I probably am. However, I'm sorry to say I can't verify or refute your assertion because I'm too busy playing LOTR slot machines and hoping for the big win to calculate the probability of your statement being true.
There is so much of this in the movies and in sci-fi that we've all see our futures with such a device, ever since our childhoods we have seen this. I don't see how this could fail the "obviousness" test. How much more proof does one need to show how broken the patent system is?
Is it always a good idea then to stay at the back of the bus? Just because it happens ubiquitously throughout society, then we should never make a stand?
WAY back in 1994 it was already known that 20 percent of VR users experience nausea after 30 minutes or more of immersion. This is due to the discrepecies between visual input and other motor-sensory input. The effect was so consistent that the surgeon general actually issued a warning about it:
washingtontechnology.com/articles/1994/07/28/could-the-surgeon-general-warn-vr-is-hazardous-to-your-health.aspx?m=1
Hence, I think people will be much more likely to lose weight due to vomiting and nasea than some artifical size trick-of-the-eye.
I smell a hypocrisy. I am not a proponent of gambling machines; I find them a tax on the poor. But you're going to rape the legacy for all its worth through the miracle of crass commercialism, and yet put the kybosh on machines with the potential to let a fan share in some of the winfall, methinks you are blind to your own sins, Sir
It's kind of funny and pathetic at the same time that an article of over 10,000 words is written by such intelligent people about a subject that is not ever defined. Each one throws their own spin on the term without ever proposing a clear definition. Hacking-back, it seems, is a toy phrase designed to generate an endless argument.
After having read the entire article though, I realize that if one defines "hacking-back" as attempting to harm the intruder, then it seems clear that this would be vigilantism, and would be illegal. However, if one defines "hacking-back" as performing tasks which merely identify the offender, such as leaving packets which the intruder may gather which could then eventually report back to the victim their whereabouts, then the "hot pursuit" and "self-defense" arguments apply and hold a lot of water.
I find that Volokh's ending statements particularly won me over:
"the law has always placed in your own hands — or, if you prefer, has never taken away from your own hands — the right to defend yourself and your property (subject to certain limits). By using this right, you aren’t taking the law into your own hands. You’re using the law that has always been in your hands."
and
"defense of property must generally be nonlethal", so it seems to me that as long as you're as long as you're not causing lethal harm to the attacker or anyone else, a claim of self-defense finds a lot of legal standing, precedent and much analogy.
When I was in my 20's, I was in a group of developers who were also all in our 20's. There were only a few guys who were in their 40's and 50's and they were kinda slow. I thought the same thing too at the time. Now that I'm 53 and making 10x more as a consultant than I did back then, I can see reasons why my skewed adhoc-survey gave those results. I think the biggest factor is that the go-getters can get-up-and-leave when they get 15 years of experience (I left after 13 years) and make way more money either designing their own products or starting their own companies, like me. This is software, it's easy to create your own and start your own company from your living room, so why stay? So that leaves the lesser-motivated, lesser-driven "software engineers" (yeah, it's a euphemism anyway) in the same cubicles as the n00bs. At that point, I can see why it looks like the 20's outperform the oldies. So, what's left is the lesser-performers. I think Mr. VR would be smarter to focus on employee retention, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a 53-yo consultant who has enough money that doesn't need to go to work anymore, so for SURE I'm not generating the same volume of code or intrinsic value as those n00b. Uh-huh.
Or maybe this is a quote from his resignation letter, explaining why he feels he must resign.
Jolly good of him to do so! Especially since it would be so wrong of him to continue to slow down all of those high-output 20-something-or-others.
Bravo!
Since context is the key to understanding meaning and intent, a search engine that could understand what the viewer is currently watching - not just the name of the show but take into account what situation the characters are in at any time, and what emotions they are portraying, this could be the begining of a true, interactive AI interface.
Admittedly, there is a long way to go, but with Google's experience in context-based voice recognition, visual search development, already indexing the data of the world, and their ability to throw wads of cash and creative minds at an endevor like this, I wouldn't rule the possibility of a stab at AI being next.
This event marks a new dawn of popularity for Linux.
This is awesome. So sorry to see you go M$. You have been resigned to the bone-yard of has-been techology companies. Say Hi to IBM for me.
I have to ask myself what kind of people will buy a car that will assume control in emergencies? Answer: people who are unsure of their own driving abilities, aka bad drivers, e.g. the elderly with failing vision and slowing reflexes; this seems to be obvious. In that case, the car will more probably be better than their driving abilities in oh, say some very high percentage of emergency situations and maybe it will save THEM from crashing into MY car!
I personally can't wait for these technologies to be applied to healthy individuals. If they can increase functionality, they can increase ability. This is the future of nootropics. The future of the race of humankind will be self-guided evolutionary experiments, resulting in a parallel and merging singularity with technology. Can't wait. And yes, I'm going to be cryonically suspended so that if the technology is not ready by the time I'm gone, I'll still be "around" so-to-speak to revive and apply the upgrades.
The last thing I would want to do is program mission-critical systems. That G*d my programming mistakes are hidden in the mire of a thousand other programmer's mistakes, and never make it to the front page of/.
It's a classic sales technique to get the answer you want: give the target only two choices, one of which they probably don't want to chose, so then it must be the other one. There's many more choices obviously, such as say, a public utility.
If sewers are a human right, then so should broadband be.
What? Sewers aren't a basic human right? Hmmm, ok broadband's more important, make that a right first.
Slashdot Mirror
I probably am. However, I'm sorry to say I can't verify or refute your assertion because I'm too busy playing LOTR slot machines and hoping for the big win to calculate the probability of your statement being true.
There is so much of this in the movies and in sci-fi that we've all see our futures with such a device, ever since our childhoods we have seen this. I don't see how this could fail the "obviousness" test. How much more proof does one need to show how broken the patent system is?
Is it always a good idea then to stay at the back of the bus? Just because it happens ubiquitously throughout society, then we should never make a stand?
next question
I would posit that they have a defacto patent on it, since they have distorted the reality of so many people.
WAY back in 1994 it was already known that 20 percent of VR users experience nausea after 30 minutes or more of immersion. This is due to the discrepecies between visual input and other motor-sensory input. The effect was so consistent that the surgeon general actually issued a warning about it: washingtontechnology.com/articles/1994/07/28/could-the-surgeon-general-warn-vr-is-hazardous-to-your-health.aspx?m=1 Hence, I think people will be much more likely to lose weight due to vomiting and nasea than some artifical size trick-of-the-eye.
I smell a hypocrisy. I am not a proponent of gambling machines; I find them a tax on the poor. But you're going to rape the legacy for all its worth through the miracle of crass commercialism, and yet put the kybosh on machines with the potential to let a fan share in some of the winfall, methinks you are blind to your own sins, Sir
It's kind of funny and pathetic at the same time that an article of over 10,000 words is written by such intelligent people about a subject that is not ever defined. Each one throws their own spin on the term without ever proposing a clear definition. Hacking-back, it seems, is a toy phrase designed to generate an endless argument. After having read the entire article though, I realize that if one defines "hacking-back" as attempting to harm the intruder, then it seems clear that this would be vigilantism, and would be illegal. However, if one defines "hacking-back" as performing tasks which merely identify the offender, such as leaving packets which the intruder may gather which could then eventually report back to the victim their whereabouts, then the "hot pursuit" and "self-defense" arguments apply and hold a lot of water. I find that Volokh's ending statements particularly won me over: "the law has always placed in your own hands — or, if you prefer, has never taken away from your own hands — the right to defend yourself and your property (subject to certain limits). By using this right, you aren’t taking the law into your own hands. You’re using the law that has always been in your hands." and "defense of property must generally be nonlethal", so it seems to me that as long as you're as long as you're not causing lethal harm to the attacker or anyone else, a claim of self-defense finds a lot of legal standing, precedent and much analogy.
Nice, shiny coasters.
When I was in my 20's, I was in a group of developers who were also all in our 20's. There were only a few guys who were in their 40's and 50's and they were kinda slow. I thought the same thing too at the time. Now that I'm 53 and making 10x more as a consultant than I did back then, I can see reasons why my skewed adhoc-survey gave those results. I think the biggest factor is that the go-getters can get-up-and-leave when they get 15 years of experience (I left after 13 years) and make way more money either designing their own products or starting their own companies, like me. This is software, it's easy to create your own and start your own company from your living room, so why stay? So that leaves the lesser-motivated, lesser-driven "software engineers" (yeah, it's a euphemism anyway) in the same cubicles as the n00bs. At that point, I can see why it looks like the 20's outperform the oldies. So, what's left is the lesser-performers. I think Mr. VR would be smarter to focus on employee retention, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a 53-yo consultant who has enough money that doesn't need to go to work anymore, so for SURE I'm not generating the same volume of code or intrinsic value as those n00b. Uh-huh.
Or maybe this is a quote from his resignation letter, explaining why he feels he must resign. Jolly good of him to do so! Especially since it would be so wrong of him to continue to slow down all of those high-output 20-something-or-others. Bravo!
Since context is the key to understanding meaning and intent, a search engine that could understand what the viewer is currently watching - not just the name of the show but take into account what situation the characters are in at any time, and what emotions they are portraying, this could be the begining of a true, interactive AI interface. Admittedly, there is a long way to go, but with Google's experience in context-based voice recognition, visual search development, already indexing the data of the world, and their ability to throw wads of cash and creative minds at an endevor like this, I wouldn't rule the possibility of a stab at AI being next.
I mean, other than "everybody panic!" ?
Less TV = Higher Quality Life. There are so many more enriching things to with your life. Just shut the damn thing off.
By my estimates, 85% of them get through the /. anti-idiocy filter. With Win 8, at least you won't get infected with /. idiocy.
This event marks a new dawn of popularity for Linux. This is awesome. So sorry to see you go M$. You have been resigned to the bone-yard of has-been techology companies. Say Hi to IBM for me.
I have to ask myself what kind of people will buy a car that will assume control in emergencies? Answer: people who are unsure of their own driving abilities, aka bad drivers, e.g. the elderly with failing vision and slowing reflexes; this seems to be obvious. In that case, the car will more probably be better than their driving abilities in oh, say some very high percentage of emergency situations and maybe it will save THEM from crashing into MY car!
Can we get an admin to cut-and-paste all the replies from the previous time this was posted please? Thanks.
..."both students were sophisticated users" Please define "sophisticated Facebook user"... I'm at a loss...
Don't forget the eye-foot coordination. Plus, he'll be able to dance.
I'm glad you won't be there to vote, then. :)
I personally can't wait for these technologies to be applied to healthy individuals. If they can increase functionality, they can increase ability. This is the future of nootropics. The future of the race of humankind will be self-guided evolutionary experiments, resulting in a parallel and merging singularity with technology. Can't wait. And yes, I'm going to be cryonically suspended so that if the technology is not ready by the time I'm gone, I'll still be "around" so-to-speak to revive and apply the upgrades.
The last thing I would want to do is program mission-critical systems. That G*d my programming mistakes are hidden in the mire of a thousand other programmer's mistakes, and never make it to the front page of /.
It's a classic sales technique to get the answer you want: give the target only two choices, one of which they probably don't want to chose, so then it must be the other one. There's many more choices obviously, such as say, a public utility.
If sewers are a human right, then so should broadband be. What? Sewers aren't a basic human right? Hmmm, ok broadband's more important, make that a right first.