"I have a simple theory" is the result of multidisciplinary collaboration, in which new connections get made by someone who understands the patterns and foundations of apparently, but not really, unrelated subjects.
"Your field is fundamentally wrong" could be idiotic and arrogant. Or it could be something so intrinsically obvious as two plus two does not equal four, or God exists (or doesn't). Democrats are evil, Republicans are evil, and the focus of neuroscience should be about how the system maintains criticality.
I hardly consider this arrogant. Arrogance is an inflated sense of superiority, and usually the arrogant person knows, on some level, that it is just a front. Just stating something gives them a feeling of superiority, triggering pleasure centers. Being proven right, in public, is quite possibly the best thing ever because it presents a factual basis for what is, at least occasionally, a fantasy.
People who know, or believe, something truly and completely, do not do this. Believers seem to rebel against any contrary information, actively rejecting it. Knowers present clarity of fact. They may be completely wrong, and may cross over into being believers, or they may disbelieve when proven wrong.
Because science is fundamentally about trying to prove others wrong (and either failing or succeeding), it is important to distinguish among a deep-rooted belief, transference of knowledge (even if it is mistaken), arrogance, idiocy, and the scientific method.
As far as physicists specifically, I would expect that biological and chemical functions would have some level of physics at their core. Whether it is a true correlation or just similar in appearance will have to be decided. But I would prefer to have an asshole physicist say everything is wrong and be right 1% of the time, and the rest just be brushed off like the guy from marketing at the Christmas party.
Nitpick the oversimplified psychobabble if you like, but the point is that words mean things. And attributing intent to people based on their ideas, and even their words especially if they are not a native speaker, is a great way to completely miss the point. Not debating that it's an issue - but it is far too easy to dismiss an interloper from another discipline as arrogant - all the easier if you believe in your field of study, as opposed to knowing it.
After Occam's Razor, we pose hypotheses and see how well the universe matches. It points you in a direction, but you still have to use brains and science to actually get anywhere. It's not a substitute for thought. And, the simplest answer is not what Occam's Razor points you towards.
The simplest formulation is something like Wikipedia has it, "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones." In this case, the fundamental laws of physics have to be part of the "all things" that are equal. Given what we know so far, the simplest explanation is an energy neutral, mass neutral beginning that, due to some combination of C, P, and CP violations, as well as particle number violations, resulted in what we have now. We know CP violations happen, and we have the math for particle number violations.
Or, the laws of physics have changed in 13 billion years. But that's, at this point, about as helpful and useful as "God did it".
Your version of Occam's Razor is apparently "ignore everything we know so far". And if your excuse was you were going for humor, you're currently +4 Interesting so you successfully misinformed at least 2 people.
Or they tried to minimize impact to their business by only inviting lawsuits from antivirus vendors on charges of anticompetitive behavior for bundling MSE. And did not want to take on additional enemies, since virus creators are unlikely to raise a fuss. But now they are taking that extra step, again with minimal business risk.
And, if they announce mse will block adware, it has to be pretty good day one because it will be immediately tested. Announcing plans gives consumers a good feeling, and legit businesses time to turn into an opt in model that gives users something. And time to develop and test the process that gets software blacklisted.
So if your explanation is correct, there was already a private announcement, and a deal. Microsoft made a public announcement that it did not have to make for another several months anyway, and businesses have 6 months to modify their software.
My version gives them the same time period, with no shady deals needed. And it matches normal business practice of announce then deliver. And it shows familiarity with the legally hostile world they have created for themselves, as well as their past behavior in that regard.
But you're right, "conspiracy" makes much more sense, and of course "paid off" makes even more, to address the other reply.
If someone has a stated goal, you assume they achieved it, even if it was marginally. For every citation you have, there piles more where your quote is in the minority, or was disregarded. But these references don't make your list, because they don't match what you think.
And if yo think modern schools remotely match anything you referenced, given that education reform happens every 20 years or so, you really are not much more than a mystic.
Sure there is a lot we don't know, and reputable organizations study the fringes. But what did they discover? Your references stop before that.
Your school system maybe. I got physics and chemistry and biology and the scientific method from age 12 if not earlier. Not at the same time of course.
And there were plenty of kids who cannot rise above concrete thinking. Literally if they can't see it, it doesn't make sense. A car engine makes sense, so they grow up to be mechanic with no ability to grasp what you want them to grasp. If you demonstrate car based experiments and how that is scientific method, you could convey the idea. But customizing education to even a class of 10 means you spend 1/10 as long on the subject.
Your local school system probably has a curriculum available for you to review stating when kids learn what. And probably a tracking procedure to advance the smart kids and remediate the others.
If you find out more, instead of repeating the same unverified pseudoscientific claims, you would be surprised. In some cases you will see it being done. In others you will see why it can't be done.
Your personal experience as a student is not representative, so don't bother. Learn about what you are talking about, start at the local school board or council.
Whether he changed his mind is not relevant. If he has not announced that he changed his mind, he has done nothing to modify his external persona.
Changing his mind and telling no one is exactly the same as not changing, in other words, because the issue is with his public support of a position. Had he done something to exhibit a change in opinion instead, it would seem like a publicity stunt unless the magnitude matched his original transgression.
When you said "to be fair", you were nitpicking. But context is important here. You actually gave his side the advantage.
How long do we wait after a large donation to opine that someone could have changed their mind? Is 5 years long enough for me to think I was on the wrong side of the issue? For enough average people to do the same that 5 years of silence has a good chance at being the same as changing their mind?
I posit no, that it would be exceptional for anyone to presume Eich has done anything other than learn not to say stuff on hot button issues. Given the facts, that is being fair.
Default allow. Other possibilities, but this seems most probable.
Valid = true Trim For each character
If mismatch, valid is false
Given ac reply, they may be using a forgiving algo because it is not an actual password. I get irritated at security questions like favorite author, because did I enter first name, initial, or just surname? I'm curious if it can be bypassed using substrings as well.
I would not be surprised to find a forgiving check being financially more favorable than support calls.
Returning a boolean for password good bad, when the API returns false/zero for no error and nonzero error code for error is plausible.
MSDN is full of API documentation where the return value is counter intuitive, until you really consider the intent of the operation. So it is not outside the realm of possibility. I have had such problems myself using win32.
I actually debugged code where my C# sample was converted to vb, and the return value of ValidateCredentials was checked incorrectly after the conversion. No one could authenticate. But no one tried with a bad password, except the guy who wrote it, and he did not know his correct password so it appeared to work to him.
Falling back to intentional back door shows a staggering lack of creativity, or enough inexperience that you have no business making such pronouncements. I'm willing to bet this secondary screen got little testing attention, and very little if any final/regression tests. The primary screen got plenty of attention, just by way of it being the entry to every test involving logged in users.
Poor test coverage is not the only possibility, but this would set a record for most pointless intentional back door ever, so I'm quite certain that ain't the case.
I considered mentioning gravity assist. But a rounding error could very well put you far enough off course that you need fuel to course correct. Even a minor variation of the pioneer anomaly could send the craft well off course.
I'm not sure I would trust the planet to be where we thought it would be, in a different solar system. You would need a lot of fuel just to point yourself into a gravity assist slowdown at the other end.
And there's a human factor complicating any sudden acceleration. Solving the population question was the easy part.
Acceptable as a thought experiment, but you didn't consider the hundreds of thousands of people who have to live through the time span. They will probably evolve slightly to adjust to different gravity, sun color, atmosphere even if it is artificial, and food. Starting at a disadvantage due to lack of diversity is just cruel. Genetic diversity is right after water, food, and air in terms of a population's survival. On earth it is not so obvious because we evolved here, and there's plenty of us. If it were another earth, diversity would not matter beyond preventing inbreeding. How likely is that scenario?
Because alcohol involved means the same as alcohol caused?
Just ask your local police how they count the numbers. In the U S. Of Madd, if a drunk gets tboned by a sober driver, it is alcohol related.
Your comment suggests you are in Oz. They have an internet. You can search for peer reviewed anything, but why would peers review laws? Certainly doesn't happen when they are written.
Specifically, look for the influence madd has had. Not the conspiracy shit, but the facts. You say you would love it. I would love to see Renoir paint. Spend 15 minutes looking into it, or shut your rhetorical piehole.
I could click on it and read it to you, if you want. But you're going to want a lawyer to decide if he could defend you based on the wording of the law.
If you're not involved with enough money to want to bring a lawyer into it, you're going to want to read it yourself and decide what you feel comfortable with.
Ultimately, the only person who can tell you is an appellate court judge. Because you will get into trouble, or not. And you will "win" your legal proceedings or not. When it comes to deciding what the law actually says, and whether you broke it, you're going to need an appeal.
It's fairly obvious, actually. As far as computing goes, we have essentially the same interfaces as in 1984. Keyboard and mouse.
Gaming consoles offer controllers, but they have limited bandwidth - outside of "chording" to map button combinations to additional input values, which is underutilized outside of Mortal Kombat style fighting games.
Kinect and Wii technology have greatly expanded the options available, and voice no longer requires extensive training. So we are no longer tied to inputs. What's next?
3D was a flop, but there was interest. Head tracking gets around the limitations of the stereoscopic format, and adds another input in the form of placing the camera where the viewer wants, not where the director wants it. Putting the display in front of the eyes means surface area is no concern, just miniaturization of the pixels.
The hardware and software need time to mature, but it is the natural progression. There will be millions to be made for the pioneers, even if the initial businesses die off or get consumed.
The people who develop the IP will be sitting on gold mines. Even if the product dies like 3D at home did, the people behind 3D cameras and projectors are still banking off of the big budget 3D movies. I cannot imagine seeing Gravity or The Hobbit any other way.
And soon, there will be something new to experience in VR. Not movies or television, because the director has to allow for different camera angles, which would require 60% to 70% more special effects (to encompass the entire viewing angle). No business software outside of something like Skype with a HUD - but anything covering the eyes will cause problems in communication.
So video games. The FPS where you can't see what's next to you no longer exist. The lack of directional cues because you move your controller but your ears stay still no longer exist. Glance over your shoulder quickly instead of waiting 3 seconds for the character to turn like a cylinder instead of a fully articulated humanoid.
But is that the only application for VR? No, the real "can't see it without VR" application has barely hit. It certainly isn't mature. But if you have money and like tech, it's the obvious place to be.
I expect the next console generation to have some sort of Wii U mini controller, but for headset input/output. Head tracking and the VR display, with simultaneous 2-4 multiplayer on the same hardware - in the same room or across the world. But this is just prediction. Get the money in, and let the smart people come up with enough ideas. One will float to the top.
There's a chance it could still be available by itself, just the hardware. But with $2B invested in something that could only take off by asking for donations, I'm not sure that's their plan.
Certainly there is an opportunity if you really want to participate in social media experiments. Will they sell a tethered product that requires a facebook account to activate? Will you need some sort of integration with online accounts?
You don't, with the dev kit. What happens when they ramp up production and sell to the unwashed masses?
They sold you hardware, but that got a lot more complicated. Now you have questions.
It really doesn't mean much if it hasn't been tested in court. If no one is prosecuting based on a law, and no court has upheld it, that means it may be against the law, based on your reading.
It doesn't mean you can be punished for it.
I used to have a PDF of a court decision on my desktop that, unless it has since been superceded, declared downloading illegal. That is, the law forbade it, and the law was correct. Sad thing is, that was re-imaged years ago. Perhaps the archives of NYCL have it.
If you find it, that will bolster your case. And if you find it has been overturned, or a higher court ruled another way, obviously you are wrong.
Someone's reading of a law does not matter. Yours in particular, given your ignorance about who decides what is actually illegal. Only when it is tested does it hold any water. If the judge sides with the law, you're sunk. If the judge decides the law isn't worth anything, it never really was illegal.
No, because you have multiple problems, apparently being solved in the same solutions.
One, storing personnel records that get mailed in, on paper. Arguably another is finding those records, but stems from the first.
Two, calculating pension rates based on the data.
A system that solves the first may spit out bad numbers, and it has to be dropped.
The personnel records are not being stored in a common format now, so it won't be solved on its own. The only current solution is digitizing records as they come in, which makes the problem worse.
Step zero is getting all gvmt personnel records in the same format, storing relevant markers. And step negative one is making sure pension laws don't change, making more data required that only exists on paper today. Then it will work itself in infinity years.
You forgot "to my untrained ear". I know plenty of untrained people who can't write or read one bit of music, but they would agree this sounds bad.
Interesting, nuggets of good ideas, not bad for 2 voices made by a computer, but without qualifiers it is bad.
Training can be accomplished through repeated exposure, so if you want to call people who discover patterns that they can't explain "trained", fine. Because that just lowers the number of untrained people who might say this is not bad.
No, because either you are tone deaf or did not listen to the examples. This is just barely 15th century work. Or more like 14th with two people who agreed on a key and tempo and nothing else.
The most elegant part is the language processing, and we can only guess if that went well.
The average 10 year old with decent motor skills could do this accidentally. The suggested melodies are novel and unexpected, given that a human did not impose more than the most rudimentary constraints. A gifted composer could take these ideas as a very rough starting point, but that's as far as they got. It would be unrecognizable before the first draft, unless the composer wanted to start with the original and evolve it into something listenable.
There are positive points to make, but this in no way undermines copyright.
Which law? And, since you are familiar with the rule of law, which precedent set the case law for a provider checking its own mail? And set the relevant limits on EULA clauses?
And how does that differ from a warrantless law enforcement request where the provider, who has the data, does not ask for a warrant?
Is it only a search if the provider is looking for something?
You completely missed the real point, however. Americans can object to this, though it will take time. They will draw a line at some point and say this is legit, that's not. From a foreign perspective you can be angry all you want, but this is not something that Americans will get angry about.
Your opinion does not matter, unless you happen to be a policy maker in China. And then it does not matter to the Americans who object to the NSA, and are deciding whether the next revelation us a big deal.
If there were not a huge domestic surveillance thing going on, Americans might object. But in context, they are not going to care. And you can't make then, as angry as you get. So be mad, or just understand that your concerns are in line behind tens of complaints regarding its own citizens.
You still don't like it, I don't expect you to. Because your perspective is different. Add "compared with everything else" to each comment and suddenly it makes sense, no?
Or maybe it is you. 10+ years in, you made it 5 years at a single place. I don't see commitment. If you were younger and cheaper I might not care. Now I do. Based only on what you said, I would interview you but take someone else unless you were a perfect fit. There is a lot I don't know, and no one here is going to tell you anything you don't already know, except that you're asking the wrong people. People are too polite to give you a real reason, especially if it was just a gut reaction.
Turn to networking, where you know someone inside who can fight for you, and explain what happened. Even if you don't want the job. Because having a mole is your only hope now.
I would rather have kids understand the quick method you illustrated, instead of considering every problem a rote algorithm.
I would need to see some context to make sure they are not teaching the algorithmic method later in order to be outraged.
What you showed is how I do math. Sales tax is two multiplications. Tips are two, even at a flat 20%. This gets me a number quickly, but was never explicitly taught.
You need to understand the multi year curriculum to have context.
Not even then. In a science show, or science classroom, we talk about science. Specifically, scientific method and knowledge thus derived. If they want to participate in science at all, they have to follow the method. Or, get your method established as the standard. Evidence and backing arguments are the first step in the method, but it is not science and does not belong in any arena dedicated to science. Most of the explanations are just "God did it" and that will never be accepted by a scientific community without knowing how, and more about God. At that point, it ceases to be faith.
One does not simply immigrate. Seriously, it is hard. That's why lots of people are against immigration amnesty. The people who followed the rules and went home when the visa expired, and have no family here or other reason to be here legally, are kinda mad that following rules is not appreciated.
I assume you are just as tired of the American mentality of sustainable resources? There's a lot of that going around too. It's just not common in the C suite because it costs more, even if that is just initial outlay. Is it possible that the mentality you ascribe to America really belongs to a sub population? And should we not point the finger more specifically?
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck me, I mercurialed.
That explains so much.
"I have a simple theory" is the result of multidisciplinary collaboration, in which new connections get made by someone who understands the patterns and foundations of apparently, but not really, unrelated subjects.
"Your field is fundamentally wrong" could be idiotic and arrogant. Or it could be something so intrinsically obvious as two plus two does not equal four, or God exists (or doesn't). Democrats are evil, Republicans are evil, and the focus of neuroscience should be about how the system maintains criticality.
I hardly consider this arrogant. Arrogance is an inflated sense of superiority, and usually the arrogant person knows, on some level, that it is just a front. Just stating something gives them a feeling of superiority, triggering pleasure centers. Being proven right, in public, is quite possibly the best thing ever because it presents a factual basis for what is, at least occasionally, a fantasy.
People who know, or believe, something truly and completely, do not do this. Believers seem to rebel against any contrary information, actively rejecting it. Knowers present clarity of fact. They may be completely wrong, and may cross over into being believers, or they may disbelieve when proven wrong.
Because science is fundamentally about trying to prove others wrong (and either failing or succeeding), it is important to distinguish among a deep-rooted belief, transference of knowledge (even if it is mistaken), arrogance, idiocy, and the scientific method.
As far as physicists specifically, I would expect that biological and chemical functions would have some level of physics at their core. Whether it is a true correlation or just similar in appearance will have to be decided. But I would prefer to have an asshole physicist say everything is wrong and be right 1% of the time, and the rest just be brushed off like the guy from marketing at the Christmas party.
Nitpick the oversimplified psychobabble if you like, but the point is that words mean things. And attributing intent to people based on their ideas, and even their words especially if they are not a native speaker, is a great way to completely miss the point. Not debating that it's an issue - but it is far too easy to dismiss an interloper from another discipline as arrogant - all the easier if you believe in your field of study, as opposed to knowing it.
After Occam's Razor, we pose hypotheses and see how well the universe matches. It points you in a direction, but you still have to use brains and science to actually get anywhere. It's not a substitute for thought. And, the simplest answer is not what Occam's Razor points you towards.
The simplest formulation is something like Wikipedia has it, "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones." In this case, the fundamental laws of physics have to be part of the "all things" that are equal. Given what we know so far, the simplest explanation is an energy neutral, mass neutral beginning that, due to some combination of C, P, and CP violations, as well as particle number violations, resulted in what we have now. We know CP violations happen, and we have the math for particle number violations.
Or, the laws of physics have changed in 13 billion years. But that's, at this point, about as helpful and useful as "God did it".
Your version of Occam's Razor is apparently "ignore everything we know so far". And if your excuse was you were going for humor, you're currently +4 Interesting so you successfully misinformed at least 2 people.
Or they tried to minimize impact to their business by only inviting lawsuits from antivirus vendors on charges of anticompetitive behavior for bundling MSE. And did not want to take on additional enemies, since virus creators are unlikely to raise a fuss. But now they are taking that extra step, again with minimal business risk.
And, if they announce mse will block adware, it has to be pretty good day one because it will be immediately tested. Announcing plans gives consumers a good feeling, and legit businesses time to turn into an opt in model that gives users something. And time to develop and test the process that gets software blacklisted.
So if your explanation is correct, there was already a private announcement, and a deal. Microsoft made a public announcement that it did not have to make for another several months anyway, and businesses have 6 months to modify their software.
My version gives them the same time period, with no shady deals needed. And it matches normal business practice of announce then deliver. And it shows familiarity with the legally hostile world they have created for themselves, as well as their past behavior in that regard.
But you're right, "conspiracy" makes much more sense, and of course "paid off" makes even more, to address the other reply.
Here's why you're a crackpot.
If someone has a stated goal, you assume they achieved it, even if it was marginally. For every citation you have, there piles more where your quote is in the minority, or was disregarded. But these references don't make your list, because they don't match what you think.
And if yo think modern schools remotely match anything you referenced, given that education reform happens every 20 years or so, you really are not much more than a mystic.
Sure there is a lot we don't know, and reputable organizations study the fringes. But what did they discover? Your references stop before that.
Your school system maybe. I got physics and chemistry and biology and the scientific method from age 12 if not earlier. Not at the same time of course.
And there were plenty of kids who cannot rise above concrete thinking. Literally if they can't see it, it doesn't make sense. A car engine makes sense, so they grow up to be mechanic with no ability to grasp what you want them to grasp. If you demonstrate car based experiments and how that is scientific method, you could convey the idea. But customizing education to even a class of 10 means you spend 1/10 as long on the subject.
Your local school system probably has a curriculum available for you to review stating when kids learn what. And probably a tracking procedure to advance the smart kids and remediate the others.
If you find out more, instead of repeating the same unverified pseudoscientific claims, you would be surprised. In some cases you will see it being done. In others you will see why it can't be done.
Your personal experience as a student is not representative, so don't bother. Learn about what you are talking about, start at the local school board or council.
Whether he changed his mind is not relevant. If he has not announced that he changed his mind, he has done nothing to modify his external persona.
Changing his mind and telling no one is exactly the same as not changing, in other words, because the issue is with his public support of a position. Had he done something to exhibit a change in opinion instead, it would seem like a publicity stunt unless the magnitude matched his original transgression.
When you said "to be fair", you were nitpicking. But context is important here. You actually gave his side the advantage.
How long do we wait after a large donation to opine that someone could have changed their mind? Is 5 years long enough for me to think I was on the wrong side of the issue? For enough average people to do the same that 5 years of silence has a good chance at being the same as changing their mind?
I posit no, that it would be exceptional for anyone to presume Eich has done anything other than learn not to say stuff on hot button issues. Given the facts, that is being fair.
Default allow. Other possibilities, but this seems most probable.
Valid = true
Trim
For each character
If mismatch, valid is false
Given ac reply, they may be using a forgiving algo because it is not an actual password. I get irritated at security questions like favorite author, because did I enter first name, initial, or just surname? I'm curious if it can be bypassed using substrings as well.
I would not be surprised to find a forgiving check being financially more favorable than support calls.
Returning a boolean for password good bad, when the API returns false/zero for no error and nonzero error code for error is plausible.
MSDN is full of API documentation where the return value is counter intuitive, until you really consider the intent of the operation. So it is not outside the realm of possibility. I have had such problems myself using win32.
I actually debugged code where my C# sample was converted to vb, and the return value of ValidateCredentials was checked incorrectly after the conversion. No one could authenticate. But no one tried with a bad password, except the guy who wrote it, and he did not know his correct password so it appeared to work to him.
Falling back to intentional back door shows a staggering lack of creativity, or enough inexperience that you have no business making such pronouncements. I'm willing to bet this secondary screen got little testing attention, and very little if any final/regression tests. The primary screen got plenty of attention, just by way of it being the entry to every test involving logged in users.
Poor test coverage is not the only possibility, but this would set a record for most pointless intentional back door ever, so I'm quite certain that ain't the case.
I considered mentioning gravity assist. But a rounding error could very well put you far enough off course that you need fuel to course correct. Even a minor variation of the pioneer anomaly could send the craft well off course.
I'm not sure I would trust the planet to be where we thought it would be, in a different solar system. You would need a lot of fuel just to point yourself into a gravity assist slowdown at the other end.
And there's a human factor complicating any sudden acceleration. Solving the population question was the easy part.
Acceptable as a thought experiment, but you didn't consider the hundreds of thousands of people who have to live through the time span.
They will probably evolve slightly to adjust to different gravity, sun color, atmosphere even if it is artificial, and food. Starting at a disadvantage due to lack of diversity is just cruel.
Genetic diversity is right after water, food, and air in terms of a population's survival. On earth it is not so obvious because we evolved here, and there's plenty of us. If it were another earth, diversity would not matter beyond preventing inbreeding. How likely is that scenario?
Because alcohol involved means the same as alcohol caused?
Just ask your local police how they count the numbers. In the U S. Of Madd, if a drunk gets tboned by a sober driver, it is alcohol related.
Your comment suggests you are in Oz. They have an internet. You can search for peer reviewed anything, but why would peers review laws? Certainly doesn't happen when they are written.
Specifically, look for the influence madd has had. Not the conspiracy shit, but the facts. You say you would love it. I would love to see Renoir paint. Spend 15 minutes looking into it, or shut your rhetorical piehole.
I could click on it and read it to you, if you want. But you're going to want a lawyer to decide if he could defend you based on the wording of the law.
If you're not involved with enough money to want to bring a lawyer into it, you're going to want to read it yourself and decide what you feel comfortable with.
Ultimately, the only person who can tell you is an appellate court judge. Because you will get into trouble, or not. And you will "win" your legal proceedings or not. When it comes to deciding what the law actually says, and whether you broke it, you're going to need an appeal.
It's fairly obvious, actually. As far as computing goes, we have essentially the same interfaces as in 1984. Keyboard and mouse.
Gaming consoles offer controllers, but they have limited bandwidth - outside of "chording" to map button combinations to additional input values, which is underutilized outside of Mortal Kombat style fighting games.
Kinect and Wii technology have greatly expanded the options available, and voice no longer requires extensive training. So we are no longer tied to inputs. What's next?
3D was a flop, but there was interest. Head tracking gets around the limitations of the stereoscopic format, and adds another input in the form of placing the camera where the viewer wants, not where the director wants it. Putting the display in front of the eyes means surface area is no concern, just miniaturization of the pixels.
The hardware and software need time to mature, but it is the natural progression. There will be millions to be made for the pioneers, even if the initial businesses die off or get consumed.
The people who develop the IP will be sitting on gold mines. Even if the product dies like 3D at home did, the people behind 3D cameras and projectors are still banking off of the big budget 3D movies. I cannot imagine seeing Gravity or The Hobbit any other way.
And soon, there will be something new to experience in VR. Not movies or television, because the director has to allow for different camera angles, which would require 60% to 70% more special effects (to encompass the entire viewing angle). No business software outside of something like Skype with a HUD - but anything covering the eyes will cause problems in communication.
So video games. The FPS where you can't see what's next to you no longer exist. The lack of directional cues because you move your controller but your ears stay still no longer exist. Glance over your shoulder quickly instead of waiting 3 seconds for the character to turn like a cylinder instead of a fully articulated humanoid.
But is that the only application for VR? No, the real "can't see it without VR" application has barely hit. It certainly isn't mature. But if you have money and like tech, it's the obvious place to be.
I expect the next console generation to have some sort of Wii U mini controller, but for headset input/output. Head tracking and the VR display, with simultaneous 2-4 multiplayer on the same hardware - in the same room or across the world. But this is just prediction. Get the money in, and let the smart people come up with enough ideas. One will float to the top.
Your target audience just changed dramatically.
There's a chance it could still be available by itself, just the hardware. But with $2B invested in something that could only take off by asking for donations, I'm not sure that's their plan.
Certainly there is an opportunity if you really want to participate in social media experiments. Will they sell a tethered product that requires a facebook account to activate? Will you need some sort of integration with online accounts?
You don't, with the dev kit. What happens when they ramp up production and sell to the unwashed masses?
They sold you hardware, but that got a lot more complicated. Now you have questions.
It really doesn't mean much if it hasn't been tested in court. If no one is prosecuting based on a law, and no court has upheld it, that means it may be against the law, based on your reading.
It doesn't mean you can be punished for it.
I used to have a PDF of a court decision on my desktop that, unless it has since been superceded, declared downloading illegal. That is, the law forbade it, and the law was correct. Sad thing is, that was re-imaged years ago. Perhaps the archives of NYCL have it.
If you find it, that will bolster your case. And if you find it has been overturned, or a higher court ruled another way, obviously you are wrong.
Someone's reading of a law does not matter. Yours in particular, given your ignorance about who decides what is actually illegal. Only when it is tested does it hold any water. If the judge sides with the law, you're sunk. If the judge decides the law isn't worth anything, it never really was illegal.
No, because you have multiple problems, apparently being solved in the same solutions.
One, storing personnel records that get mailed in, on paper. Arguably another is finding those records, but stems from the first.
Two, calculating pension rates based on the data.
A system that solves the first may spit out bad numbers, and it has to be dropped.
The personnel records are not being stored in a common format now, so it won't be solved on its own. The only current solution is digitizing records as they come in, which makes the problem worse.
Step zero is getting all gvmt personnel records in the same format, storing relevant markers. And step negative one is making sure pension laws don't change, making more data required that only exists on paper today. Then it will work itself in infinity years.
You forgot "to my untrained ear". I know plenty of untrained people who can't write or read one bit of music, but they would agree this sounds bad.
Interesting, nuggets of good ideas, not bad for 2 voices made by a computer, but without qualifiers it is bad.
Training can be accomplished through repeated exposure, so if you want to call people who discover patterns that they can't explain "trained", fine. Because that just lowers the number of untrained people who might say this is not bad.
No, because either you are tone deaf or did not listen to the examples. This is just barely 15th century work. Or more like 14th with two people who agreed on a key and tempo and nothing else.
The most elegant part is the language processing, and we can only guess if that went well.
The average 10 year old with decent motor skills could do this accidentally. The suggested melodies are novel and unexpected, given that a human did not impose more than the most rudimentary constraints. A gifted composer could take these ideas as a very rough starting point, but that's as far as they got. It would be unrecognizable before the first draft, unless the composer wanted to start with the original and evolve it into something listenable.
There are positive points to make, but this in no way undermines copyright.
Which law? And, since you are familiar with the rule of law, which precedent set the case law for a provider checking its own mail? And set the relevant limits on EULA clauses?
And how does that differ from a warrantless law enforcement request where the provider, who has the data, does not ask for a warrant?
Is it only a search if the provider is looking for something?
You completely missed the real point, however. Americans can object to this, though it will take time. They will draw a line at some point and say this is legit, that's not. From a foreign perspective you can be angry all you want, but this is not something that Americans will get angry about.
Your opinion does not matter, unless you happen to be a policy maker in China. And then it does not matter to the Americans who object to the NSA, and are deciding whether the next revelation us a big deal.
If there were not a huge domestic surveillance thing going on, Americans might object. But in context, they are not going to care. And you can't make then, as angry as you get. So be mad, or just understand that your concerns are in line behind tens of complaints regarding its own citizens.
You still don't like it, I don't expect you to. Because your perspective is different. Add "compared with everything else" to each comment and suddenly it makes sense, no?
Or maybe it is you. 10+ years in, you made it 5 years at a single place. I don't see commitment. If you were younger and cheaper I might not care. Now I do.
Based only on what you said, I would interview you but take someone else unless you were a perfect fit.
There is a lot I don't know, and no one here is going to tell you anything you don't already know, except that you're asking the wrong people. People are too polite to give you a real reason, especially if it was just a gut reaction.
Turn to networking, where you know someone inside who can fight for you, and explain what happened. Even if you don't want the job. Because having a mole is your only hope now.
I would rather have kids understand the quick method you illustrated, instead of considering every problem a rote algorithm.
I would need to see some context to make sure they are not teaching the algorithmic method later in order to be outraged.
What you showed is how I do math. Sales tax is two multiplications. Tips are two, even at a flat 20%. This gets me a number quickly, but was never explicitly taught.
You need to understand the multi year curriculum to have context.
Not even then. In a science show, or science classroom, we talk about science. Specifically, scientific method and knowledge thus derived.
If they want to participate in science at all, they have to follow the method. Or, get your method established as the standard.
Evidence and backing arguments are the first step in the method, but it is not science and does not belong in any arena dedicated to science.
Most of the explanations are just "God did it" and that will never be accepted by a scientific community without knowing how, and more about God. At that point, it ceases to be faith.
One does not simply immigrate. Seriously, it is hard. That's why lots of people are against immigration amnesty. The people who followed the rules and went home when the visa expired, and have no family here or other reason to be here legally, are kinda mad that following rules is not appreciated.
I assume you are just as tired of the American mentality of sustainable resources? There's a lot of that going around too. It's just not common in the C suite because it costs more, even if that is just initial outlay. Is it possible that the mentality you ascribe to America really belongs to a sub population? And should we not point the finger more specifically?