1) Glasses. If you don't wear them, you don't care, but if you do, you pretty much can't deal with head-mounted VR wear. I've tried a lot of VR devices over the decades and *none* of them are glasses-friendly, including Oculus.
2) Field of view. Ninety degrees isn't enough for immersion. True enough, you can move your head for depth 'feel', but you're still looking through a window.
3) Lag. There's been enough said about this. It will improve over time, though, if there's enough of an audience.
"The stuff does actually leave your body as CO2, water and other waste products of metabolism of the said 1 kg. It does appear as a 'missing mass' on your weight scale."
Yes, this exactly. But unless everyone actually tacitly understands this, which I doubt, The mass transfer part of metabolism seems to be missing from nutrition discussions. Anorexics and bulimics seem to get it, but the popular media miss the boat. Perhaps it's too much to expect otherwise, but I blame the emphasis on "calories" for the misdirection.
OK, I'm impressed with your contextualization, and, cannibalistic implications aside, I'll accept your numerical values. But the crux of the biscuit is this:
" when metabolized in the body... release... energy "
I don't believe this to be part of the common understanding. Rather, and usually in the context of weight control, the belief appears to be that expending the 32 megajoules will cause your kilogram of flesh to magically disappear.
All this calorie stuff seems to stem from the metabolic research of Wilber Atwater in the late 19th century. My understanding is that he performed pretty accurate measurements confirming conservation of energy for human nutrition. Conservation of mass seems to have fallen by the wayside somewhere in the 20th century to the point where the (food) calorie is now some sort of bastard unit of massergy.
"7700 is the kCal in a kg body weight, if you're curious."
... and this is the reason that "nutrition" should be considered absolute horseshit by anyone with a serious scientific understanding.
Calories are energy and kilograms are mass. Conflating them in a non-relativistic way is just plain wrong. That they happen to be somewhat monotonically related when talking about food and body weight is misleading at best. I don't know if it stems from "nutritionists" ignorance of physics and actual science or is just an attempt dumb things down enough for the unwashed masses, but it makes the case that "nutrition" is no more than voodoo and superstition.
I've been a member of both ACM & IEEE for several decades. As a dinosaur, I much prefer print versions of all their varied pubs to any of the lame digital editions. I come from the academic world, but have been out of it for a long time and still find ACM relevant, especially after their revamp of Communications a couple of years ago. Practitioners? The Kode Vicious column is nearly the worth the price of subscription. I've never been interested in the Digital Library at extra cost, but it's probably worth it to some.
IEEE? Their Computer Society is marginally OK, but only for the Hal Berghel articles, as far as I'm concerned. IEEE Spectrum has become an exercise in suckitude, the bastard child of Wired's graphic design and Popular Science's "in depth" examination of current topics. Tired of this and their pimping life insurance, I've lapsed on IEEE membership and may do so for the Computer Society too in the near future.
Seems to me that the responsibility for supplying tax payment tools - i.e. tax software - should rest with the collection agency. Gripes about government incompetency aside, I'd expect a large majority of cases to be handled with fairly uncomplicated code.
Of course, as one poster mentioned, a lot of lobbying goes on to keep this software in the private sector.
In the US, at least, there's a legal conceit called "attractive nuisance". This is used as the basis of prosecution of, say, the owner of a swimming pool that's not securely fenced. If a child happens to drown in such an un-fenced pool, the owner can be prosecuted for manslaughter.
I don't see much difference here. Call it "enticement" rather than "entrapment" if you wish since it's not conducted by someone with criminal authority, but it's very much like the un-fenced swimming pool. The "enticer" pretty clearly bears some responsibility.
On top of which, it's also clear that no actual crime is involved since there's no actual child. What's the charge? Abuse of computer graphics? Unless perhaps we're talking about "thought crimes".
This whole sting enterprise seems to me to be just as ethically scummy as pedophilia itself, if not more so.
So, in the states that have sales tax on sales of software on CDs or other tangible media, does this mean we can forego the "license" fiction and consider the purchase to be an actual sale?
Slashdot Mirror
... with an actual picture of the nerve:
http://news.ubc.ca/2015/05/04/gigantic-whales-have-stretchy-bungee-cord-nerves/
1) Glasses. If you don't wear them, you don't care, but if you do, you pretty much can't deal with head-mounted VR wear. I've tried a lot of VR devices over the decades and *none* of them are glasses-friendly, including Oculus.
2) Field of view. Ninety degrees isn't enough for immersion. True enough, you can move your head for depth 'feel', but you're still looking through a window.
3) Lag. There's been enough said about this. It will improve over time, though, if there's enough of an audience.
Hearing any variation on the phrase "wealth creation" drives me right up the wall. Always sounds like someone thinks they're Rumplestiltskin.
"Economists" will never get any respect from me until they come up with theories consistent with conservation of mass and energy.
"The stuff does actually leave your body as CO2, water and other waste products of metabolism of the said 1 kg. It does appear as a 'missing mass' on your weight scale."
Yes, this exactly. But unless everyone actually tacitly understands this, which I doubt, The mass transfer part of metabolism seems to be missing from nutrition discussions. Anorexics and bulimics seem to get it, but the popular media miss the boat. Perhaps it's too much to expect otherwise, but I blame the emphasis on "calories" for the misdirection.
sounds like there's a good joke in there somewhere, but I'm missing it.
can anyone set it up properly?
OK, I'm impressed with your contextualization, and, cannibalistic implications aside, I'll accept your numerical values. But the crux of the biscuit is this:
... release ... energy "
" when metabolized in the body
I don't believe this to be part of the common understanding. Rather, and usually in the context of weight control, the belief appears to be that expending the 32 megajoules will cause your kilogram of flesh to magically disappear.
All this calorie stuff seems to stem from the metabolic research of Wilber Atwater in the late 19th century. My understanding is that he performed pretty accurate measurements confirming conservation of energy for human nutrition. Conservation of mass seems to have fallen by the wayside somewhere in the 20th century to the point where the (food) calorie is now some sort of bastard unit of massergy.
"7700 is the kCal in a kg body weight, if you're curious."
... and this is the reason that "nutrition" should be considered absolute horseshit by anyone with a serious scientific understanding.
Calories are energy and kilograms are mass. Conflating them in a non-relativistic way is just plain wrong. That they happen to be somewhat monotonically related when talking about food and body weight is misleading at best. I don't know if it stems from "nutritionists" ignorance of physics and actual science or is just an attempt dumb things down enough for the unwashed masses, but it makes the case that "nutrition" is no more than voodoo and superstition.
No wonder the public doesn't understand science.
"Funny how the colors of the world don't seem really real until you viddy them on the screen."
Anthony Burgess in "A Clockwork Orange"
... or teach gym.
... or run for office.
Book-feel will have to await future haptics research, but as for the smell, you're already covered:
http://smellofbooks.com/
I've been a member of both ACM & IEEE for several decades. As a dinosaur, I much prefer print versions of all their varied pubs to any of the lame digital editions. I come from the academic world, but have been out of it for a long time and still find ACM relevant, especially after their revamp of Communications a couple of years ago. Practitioners? The Kode Vicious column is nearly the worth the price of subscription. I've never been interested in the Digital Library at extra cost, but it's probably worth it to some.
IEEE? Their Computer Society is marginally OK, but only for the Hal Berghel articles, as far as I'm concerned. IEEE Spectrum has become an exercise in suckitude, the bastard child of Wired's graphic design and Popular Science's "in depth" examination of current topics. Tired of this and their pimping life insurance, I've lapsed on IEEE membership and may do so for the Computer Society too in the near future.
I'm really curious as to what kind of comments about the name that you got in pre-publication reviews...
If I remember correctly, there is a fruit fly gene discovered in Japan that was named fushi tarazu, abbreviated ShiTz.
A temperature sensitive variant was subsequently named HotShiTz.
Just goes to show that biologists can be as sophomoric as us geeky guys 'n gals.
Someday, maybe, they'll get past 3-letter names for genes & proteins...
clearly true that people love to whine, but I wonder where you get your margin figures. any citations?
Google has a job for you in the EU...
but I didn't know it was *that* old...
Plato's 'Republic' to see what geniuses our politicians are.
Plato's Theaetetus to see what idiots philosophers are.
And Lillian Lieber's "The Education of T. C. Mits" to see why we should all know more mathematics than we do.
This is just the mass media's way of hyping something so it's likely to sound interesting to the general public so they can increase their ratings.
It almost always happens with reporting of pretty much anything scientific.
It should always sensitize your bullshit detector.
As someone who's developed a lot of code containing bugs not found 'til long after it's been used, this scares the shit out of me.
... glad to see you know the correct pronunciation of WiFi...
And how's that work out for you?
Ralphie May has a line something like: "If you're a married man, you know you've always got a choice - you can be right, or you can be happy."
I appreciate your plaint, but you may be a bit narrow in your definition of music.
Seems to me that the responsibility for supplying tax payment tools - i.e. tax software - should rest with the collection agency. Gripes about government incompetency aside, I'd expect a large majority of cases to be handled with fairly uncomplicated code.
Of course, as one poster mentioned, a lot of lobbying goes on to keep this software in the private sector.
In the US, at least, there's a legal conceit called "attractive nuisance". This is used as the basis of prosecution of, say, the owner of a swimming pool that's not securely fenced. If a child happens to drown in such an un-fenced pool, the owner can be prosecuted for manslaughter.
I don't see much difference here. Call it "enticement" rather than "entrapment" if you wish since it's not conducted by someone with criminal authority, but it's very much like the un-fenced swimming pool. The "enticer" pretty clearly bears some responsibility.
On top of which, it's also clear that no actual crime is involved since there's no actual child. What's the charge? Abuse of computer graphics? Unless perhaps we're talking about "thought crimes".
This whole sting enterprise seems to me to be just as ethically scummy as pedophilia itself, if not more so.
So, in the states that have sales tax on sales of software on CDs or other tangible media, does this mean we can forego the "license" fiction and consider the purchase to be an actual sale?