[I]t's nifty that Apple is addressing the issue in iOS 7.
How is that "nifty"? It's the least they should do. It's like Chris Rock's thing about all those parents who go round proudly proclaiming that "I take care of my kids!" You're supposed to take care of your kids!
VERY good airplane. (Direct quote from an American Airlines 777 First Officer: "Sweetest-flying airplane I ever flew!" Direct quote from a very senior American Airlines 777 Captain: "10 years in 757/767. First time I got in the 777, I realized they'd fixed things I hadn't realized had been bugging me.")
the only way to "trick" your eyes into thinking the focal depth is different than actual is to have two screens and offset them from optimum.
How do corrective lenses work, then?
i fyou only have one screen like GG, it's always going to be 1 cm from your eye.
That doesn't mean you have to focus to 1cm to view it clearly. Hold something 1cm from your eye and try to focus on it (my previous advice not to try notwithstanding).
I once told a girl to get off her phone as she pulled up to a junction while staring down at her phone and she went mental.
That pisses me off too. I once cycled up to some kid texting while stopped at a junction - after waiting for him to pull out - and told him to put it down while he's behind the wheel, and then asked him how he'd like it if his sister got knocked down by someone who was too impatient to pull over before checking their messages.
That never actually happened to my sister, but it does make it a lot harder for people to play the outrage card.
Are they going to start controlling what type of spectacles people wear when they drive?
Why not? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have any trouble booking you if they caught you driving down the road with duct tape over your face without having to implement a specific ban.
I want a report on my desk first thing on Monday morning, or when you get out of intensive care.
You might think the dashboard is more dangerous vs an overlaying HUD, but keep mind mind that we choose to look at the dashboard when we deem it safe whereas a HUD is always in-your-face slinging the brain into information overload.
And Google Glass differs from a windscreen HUD - a windscreen HUD could at least put its information in the corner of your vision and let you choose when to look at it. A Glass would stick it right there in front of you.
Wouldn't the binocular disparity also be a significant drawback compared to a real HUD?
It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.
A phone could do that with an audio-only alert which wouldn't immediately distract your visual attention from the view ahead.
It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.
I thought that's why satnavs speak directions. Sometimes as Yoda!
It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.
Or how about don't get distracted by the kids and stop fiddling with the controls while you're supposed to be driving the car?
but an actual hud driving app would make your driving safer.
It's not exactly like a true HUD. It's right there in your view whether you like or not. You can't look away. It can't attract your attention with a subtle blink at the edge of your vision and then let you look at it when you're ready.
Which raises the question: How'd the government know what they were Googling?"
Actually, for me it raises the question "How do you know they were visited because of what they Googled?" As far as I can tell we've only got one side of the story here.
Here's a quote from the article (emphasis mine):
Or perhaps the NSA, as part of its routine collection of as much internet traffic as it can, automatically flags things like Google searches for "pressure cooker" and "backpack" and passes on anything it finds to the FBI.
Or maybe it was something else.
Yes, maybe it was something else. Unfortunately "something else" wouldn't be as sexy a story right now, would it? Maybe - and to be honest, this seems like a simpler explanation to me - they were visited for an entirely different reason - legitimate or not - and a) this is the best guess the people concerned have as to why they were visited or b) they are actually hiding something else.
The use of the outrageously sensationalist photo accompanying the story - actually taken from when they were doing door-to-door sweeps after the Boston bombings and unrelated to the story in question - is a pretty shitty and seemingly biased piece of journalism on its own (there's no caption; it's only explained in the middle of a paragraph further down the story) and enough for me to have serious doubts about the accuracy and impartiality of the piece.
“There are allegations [the NSA] listen to all our emails; that’s wrong. We don’t,” Alexander said, adding that of 54 different terrorist-related activities identified through PRISM, 42 [...] were disrupted
“We’re talking about future terror attacks and the success we’ve had the last 10 years. What will we have in the next 10? What if the 42 of 54 [terrorist attacks] were executed, what would that have meant to our civil liberties and privacy?” Alexander said; a response that was met with loud applause.
What are you talking about? I wasn't pointing out a grammar flaw. I was pointing out that people have read too much into the research. The only error I can see is where I've used the wrong word - something I do fairly often - but that's nothing to do with grammar either.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it only got leaked and put the Soviet Far East Army on alert. No biggie.
[I]t's nifty that Apple is addressing the issue in iOS 7.
How is that "nifty"? It's the least they should do. It's like Chris Rock's thing about all those parents who go round proudly proclaiming that "I take care of my kids!" You're supposed to take care of your kids!
It was a Boeing 777.
VERY good airplane. (Direct quote from an American Airlines 777 First Officer: "Sweetest-flying airplane I ever flew!" Direct quote from a very senior American Airlines 777 Captain: "10 years in 757/767. First time I got in the 777, I realized they'd fixed things I hadn't realized had been bugging me.")
****** A+++++ Wuld fly again
You simply attach a tag called a target to the person or object you want to scan and snap the picture.
So then I have a 3D model of my object - with a tag on it? I can't see anything about tagging at the official site or the Kickstarter page.
Here's an actual link to the company. I'd have thought TFS would have one, let alone TFA, but no.
nobody said "high resolution display..."
Nor did my quote - it said high definition ;)
are you responding to your own phantom comment?
No, I was quoting Google's specs.
the only way to "trick" your eyes into thinking the focal depth is different than actual is to have two screens and offset them from optimum.
How do corrective lenses work, then?
i fyou only have one screen like GG, it's always going to be 1 cm from your eye.
That doesn't mean you have to focus to 1cm to view it clearly. Hold something 1cm from your eye and try to focus on it (my previous advice not to try notwithstanding).
Be fair. If it was a joke, it was pretty lame.
Maybe you should call professional astronomer Adam Block and tell him where he's gone wrong.
I once told a girl to get off her phone as she pulled up to a junction while staring down at her phone and she went mental.
That pisses me off too. I once cycled up to some kid texting while stopped at a junction - after waiting for him to pull out - and told him to put it down while he's behind the wheel, and then asked him how he'd like it if his sister got knocked down by someone who was too impatient to pull over before checking their messages.
That never actually happened to my sister, but it does make it a lot harder for people to play the outrage card.
Are they going to start controlling what type of spectacles people wear when they drive?
Why not? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have any trouble booking you if they caught you driving down the road with duct tape over your face without having to implement a specific ban.
I want a report on my desk first thing on Monday morning, or when you get out of intensive care.
You might think the dashboard is more dangerous vs an overlaying HUD, but keep mind mind that we choose to look at the dashboard when we deem it safe whereas a HUD is always in-your-face slinging the brain into information overload.
And Google Glass differs from a windscreen HUD - a windscreen HUD could at least put its information in the corner of your vision and let you choose when to look at it. A Glass would stick it right there in front of you.
Wouldn't the binocular disparity also be a significant drawback compared to a real HUD?
It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.
A phone could do that with an audio-only alert which wouldn't immediately distract your visual attention from the view ahead.
It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.
I thought that's why satnavs speak directions. Sometimes as Yoda!
It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.
Or how about don't get distracted by the kids and stop fiddling with the controls while you're supposed to be driving the car?
but an actual hud driving app would make your driving safer.
It's not exactly like a true HUD. It's right there in your view whether you like or not. You can't look away. It can't attract your attention with a subtle blink at the edge of your vision and then let you look at it when you're ready.
it's even more drastic than you say. eyes are focused on the car 100 feet away, then GG 1 cm away. attention nightmare.
Have you ever tried to focus on something 1cm away? Don't. It hurts.
High resolution display is the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.
I take this to mean that the display actually appears to be eight feet away, so that's where you'd focus.
Which raises the question: How'd the government know what they were Googling?"
Actually, for me it raises the question "How do you know they were visited because of what they Googled?" As far as I can tell we've only got one side of the story here.
Here's a quote from the article (emphasis mine):
Or perhaps the NSA, as part of its routine collection of as much internet traffic as it can, automatically flags things like Google searches for "pressure cooker" and "backpack" and passes on anything it finds to the FBI.
Or maybe it was something else.
Yes, maybe it was something else. Unfortunately "something else" wouldn't be as sexy a story right now, would it? Maybe - and to be honest, this seems like a simpler explanation to me - they were visited for an entirely different reason - legitimate or not - and a) this is the best guess the people concerned have as to why they were visited or b) they are actually hiding something else.
The use of the outrageously sensationalist photo accompanying the story - actually taken from when they were doing door-to-door sweeps after the Boston bombings and unrelated to the story in question - is a pretty shitty and seemingly biased piece of journalism on its own (there's no caption; it's only explained in the middle of a paragraph further down the story) and enough for me to have serious doubts about the accuracy and impartiality of the piece.
“There are allegations [the NSA] listen to all our emails; that’s wrong. We don’t,” Alexander said, adding that of 54 different terrorist-related activities identified through PRISM, 42 [...] were disrupted
“We’re talking about future terror attacks and the success we’ve had the last 10 years. What will we have in the next 10? What if the 42 of 54 [terrorist attacks] were executed, what would that have meant to our civil liberties and privacy?” Alexander said; a response that was met with loud applause.
Just reminds me of this.
So he likes to be seen shopping at indie book stores with his daughter
FTFY.
That's a spoon.
Fantec claims its third-party firmware supplier provided the company with appropriate source code, which Fantext made available online.
In the same sentence, even.
Odd that Firefox would red-underline the word "online." Also odd that it red-underlines "Firefox."
It's not embarrassing at all. It's a proof-of-concept.
Bah. Only 59 seconds aloft? Those Wright Brothers should be embarrassed.
DRAW X+RND(10),Y+RND(10)
Done.
Can someone explain where this "silhouette of a Motorola RAZR" thing fits in?
A link to (or even to a page with a link to) the current MTA map might have helped give a little context, too.
What are you talking about? I wasn't pointing out a grammar flaw. I was pointing out that people have read too much into the research. The only error I can see is where I've used the wrong word - something I do fairly often - but that's nothing to do with grammar either.
improving their exclusive capability in the free software world of not only being able to read but also write .docx and .xlsx files)
Is this really true? I mean, not an office suite, but PHPExcel can read and write Excel files.
Read from the top level and you'll see that no-one's made the assumption that he's using a Mac. This has simply become a side discussion on TM.
Dude, spoiler alert!
I dunno. Coastguard?