on what kind of game they are.
You *guess* they're tweakable. Okay, let's go with that premise.
Name a game where you'd be willing to have an input lag of a half-second for perfect accuracy. Pretty much any game-type you can name would be better played with either a controller or a mouse.
Now, name a game where you'd trade accuracy for instant responsiveness. Again, any game that requires instant responsiveness is going to also require accuracy to a high degree, and would be better served with either a controller or a mouse.
For the real game-killer though, going from game to game, even within the game genre, and receiving differing responsiveness is going to drive players insane. If I'm playing Modern Warfare, and can do a snap shot in .5 seconds, but in Bad Company 2, it takes .75 seconds, I'm going to notice that, moreso than the "increased accuracy." So, developers will crank it to performance, rather than accuracy. Now you can act nearly instantly, but your accuracy's for shit. How do you fix that? Auto-assist. The ultimate pussification of games of ANY type. The game would need to tweak its responses to compensate for the accuracy loss. That jump you would have missed if you'd been using a controller? Well, the game just gives it to you since your accuracy is lowered, and maybe you might have actually made it. That shot you were going to take? Gives you that one. Permanently lowered difficulty levels. And people are already bitching about how some games are too damn easy (Demon's Souls got all the hype just because it was HARD, after all). So now we're going to institute a system that will either way require lowering difficulty levels in order to compensate for the input issues.
Generally by the time developers get their hands on something, it's set. You're not going to see any improvements in that response time in this gen of tech. What's worse is the 133 is going to be on top of any network latency, meaning this is going to be well-nigh impossible to use for any multiplayer game that isn't split-screen. Most twitch-based shooters are balanced at 60-100 latency since that's the average connection. 200 and you start to notice shit. This will be *starting you out* at 200, the 60 from your network, and the 133 from the controller. And your experience will rapidly deteriorate from there.
Wait, SPAM actually stands for something?
And thank you for that disturbing visual. I may never recover.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in filesharing cases, they're usually statutory damages, not punitive, no? In this case, I'd think it's punitive damages, thus allowing the discrepancy in what people are accepting.
Alternatively, if I'm not correct about the statutory damages, in both cases, people are trying to destroy a broken business model. The RIAA's by disallowing massive fines being used as a sledgehammer against people so they can continue doing business the way they want, rather than how the market will allow, and spammers by using fines to break a business model that thrives generally on scams and using other people's resources to promote their business at a greatly reduced cost (tons of spam sent through botnets, after all).
My argument is that the emphasis is placed on the wrong words. It'd carry more force like this:
This is what should happen for ALL spammers. Once this happens to everyone, there would be thicker lines drawn between what IS spam and what's not.
I've got Windows Update turned off,
Uh, enjoy your botnet? I dunno. You're running XP anyway, I suppose, so what's another exploit or two. I'm running Win 7, so Windows Update is actually useful.
As for optimization, I'd figure that maintaining a minimum number of vectors necessary for updating would be optimization.
If a product even bothers to tell you about tracking cookies, it's more about religion than security,
That would be why I dumped AVG, actually, which is what I used before trying Avast.
Spy-bot will throw up some cookie warnings once in a blue moon too, but nowhere near as often as AVG did.
Well, I can say it alerted me to one attempted drive-by trojan install, isolated the file, and deleted it, all before I did anything to react to the initial notice. First time I've gotten any sort of notice not related to tracking cookies in a few years.