Then we'd have both China and Japan mad at the US, and they'd still be mad at each other. Sadly, you can't treat nations like children, even when they behave like it. Especially not when those nations are the second and third largest economies in the world.
I think anyone who has ever been bird hunting (or clay pigeon shooting) knows exactly how hard it is to hit small moving targets hundreds of feet in the air.
Kinda both. TFA mentions that the Oculus guys were shown a hands-on demonstration of Valve's headset and plan on implementing some stuff they learned there in the Rift. I have no doubt they'll be sort-of competitors, in that people are unlikely to buy both, but Valve's position on hardware so far has been to let other people handle the manufacturing and only do prototype and design work themselves, so it remains to be seen if Valve even directly produces a VR headset. They are, however, producing at least a prototype version of their own set.
However, competition is good. It'll drive anyone who makes VR headsets to produce a headset better (at least in some ways) than the other guys, and give consumers a bit of choice. Plus highlight problems that one set has that others don't, and maybe give everyone some ideas how to fix those problems. Provided, of course, games are intercompatible with all sets on the market (otherwise you just get fragmentation which in practice can be worse than a monopoly).
Chrome will be forcing the system default for the filetype.pdf to become Chrome, not the user.
And if you don't know how to make that not happen or change it when it does, as happens to most people...
That is decidedly not what is happening. TFA specifically states that Chrome, when it downloads the PDF, opens it itself, instead of handing it off to the system handler (i.e. the default application for filetype.pdf). In fact, Chrome is adding a menu option to open it with the default application if you want.
Batteries have the capability to release all of their energy almost instantaneously if something goes wrong. Basically, from zero to deadly in no seconds flat. They can act almost like high explosives under the right conditions.
And fuel is a high explosive under the right conditions (ANFO is often used as an explosive for mining). Hell, almost anything can act like a high explosive in the right conditions (even flour). Batteries are generally designed so they never reach such conditions. The advantage to a battery is that it can be contained entirely inside one container, with only fuse-protected wires leading out. Fuel, OTOH, by definition has to travel from one end of the car to the other (and "the other end" in this case houses a device that deliberately sets off small fuel-air explosions), and tends to spread itself out everywhere if there is a leak.
In theory, a properly designed system would have a local physics engine that takes over when the remote engine is unavailable, albeit at reduced fidelity.
Of course, that's not how it will end up working, especially with Ubisoft involved. The real goal here is more control disguised as improvements.
No, no it isn't. It's nominative use: he isn't using the logo to represent his own product, but to literally refer to the product Canonical is producing. That is fair use. In fact, it strengthens Canonical's trademark: the more people using it to refer to Ubuntu itself, the stronger the trademark is. Same reason Wikipedia can use all the logos of various companies and products on it's wiki pages about them: because it is literally referring to the trademarked product itself, not to some imitation or misrepresentation of the product.
See this comment. Gas cars have fires at about 3.7 times the rate of Tesla cars so far. This is why you never ever look at numbers with a "gut feeling": because you can very very easily be quite wrong. Mind you, 3 incidents isn't really enough to establish a good statistical average, yet, but the reason you think Tesla fires are so common is that you've probably heard about every single one. You may have heard of only a handful of gas car fires.
First: it's not a free market. Not in the US, anyways. The FDA and CDC and whatnot regulate what antibiotics can be used in animals... or, at least, in food animals (which is where most animal antibiotics are used). Secondly, the antibiotics used (and therefore the resistances generated) are different in animals than in humans, in large part for exactly that reason: we don't want the widespread usage of antibiotics in animals to result in human diseases becoming much more resistant. And finally: permanent and incurable is incredibly unlikely. Antibiotics resistance has an energy cost associated with it: it takes more effort to be antibiotic resistant than not. That means, absent the use of antibiotics, the resistance will naturally be selected against and fade from the population over time. And even then, there are many classes of antibiotics. Resistances are only to one or two of those classes (although a bacteria resistant to all of them is truly terrifying, it requires even higher energy cost for the bacteria).
Antibiotics resistance is a major problem on multiple levels, but the problem of resistant strains in humans is due to usage of antibiotics in humans (you know, to save people's lives), not the usage in animals. Resistant animal diseases is also a major issue, of course, because they're a huge part of our food supply, but not so much because we're worried about human diseases becoming resistant to human antibiotics because of antibiotics usage in animals.
Artificial blood almost certainly wouldn't count, though, as it isn't technically blood at all: blood in the religious context of Jehovah's Witnesses refers to the stuff flowing through the veins of animals. Basically, if it was never the "life" of an animal it wouldn't count. Of course, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness nor an expert on their theology, so I couldn't say for sure (but I have read the biblical passage the doctrine comes from, and I would say it absolutely doesn't include fake blood in any way).
Possibly. On the other hand, the robot car has the potential to have hundreds of thousands or millions of years worth of experience in handling such situations (mind you, the current crop of cars don't, but that's because they're still very definitely a prototype design). Regardless, the point of autonomous cars is that they can be used by anyone without such experience: if they're safer than the average driver, they'll save lives. Not to mention potentially eliminating problems like drunk driving entirely.
And that changes things... how? The government still carries out the whole thing.
No, they don't. That's the AC's point: the government doesn't carry out the decision over whether an individual is guilty or not. The jury does that. The actual execution, yes, because you don't want that handed directly to the people (we have a word for that: vigilante justice, and historically it doesn't work out so well).
Most people who yell about "big gubmint" have no problem with a government that follows the rules and limitations established in the respective constitutions (execution is carried out by the state government, not the federal, though of course the execution has to be constitutional under the federal constitution as well, to wit, not cruel). One of the roles of even the smallest government is the enforcement of justice. Everyone I know of who favors small government acknowledges that. "Small" doesn't necessarily mean "non-existent."
Yes, that means added cost and weight. Deal with it.
Sure, if you don't mind producing a headset that no-one wants to buy because it's too expensive, no one wants to use because it's too heavy, and no one wants to supports because of the first two things. Or, in other words, if you want to be a complete and utter failure.
Whats happening is the court is sending an order to image his hard drive, turn that image over to the court (without examining the data on it first), and order the defendant not to wipe his hard drive pending further investigation in the case. Of course the court has no proof that the "hacker" is going to delete the data on his hard drive should he be given warning, but it does have a suspicion that it might.
And he didn't "lose [his] 4th Amendment rights", because the 4th Amendment specifies "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which is exactly, letter for letter, what has happened (complete with sworn affidavit). This whole thing is a non-story: a plaintiff brought a suit before the court, the court decided to issue a temporary restraining order following due process in order to ensure evidence isn't destroyed. Maybe you might argue the court didn't really have reasonable suspicion, but thats for the defendant's lawyer to argue.
It is, however, an extremely important game development tool. They are showcasing state of the art tools they have developed for game development, not the development of state of the art games. At least, that's what TFS is claiming: it sounds like it's written by Nvidia's PR department... which, actually, wouldn't surprise me. Well, except PR writing generally tends to be of a bit higher quality than the summary (so, don't think my comment was critical of your misunderstanding: poor writing begets poor understanding).
It's not considered a diamond if it's a liquid. Diamonds are crystalline.
Aye, which is why they use the word "becomes." I.e. it changes from one thing (diamond) into another (liquid carbon). When something becomes something else, it often does not stay the first thing (sometimes it does, sometimes it does). Both sentences are valid: the first is just more specific (and therefore superior), as it tells you what form the carbon was in prior to becoming a liquid, while the second does not.
Google isn't hiring people to actually look at the code and submit changes if problems were found
And your evidence for that is... what, exactly? They have a bug bounty program (and of course this new program, which has nothing to do with bugs or security holes at all, so technically this whole thread is quite offtopic, but anyways). That does not mean they don't also have internal testers. The idea that they don't is entirely inside your head (unless you have some pretty compelling evidence Google hires no software testers, which would be... well, pretty fucking astonishing if actually true).
A bug bounty program exists because in complex software some bugs will always (always) slip through, no matter if you paid thousands of testers for thousands of hours to test it. By having an external program, you basically end up with millions of (extra) testers. Untrained ones, who will probably catch one-thousandth the bugs your primary testers do (especially because the glaring ones are usually fixed long before the public sees the program), but extra testers nevertheless.
Anyways, actually relevant to the story: this new program is Google paying people who add security features to existing FOSS projects. You know, like the developers of that software already do for free (well, some of them do anyways, quite a few of the features are added by developers paid to work on some project or another). Only now, they can earn a little extra money on the side for it (which they couldn't even do selling "exploits" because they aren't finding exploits, they're adding extra security features). The story is that Google is giving people money to make the Internet as a whole more secure (or in other words paying people not to fix problems in Google's code, but to make non-Google software better in general).
My guess is because the DVI standard doesn't actually have an audio transport channel, so they only switch it on when a DVI connection that they recognize as a DVI-to-HDMI adaptor is attached. They can only do that when one of their adapters is attached. Otherwise, they see a DVI device so they output a proper DVI signal. It's sticking to the DVI specifications very precisely (perhaps a bit too precisely).
Of course, I don't know enough about the specs to say for sure if that is why, or if there would be a better way (I strongly suspect there is, but am not sure).
Name one flexible material that is transparent and as hard as glass?
Well, glass for one. Seriously, Corning has a flexible glass called Willow Glass, probably because they saw flexible and curved OLED displays coming (it's probably not as hard as Gorilla Glass, but then, what do you expect from flexible glass).
Sure, but while it may be irrelevant to whether piracy is illegal or not, profits are extremely relevant to the question of whether it is immoral or not and whether or not it should be illegal. Therefore, the fact it increases sales is quite relevant to any discussion of piracy and the OPs analogy is, well, simply wrong (rape itself is inherently immoral, while copying is not).
Umm, no. That's not his point at all. His point was this: he wants to make a video game. One that is well-made, fun, and follows his vision. The investors simply want money. The means of getting that money are irrelevant (so long as it's legal... well, most investors care about that. Well, the nice ones do, anyways). When you follow the former, you end up with games that are original, interesting, and usually quite fun (Braid, Bastion, Portal, etc.). Sometimes these make money, sometimes they don't. When you follow the latter, you end up with Call of Duty: 2013. This often makes you a lot of money, but it also makes for rather terrible games and stagnation in the industry. Hence, the massive amounts of re-hashed expensive shit that gets shoved out by most of the AAA studios while the actually interesting and novel ideas are relegated to being made on a shoe-string budget in someones garage (usually: not always).
Anyways, Roberts does give the community something, namely, the game. Not money, but what they (and he) actually want. When everyone involved in the project actually wants the same thing, you can focus on that. If he had investors, he'd need to focus at least somewhat on making a game that could earn money. As it stands, even if the game sells zero copies after release, it doesn't matter so long as the gameplay satisfies the crowdfunders.
Yep, 120 Volts/metre. However, the air has a resistance of ~1.6*10^16 Ohms/metre as well, which means you aren't going to get a current and will therefore measure no voltage difference with a meter (for similar reasons it's also impractical for producing electricity). It's theoretically one way to produce levitation, but engineering wise thats quite difficult to actually do (for heavy objects).
Slashdot Mirror
Then we'd have both China and Japan mad at the US, and they'd still be mad at each other. Sadly, you can't treat nations like children, even when they behave like it. Especially not when those nations are the second and third largest economies in the world.
Every Raspi can also run a build that does not have Wolfram or Mathematica. There is a difference between "can" and "is".
Yes, and neither TFA nor TFS claim "is". Beyond "is a part of the standard bundle", which will be true soon.
I think anyone who has ever been bird hunting (or clay pigeon shooting) knows exactly how hard it is to hit small moving targets hundreds of feet in the air.
Kinda both. TFA mentions that the Oculus guys were shown a hands-on demonstration of Valve's headset and plan on implementing some stuff they learned there in the Rift. I have no doubt they'll be sort-of competitors, in that people are unlikely to buy both, but Valve's position on hardware so far has been to let other people handle the manufacturing and only do prototype and design work themselves, so it remains to be seen if Valve even directly produces a VR headset. They are, however, producing at least a prototype version of their own set.
However, competition is good. It'll drive anyone who makes VR headsets to produce a headset better (at least in some ways) than the other guys, and give consumers a bit of choice. Plus highlight problems that one set has that others don't, and maybe give everyone some ideas how to fix those problems. Provided, of course, games are intercompatible with all sets on the market (otherwise you just get fragmentation which in practice can be worse than a monopoly).
Chrome will be forcing the system default for the filetype .pdf to become Chrome, not the user.
And if you don't know how to make that not happen or change it when it does, as happens to most people...
That is decidedly not what is happening. TFA specifically states that Chrome, when it downloads the PDF, opens it itself, instead of handing it off to the system handler (i.e. the default application for filetype .pdf). In fact, Chrome is adding a menu option to open it with the default application if you want.
Batteries have the capability to release all of their energy almost instantaneously if something goes wrong. Basically, from zero to deadly in no seconds flat. They can act almost like high explosives under the right conditions.
And fuel is a high explosive under the right conditions (ANFO is often used as an explosive for mining). Hell, almost anything can act like a high explosive in the right conditions (even flour). Batteries are generally designed so they never reach such conditions. The advantage to a battery is that it can be contained entirely inside one container, with only fuse-protected wires leading out. Fuel, OTOH, by definition has to travel from one end of the car to the other (and "the other end" in this case houses a device that deliberately sets off small fuel-air explosions), and tends to spread itself out everywhere if there is a leak.
In theory, a properly designed system would have a local physics engine that takes over when the remote engine is unavailable, albeit at reduced fidelity.
Of course, that's not how it will end up working, especially with Ubisoft involved. The real goal here is more control disguised as improvements.
No, no it isn't. It's nominative use: he isn't using the logo to represent his own product, but to literally refer to the product Canonical is producing. That is fair use. In fact, it strengthens Canonical's trademark: the more people using it to refer to Ubuntu itself, the stronger the trademark is. Same reason Wikipedia can use all the logos of various companies and products on it's wiki pages about them: because it is literally referring to the trademarked product itself, not to some imitation or misrepresentation of the product.
See this comment. Gas cars have fires at about 3.7 times the rate of Tesla cars so far. This is why you never ever look at numbers with a "gut feeling": because you can very very easily be quite wrong. Mind you, 3 incidents isn't really enough to establish a good statistical average, yet, but the reason you think Tesla fires are so common is that you've probably heard about every single one. You may have heard of only a handful of gas car fires.
First: it's not a free market. Not in the US, anyways. The FDA and CDC and whatnot regulate what antibiotics can be used in animals... or, at least, in food animals (which is where most animal antibiotics are used). Secondly, the antibiotics used (and therefore the resistances generated) are different in animals than in humans, in large part for exactly that reason: we don't want the widespread usage of antibiotics in animals to result in human diseases becoming much more resistant. And finally: permanent and incurable is incredibly unlikely. Antibiotics resistance has an energy cost associated with it: it takes more effort to be antibiotic resistant than not. That means, absent the use of antibiotics, the resistance will naturally be selected against and fade from the population over time. And even then, there are many classes of antibiotics. Resistances are only to one or two of those classes (although a bacteria resistant to all of them is truly terrifying, it requires even higher energy cost for the bacteria).
Antibiotics resistance is a major problem on multiple levels, but the problem of resistant strains in humans is due to usage of antibiotics in humans (you know, to save people's lives), not the usage in animals. Resistant animal diseases is also a major issue, of course, because they're a huge part of our food supply, but not so much because we're worried about human diseases becoming resistant to human antibiotics because of antibiotics usage in animals.
Artificial blood almost certainly wouldn't count, though, as it isn't technically blood at all: blood in the religious context of Jehovah's Witnesses refers to the stuff flowing through the veins of animals. Basically, if it was never the "life" of an animal it wouldn't count. Of course, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness nor an expert on their theology, so I couldn't say for sure (but I have read the biblical passage the doctrine comes from, and I would say it absolutely doesn't include fake blood in any way).
Possibly. On the other hand, the robot car has the potential to have hundreds of thousands or millions of years worth of experience in handling such situations (mind you, the current crop of cars don't, but that's because they're still very definitely a prototype design). Regardless, the point of autonomous cars is that they can be used by anyone without such experience: if they're safer than the average driver, they'll save lives. Not to mention potentially eliminating problems like drunk driving entirely.
And that changes things... how? The government still carries out the whole thing.
No, they don't. That's the AC's point: the government doesn't carry out the decision over whether an individual is guilty or not. The jury does that. The actual execution, yes, because you don't want that handed directly to the people (we have a word for that: vigilante justice, and historically it doesn't work out so well).
Most people who yell about "big gubmint" have no problem with a government that follows the rules and limitations established in the respective constitutions (execution is carried out by the state government, not the federal, though of course the execution has to be constitutional under the federal constitution as well, to wit, not cruel). One of the roles of even the smallest government is the enforcement of justice. Everyone I know of who favors small government acknowledges that. "Small" doesn't necessarily mean "non-existent."
Yes, that means added cost and weight. Deal with it.
Sure, if you don't mind producing a headset that no-one wants to buy because it's too expensive, no one wants to use because it's too heavy, and no one wants to supports because of the first two things. Or, in other words, if you want to be a complete and utter failure.
Whats happening is the court is sending an order to image his hard drive, turn that image over to the court (without examining the data on it first), and order the defendant not to wipe his hard drive pending further investigation in the case. Of course the court has no proof that the "hacker" is going to delete the data on his hard drive should he be given warning, but it does have a suspicion that it might.
And he didn't "lose [his] 4th Amendment rights", because the 4th Amendment specifies "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which is exactly, letter for letter, what has happened (complete with sworn affidavit). This whole thing is a non-story: a plaintiff brought a suit before the court, the court decided to issue a temporary restraining order following due process in order to ensure evidence isn't destroyed. Maybe you might argue the court didn't really have reasonable suspicion, but thats for the defendant's lawyer to argue.
Yeah, the Puritans. Know where they came from, originally? Hint: it wasn't America.
And yet it's the UK that is rolling out a country wide porn filtering system that you have to opt out of.
It is, however, an extremely important game development tool. They are showcasing state of the art tools they have developed for game development, not the development of state of the art games. At least, that's what TFS is claiming: it sounds like it's written by Nvidia's PR department... which, actually, wouldn't surprise me. Well, except PR writing generally tends to be of a bit higher quality than the summary (so, don't think my comment was critical of your misunderstanding: poor writing begets poor understanding).
It's not considered a diamond if it's a liquid. Diamonds are crystalline.
Aye, which is why they use the word "becomes." I.e. it changes from one thing (diamond) into another (liquid carbon). When something becomes something else, it often does not stay the first thing (sometimes it does, sometimes it does). Both sentences are valid: the first is just more specific (and therefore superior), as it tells you what form the carbon was in prior to becoming a liquid, while the second does not.
Google isn't hiring people to actually look at the code and submit changes if problems were found
And your evidence for that is... what, exactly? They have a bug bounty program (and of course this new program, which has nothing to do with bugs or security holes at all, so technically this whole thread is quite offtopic, but anyways). That does not mean they don't also have internal testers. The idea that they don't is entirely inside your head (unless you have some pretty compelling evidence Google hires no software testers, which would be... well, pretty fucking astonishing if actually true).
A bug bounty program exists because in complex software some bugs will always (always) slip through, no matter if you paid thousands of testers for thousands of hours to test it. By having an external program, you basically end up with millions of (extra) testers. Untrained ones, who will probably catch one-thousandth the bugs your primary testers do (especially because the glaring ones are usually fixed long before the public sees the program), but extra testers nevertheless.
Anyways, actually relevant to the story: this new program is Google paying people who add security features to existing FOSS projects. You know, like the developers of that software already do for free (well, some of them do anyways, quite a few of the features are added by developers paid to work on some project or another). Only now, they can earn a little extra money on the side for it (which they couldn't even do selling "exploits" because they aren't finding exploits, they're adding extra security features). The story is that Google is giving people money to make the Internet as a whole more secure (or in other words paying people not to fix problems in Google's code, but to make non-Google software better in general).
My guess is because the DVI standard doesn't actually have an audio transport channel, so they only switch it on when a DVI connection that they recognize as a DVI-to-HDMI adaptor is attached. They can only do that when one of their adapters is attached. Otherwise, they see a DVI device so they output a proper DVI signal. It's sticking to the DVI specifications very precisely (perhaps a bit too precisely).
Of course, I don't know enough about the specs to say for sure if that is why, or if there would be a better way (I strongly suspect there is, but am not sure).
Name one flexible material that is transparent and as hard as glass?
Well, glass for one. Seriously, Corning has a flexible glass called Willow Glass, probably because they saw flexible and curved OLED displays coming (it's probably not as hard as Gorilla Glass, but then, what do you expect from flexible glass).
Sure, but while it may be irrelevant to whether piracy is illegal or not, profits are extremely relevant to the question of whether it is immoral or not and whether or not it should be illegal. Therefore, the fact it increases sales is quite relevant to any discussion of piracy and the OPs analogy is, well, simply wrong (rape itself is inherently immoral, while copying is not).
Umm, no. That's not his point at all. His point was this: he wants to make a video game. One that is well-made, fun, and follows his vision. The investors simply want money. The means of getting that money are irrelevant (so long as it's legal... well, most investors care about that. Well, the nice ones do, anyways). When you follow the former, you end up with games that are original, interesting, and usually quite fun (Braid, Bastion, Portal, etc.). Sometimes these make money, sometimes they don't. When you follow the latter, you end up with Call of Duty: 2013. This often makes you a lot of money, but it also makes for rather terrible games and stagnation in the industry. Hence, the massive amounts of re-hashed expensive shit that gets shoved out by most of the AAA studios while the actually interesting and novel ideas are relegated to being made on a shoe-string budget in someones garage (usually: not always).
Anyways, Roberts does give the community something, namely, the game. Not money, but what they (and he) actually want. When everyone involved in the project actually wants the same thing, you can focus on that. If he had investors, he'd need to focus at least somewhat on making a game that could earn money. As it stands, even if the game sells zero copies after release, it doesn't matter so long as the gameplay satisfies the crowdfunders.
Yep, 120 Volts/metre. However, the air has a resistance of ~1.6*10^16 Ohms/metre as well, which means you aren't going to get a current and will therefore measure no voltage difference with a meter (for similar reasons it's also impractical for producing electricity). It's theoretically one way to produce levitation, but engineering wise thats quite difficult to actually do (for heavy objects).