It's more of a carrot/stick situation. What almost all the other commenters are pointing out is that the stick (ie, making it illegal) hasn't worked at all. If it is going to happen anyway (and yes, it will), then we might as well turn it into a carrot where this inevitable (on a societal level) behavior becomes much safer.
Or we could acknowledge that cable infrastructure was highly subsidized by taxpayer dollars at all levels of government (federal to local), such that whatever risk or cost the cable companies themselves did "invest" has been more than reimbursed. Furthermore, we could recognize that the function of the Internet is now much closer to city sewage (you *can* still use an outhouse... but do you want to?) than to satellite TV.
As such, especially given how many of our tax dollars were sunk into building it, we could decide that, by eminent domain, the cable infrastructure becomes public property (with the cable companies being "properly reimbursed" at rates analogous to those at which individuals get reimbursed when the gov't decides it needs their land), and Google or maybe even a bunch of new local "MomNpop ISP" companies can starting using the EXISTING lines to the home that we already paid for to provide up to 10Gbps symmetrical over full duplex DOCSIS 3.1.
But, you know, our current Congress or FCC wouldn't want to have a free market or anything...
I am strongly in favor of Oculus in the overall case, and I had never heard anything about the part with Google searches or lots of different devices, but unfortunately, the fact that he wiped his computer almost immediately after hearing about the case was one of the few pieces of meaningful evidence Zenimax had, without which they likely would've lost the case altogether.
Can you explain how this would be evil? Frustrating, yes, but especially if they also continued to update Chrome OS for free in parallel for a while, I find it hard to call that "evil."
It essentially is. What they are doing is spoofing the Caller ID -- you may have noticed that many of the calls come from numbers that are essentially 1 number off (or shuffled) from your own number. Spoofing is illegal, but of course they don't care about that -- if the company is based outside the US, who is anyone going to sue?
Meaningful, unique content -- something more than just a tech demo or a standard video game where, at the last minute, someone said "oh and it has VR! kinda...". That's why this is so exciting.
They don't own your phone, and they aren't claiming to. They do, however, own the networks your phone is trying to connect to. As stated, your phone will work just fine on Wifi, just not on their networks... Which they own.
That would seem to actually favor an engine like this. A good autocorrect does use context, but generally it only has access to what you have said before, not after, the current word (at least during the initial input). In such a context-dependent environment as you describe, being able to retroactively go back and change earlier text based on closely subsequent input (as speech recognition software often does, but keyboards generally don't) would seem especially valuable.
In fact, Google's voice accuracy is often due to exactly that: at least for me, it will often initially have something very wrong, but then end up with the right recognition result based on the rest of the input ("navigate to Pete's" -> "navigate to pizza restaurant").
You think you train Google Now? There is one situation where you give it a modicum of training. Guess where? The only part of the recognition that occurs on the device: "Ok Google" detection. Contrary to how you seem to think this works, this isn't 1999 Dragon NaturallySpeaking on steroids. There is no "database of simple rules and semantics." Their speech recognition (and that of Alexa) is powered by a huge neural net that is constantly expanding based on prior searches. That has strong potential criticisms for sure, but "this is really pretty easy" isn't one of them.
8K is going to be a really hard sell. I can only really appreciate my 65" 4k set because I sit about 7ft away from it. You would have to almost literally have your nose on a 65" 8k screen to tell any difference. I actually wonder if it is literally possible to be close enough to tell a difference vs. 4k, yet also far enough to have the entire screen in your FOV at once.
Please be sure to let Comcast know that in a significant portion of its major metro areas. Though admittedly, they did raise it to 1TB/Mo, vs the previously much more onerous 300GB/Mo prior to June.
I'm a huge believer that police often overstep boundaries, but no, that is exactly what they should not have done. Then you go from having 0.1% of arrests going badly, because someone became violent and police had to counter that with force, to more like 20%, because "holy shit I might be able to actually WIN!" This isn't Game of Thrones: we can't allow Trial by Combat - if we do, even legit nonprejudiced cops (however many of those there are) will get hurt, good people who feel like "I just can't afford to be put in jail, it's worth a shot" will get hurt or killed... or more likely, both will happen, often in the same incident.
Arguably the Vive could be capable of both. I haven't heard of anything that does this, and I'm not even sure if the software allows apps access to it at all, but the built in camera certainly COULD be used for AR, though I'm not sure if the resolution is high enough for it to be good AR.
Actually, this is exactly what the law was intended for. ISPs have been common carriers (in function) ever since the internet became a staple, rather than a novelty, in the average American life. They managed to keep this change at bay for a while, despite their deployments being almost entirely subsidized by federal, state, and local funding and frequently claiming protection under Title II (guess which title "common carrier" falls under?) in order to make their installations easier. Furthermore, at this point, there is nothing carried by telephone lines that anyone would consider more important than what is carried across internet fiber, and thus no law that applies to ensuring the integrity of the handling of telephone line transmission that shouldn't apply to ISP data transmission.
This is running on the 980, nvidia's current high-end consumer card. When Pascal, the next gen of nvidia's cards comes out, I would expect their midrange card, the 1060 or at least the 1070 (the budget-highend), to be able to run it. So, in 6 months, $800-$1k.
That being said, as others have pointed out, the scene is also very custom-built to create the sense of effects that would require much more power if you could actually look around at will, so it's not exactly apples-to-apples with real games.
Yeah, IANAL, but this isn't a court. Things don't need to be admissible to be used by private citizens. It doesn't matter how you got the information, it's only libel if it's false and you had no reason to believe it was true when you said it (basically, if you just said it for the lulz). Also, its only defamatory if the primary purpose of the statement was to publicly attack someone. If the primary purpose (as here) was to expose a business practice, and your reputation just happens to get slaughtered in the process, then maybe you shouldn't have been working for a shitty company.
No. Part of being in society and benefiting from said membership is an inherent agreement that there are certain ways in which you, and those around you, will be limited in the damage they can do to one another. You have a case for an argument like that when your decision has no reasonably foreseeable potential victims. This is not one of those scenarios. That is not to say that this should be mandated by any means, just to say that this is not one of those "my consequences, my choice, no discussion necessary" questions. That's why it should be discussed.
It is an issue already. I have PreSafe braking on my car (2015), which will automatically beep if closing on a car such that your rate of deceleration will be insufficient to prevent a collision, and then brakes if you get especially close and are braking but just not enough.
It has gone off quite a few times when I am getting close to a car that is turning, because it can't detect the "rate of turn" and figure out that by the time I get there, the car won't be there anymore. It sometimes even does this on oddly contoured road with no other cars, like a decline approaching an inclining turn (sees the road as an unmoving object).
I like the feature overall, because unless I am already braking, all that happens is a tone sounding, and it's especially nice in stop-and-go traffic. If the car had actually slammed on the brakes each time, though, I would not be nearly as excited.
I'm not saying anything about the merits of the arguments themselves, and maybe GP touched a nerve by talking something that affects you personally or something. Even so, normal humans can communicate respectfully even when upset, so your response implies you are exactly the person you are accusing GP of being.
Not to mention the basis of "it is our service, so we get to decide what can and cannot be monetized." Google is a private company that lets you use their site, not a government entity granting a license for a business.
With another computer (like the Intel stick), you can use TeamViewer to remotely view and control your main computer. LogMeIn can provide an even more robust solution, though it's not free like TeamViewer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more of a carrot/stick situation. What almost all the other commenters are pointing out is that the stick (ie, making it illegal) hasn't worked at all. If it is going to happen anyway (and yes, it will), then we might as well turn it into a carrot where this inevitable (on a societal level) behavior becomes much safer.
Or we could acknowledge that cable infrastructure was highly subsidized by taxpayer dollars at all levels of government (federal to local), such that whatever risk or cost the cable companies themselves did "invest" has been more than reimbursed. Furthermore, we could recognize that the function of the Internet is now much closer to city sewage (you *can* still use an outhouse... but do you want to?) than to satellite TV.
As such, especially given how many of our tax dollars were sunk into building it, we could decide that, by eminent domain, the cable infrastructure becomes public property (with the cable companies being "properly reimbursed" at rates analogous to those at which individuals get reimbursed when the gov't decides it needs their land), and Google or maybe even a bunch of new local "MomNpop ISP" companies can starting using the EXISTING lines to the home that we already paid for to provide up to 10Gbps symmetrical over full duplex DOCSIS 3.1.
But, you know, our current Congress or FCC wouldn't want to have a free market or anything...
Here's a source (and apparently there was a Google search): http://www.pcgamer.com/zenimax...
I am strongly in favor of Oculus in the overall case, and I had never heard anything about the part with Google searches or lots of different devices, but unfortunately, the fact that he wiped his computer almost immediately after hearing about the case was one of the few pieces of meaningful evidence Zenimax had, without which they likely would've lost the case altogether.
Can you explain how this would be evil? Frustrating, yes, but especially if they also continued to update Chrome OS for free in parallel for a while, I find it hard to call that "evil."
It essentially is. What they are doing is spoofing the Caller ID -- you may have noticed that many of the calls come from numbers that are essentially 1 number off (or shuffled) from your own number. Spoofing is illegal, but of course they don't care about that -- if the company is based outside the US, who is anyone going to sue?
Meaningful, unique content -- something more than just a tech demo or a standard video game where, at the last minute, someone said "oh and it has VR! kinda...".
That's why this is so exciting.
They don't own your phone, and they aren't claiming to. They do, however, own the networks your phone is trying to connect to. As stated, your phone will work just fine on Wifi, just not on their networks... Which they own.
Amazon has a huge physical presence in Tennessee.
That would seem to actually favor an engine like this. A good autocorrect does use context, but generally it only has access to what you have said before, not after, the current word (at least during the initial input). In such a context-dependent environment as you describe, being able to retroactively go back and change earlier text based on closely subsequent input (as speech recognition software often does, but keyboards generally don't) would seem especially valuable.
In fact, Google's voice accuracy is often due to exactly that: at least for me, it will often initially have something very wrong, but then end up with the right recognition result based on the rest of the input ("navigate to Pete's" -> "navigate to pizza restaurant").
You think you train Google Now? There is one situation where you give it a modicum of training. Guess where? The only part of the recognition that occurs on the device: "Ok Google" detection. Contrary to how you seem to think this works, this isn't 1999 Dragon NaturallySpeaking on steroids. There is no "database of simple rules and semantics." Their speech recognition (and that of Alexa) is powered by a huge neural net that is constantly expanding based on prior searches. That has strong potential criticisms for sure, but "this is really pretty easy" isn't one of them.
Are you sure? https://blogs.technet.microsof...
8K is going to be a really hard sell. I can only really appreciate my 65" 4k set because I sit about 7ft away from it. You would have to almost literally have your nose on a 65" 8k screen to tell any difference. I actually wonder if it is literally possible to be close enough to tell a difference vs. 4k, yet also far enough to have the entire screen in your FOV at once.
Wasn't this the case where Tesla said Autopilot wasn't engaged at all?
Please be sure to let Comcast know that in a significant portion of its major metro areas. Though admittedly, they did raise it to 1TB/Mo, vs the previously much more onerous 300GB/Mo prior to June.
I'm a huge believer that police often overstep boundaries, but no, that is exactly what they should not have done. Then you go from having 0.1% of arrests going badly, because someone became violent and police had to counter that with force, to more like 20%, because "holy shit I might be able to actually WIN!" This isn't Game of Thrones: we can't allow Trial by Combat - if we do, even legit nonprejudiced cops (however many of those there are) will get hurt, good people who feel like "I just can't afford to be put in jail, it's worth a shot" will get hurt or killed... or more likely, both will happen, often in the same incident.
Arguably the Vive could be capable of both. I haven't heard of anything that does this, and I'm not even sure if the software allows apps access to it at all, but the built in camera certainly COULD be used for AR, though I'm not sure if the resolution is high enough for it to be good AR.
Actually, this is exactly what the law was intended for. ISPs have been common carriers (in function) ever since the internet became a staple, rather than a novelty, in the average American life. They managed to keep this change at bay for a while, despite their deployments being almost entirely subsidized by federal, state, and local funding and frequently claiming protection under Title II (guess which title "common carrier" falls under?) in order to make their installations easier. Furthermore, at this point, there is nothing carried by telephone lines that anyone would consider more important than what is carried across internet fiber, and thus no law that applies to ensuring the integrity of the handling of telephone line transmission that shouldn't apply to ISP data transmission.
This is running on the 980, nvidia's current high-end consumer card. When Pascal, the next gen of nvidia's cards comes out, I would expect their midrange card, the 1060 or at least the 1070 (the budget-highend), to be able to run it. So, in 6 months, $800-$1k.
That being said, as others have pointed out, the scene is also very custom-built to create the sense of effects that would require much more power if you could actually look around at will, so it's not exactly apples-to-apples with real games.
Yeah, IANAL, but this isn't a court. Things don't need to be admissible to be used by private citizens. It doesn't matter how you got the information, it's only libel if it's false and you had no reason to believe it was true when you said it (basically, if you just said it for the lulz). Also, its only defamatory if the primary purpose of the statement was to publicly attack someone. If the primary purpose (as here) was to expose a business practice, and your reputation just happens to get slaughtered in the process, then maybe you shouldn't have been working for a shitty company.
No. Part of being in society and benefiting from said membership is an inherent agreement that there are certain ways in which you, and those around you, will be limited in the damage they can do to one another. You have a case for an argument like that when your decision has no reasonably foreseeable potential victims. This is not one of those scenarios. That is not to say that this should be mandated by any means, just to say that this is not one of those "my consequences, my choice, no discussion necessary" questions. That's why it should be discussed.
It is an issue already. I have PreSafe braking on my car (2015), which will automatically beep if closing on a car such that your rate of deceleration will be insufficient to prevent a collision, and then brakes if you get especially close and are braking but just not enough.
It has gone off quite a few times when I am getting close to a car that is turning, because it can't detect the "rate of turn" and figure out that by the time I get there, the car won't be there anymore. It sometimes even does this on oddly contoured road with no other cars, like a decline approaching an inclining turn (sees the road as an unmoving object).
I like the feature overall, because unless I am already braking, all that happens is a tone sounding, and it's especially nice in stop-and-go traffic. If the car had actually slammed on the brakes each time, though, I would not be nearly as excited.
I'm not saying anything about the merits of the arguments themselves, and maybe GP touched a nerve by talking something that affects you personally or something. Even so, normal humans can communicate respectfully even when upset, so your response implies you are exactly the person you are accusing GP of being.
Not to mention the basis of "it is our service, so we get to decide what can and cannot be monetized." Google is a private company that lets you use their site, not a government entity granting a license for a business.
With another computer (like the Intel stick), you can use TeamViewer to remotely view and control your main computer. LogMeIn can provide an even more robust solution, though it's not free like TeamViewer.