Somebody out there decided that as a developer, I'm not allowed to have ideas about the future of development... I wonder how many Slashdot moderation points are spent by people who favor competing sites and want to try and make Slashdot less useful for discussion. Funny thing about that is that a lot of the competitors have made their platforms useless for discussion for years and refuse to improve anything. I guess if you can't discuss, you disrupt, and if you can't develop, you cheat. Well, in terms of the understood "you" anyway. I don't.
At least we're all optimistic about Windows 10! That's a pretty good sign, and this socially and technologically awkward transition phase will not be missed (lmao). Thanks for the HowToGeek link! Off I go to read that right now!
It is!..to an extent. Video game consoles are used for goofing off. Desktop computers are used to goof off, sure, but also to do work, store sensitive data, and pay bills. When video game consoles are sitting on the desks at architectural firms and law offices, instead of PCs, your point will hold.
You make a good point on Problem 6, and in fact capture the core of my patience where this is concerned. It's a painful transition, but when it's perfected, it will have been worth it. As a topic crossover, consider the usefulness of interfaces designed for mobile devices while using VR or AR. Where the future of computing lies for design and entertainment, Microsoft is ahead of the game, and we'll appreciate every annoyance when that time comes.
The problem with your counterargument to Problem 3 is that if it's okay for Microsoft, it's okay for everybody, and if it's okay for everybody then the fractions of pennies in the data trickle becomes tens to hundreds of dollars in the data flood, depending on the number of machines using a connection. If it's unethical to spend a thousand dollars of my money for me, then it's unethical to spend a hundredth of a cent for me as well. That's one area where everybody should at least add an off switch and ultimately it would be better to hands off. ISPs charging us data caps while software engineers are perfectly comfortable spending our bandwidth for us together mean that we're just getting plain fucked.
I shouldn't get into the details of my project, but I've been thinking this over. We're going to need lots of testing for a paradigm shift in interfaces.
Okay, so your basic game camera modes are top-down, isometric, third person, and first person. Simulations build on that with chase cams, orbital cams, fixed cams, and mobile cams that rotate around the subject. In VR, each one of these will have consequences, and those consequences need to be known.
Let's start with the obvious. First person will work, right off, no changes. It's the most suited to VR. Third person will work, but where we feel like we're watching our characters when we're in third person mode on a screen, in VR we it will feel more like an out of body experience. That is, if we continue to identify with the character, otherwise we'll feel like some kind of disembodied entity following a protagonist. We have to keep the player from feeling compelled to look "around" things, so keeping from obstructing the player's view will take on a new importance. If a tree gets in the way of the shot, instead of feeling like a tree is in the way, we'll feel like we've run into a tree.
But speaking of disembodied entities, that's exactly what top-down and isometric views will feel like. So, let's hone in on that. Will virtual worlds feel like shoebox dioramas or will we feel like birds, aircraft, or perhaps deific figures peering down upon the world? These analogies can be expressed literally in virtual spaces, so playing with them in interfaces can potentially do amazing things for the experience. Imagine a city-builder game, top-down, in VR, where the occasional cloud or birds below are timed and positioned just right to reinforce that feeling. Now imagine that the borders of the window and map make us feel like we're looking down on a model. Tilt-shift post processing can become very important, very soon!
Now we come to sims. Making these the first wave of VR games is a gimmick. It's like the gratuitous addition of objects protruding from the screen in 3D movies; done just to let us get the full experience. What do you imagine in VR? Feeling like you're flying, roller coasters, feeling like you're going very fast. But look at 3D. Having arrows or monster claws or whatever come out of the screen is neat the first few times, and then it takes more finesse. Simulations will probably be just like that. But there's a much bigger issue to think about here. It becomes apparent with simulations, but applies backward through this post all the way to first person.
Hone in on that rotating cam. Can you see the potential for motion sickness and dizziness? Uh oh. That same potential applies everywhere. The awesome thing about VR is that you can feel like you're there. The tricky thing about VR will be that you feel like you're there. I foresee posts about people throwing up while playing flight sims; not even trying to be funny. So, there's some balance between free movement, the rush of certain kinds of motion, gameplay, and the not-so-nice things our brains will do to us under certain conditions.
And we have absolutely no idea how to quantify or even accurately describe the balances involved in this. VR is going to rock when it fully takes off! I can foresee even an entirely new cinematic experience where we watch movies shot such that we can feel like the director or cameraman as we go. Imagine The Matrix with a character selector and cam changer similar to video games. Yes, please! Right? But VR is also going to involve some pain. We need labs quantifying these boundaries and building limits into engines, and we need that starting two years ago!
She wouldn't, but suppose my ol' lady goes out and gets the stereotypical trashy-street-walker-looking trailer park hoochie mama outfit. Of course, it would appall me, and I'd be entitled to that opinion, right? It's her clothes, her body they're being put on, her choice. It would annoy me, but it wouldn't necessarily be a relationship-killer unless she started trying wearing it to functions where it's *really* inappropriate.
However, suppose she paid some group of people to follow me everywhere and interrupt conversations or say rude things any time I mentioned the word "clothes" without involving some kind of glowing praise for the hoochie mama outfit. That would be a relationship-killer, right? That's basically what Microsoft has done, and the mobile interface is the hoochie mama outfit.
Before I get into this, know that I understand that it will take time for Microsoft to develop their new interface paradigm, and I know that it will get better as they do so. Much of what I say here will hopefully not apply at all one day, and it's completely understandable that they need time to reach that point.
Problem 1: Multiple instances of the same program.
In the past, this was simple. Go to it in the start menu and click it again. Now, I have to look up a new set of key-click combinations or run a new search in the start screen every time I want multiple instances of the same program. This forces me into a mobile interface on desktop, and lowers my productivity by making me stop and relearn a set of shortcuts. Sure, they're not that complicated, but people don't just sit around memorizing things just for the fun of it, and the fact that we need to means a downgrade in usability and productivity.
Problem 2: The start screen forces me into a mobile interface.
Simplistic, blocky interfaces aren't so much attractive on mobile and touch screen devices as they're necessary. We tolerate them because they make the device easier to use. However, that does not automatically mean that such interfaces are aesthetically pleasing nor the most useful. The entire point of such interfaces is to overcome the limitations of a touch screen interface, so by forcing desktop users to use that kind of interface is in general a downgrade in usability and productivity.
Problem 3: Windows 8 sends to Microsoft everything we locally search.
The problem with this isn't a matter of privacy paranoia, but rather economics. ISPs today are setting artificial resource limitations to price gouge for profit. That is, data caps. When we exceed these caps, we pay. This isn't a big deal for those who don't stream anything, don't update anything, and don't download any new programs or tools. Now, on top of this, we have an OS that uses bandwidth every time we need to find a program we haven't pinned. Microsoft is effectively spending our money for us. It's inconsiderate.
Problem 4: Functionality isn't everything.
Innovation has revolved around the concept of making things easier to do. If you have two devices that do the same thing but one is easier to use, which will you prefer? So, in general, making things harder to do and pushing everybody to learn something new and more complicated does not innovate. It does exactly the opposite. Furthermore, see item 2 again. The aesthetics of the operating system are sacrificed at the same time, which means on desktop it's all a gigantic step backward.
Problem 5: The new paradigm has a negative impact on consumer perceptions.
The absolute best way for Microsoft to introduce the changes we've seen with Windows 8 would have been to make them optional at the moment of installation. We could then have chosen the interface that best suits our device. Maybe by changing Windows components and features, we could have even made changes later, say, if we bought a touch screen. Instead, Microsoft forced these changed on every desktop user with reason to upgrade and not only have they not cared what any of us think, but they've hired public relations firms to aggressively treat us like shit for having our own opinions. Everything about the first step of this transition has been inconsiderate and disrespectful.
Problem 6: Nothing about the new Windows features is necessary.
I've used Windows 8 for about a year and a half. At one point, my metro apps quick working, and Windows advised me to refresh my PC from installation disc. That would have then involved time sacrificed to updates and reconfiguration. I didn't do it. I still haven't. And there is nothing at all about metro
Loading apps drains the battery more and wears out memory faster in mobile devices than just leaving them running. Even on an Android device, everything you do is kept running until you manually kill it, and some things just immediately restart. So, there's a sound technical reason for it.
The problem is, this leaves us feeling like we don't have control of our devices, and consumers with intermediate technical skills (read: almost the entire market for Microsoft's shiny new OS) are very uncomfortable with that feeling. Experts disagree, and will point out that it depends upon what exactly is running. Personally, I would have thought that taking control of the machine away from the user was proven bad when Gateway tanked. Also, isn't that why people hated that damned paperclip?
So, there's an element of frustration with that concept among those who consider having control over our machines to be sacrosanct. Then, in niche problems (like mobile environments), we're shown that if that's the case then there must be exceptions to sacrosanct. Now, here's Microsoft in the middle trying to get it all sorted without crossing desktop users. They are absolutely guaranteed to piss off somebody. Or at least they were with Windows 8.
If they can make us feel like the old brand has returned, start menu and all, on desktop then Windows 10 will be a success, simply put. That OS will fly, and so will MS stock in that case. But marketers, PR firms, and some systems engineers are trying like hell to change our perspective on that. Meanwhile, the exact conversations we COULD be having that would accomplish what they want are practically forbidden in social media. Note that you're downmodded just for saying how you feel as a consumer. Since when is consumer preference taboo? What's next? Hating on people for having a favorite color? Aesthetics count.
It's worth putting all this out there because it has been one gigantic clusterfuck ever since Windows 8's features were revealed. And I will continue to point out that PR firms and fanbois have harmed Microsoft more than help them. I really hope Windows 10 can put this awkward, uncomfortable, frustrating dynamic to bed. The social costs of Windows 8 have undermined its value as an OS, and that's so damn silly that it's a shame I have to type it. In the Army, we called that "Mickey Mouse bullshit." All that should matter is the OS itself, and I'm optimistic about Windows 10 in that regard.
With the "publish or perish" culture thriving, more studies that help to determine what needs to be studied would be great. I fear that this doesn't happen enough because people feel like it gives away ideas that others might complete. But if the researcher who can show the need for a study can actually follow up, then they can get a head start on that work. If not, then why not let someone else do it? In academia, this is supposed to be about the good of the species and not some misguided desire to become the next science pop star.
And that's point two. If you can't do, teach. If you can't do and you can't teach, become a celebrity. Help the public understand science in layperson's terms, without the need to teach the full rigorous skill set. We need that. The step before celebrity is journalist. So, that can come full circle back to doing and teaching. If you can crystallize concepts well, and you can communicate them in a tone others respond to, then we need you helping the public. What good does it do to answer humanity's questions if nobody can understand the answer?
Unfortunately, none of this is going to change until boomers finally pass the torch once and for all. And ladies and gents, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if we don't prevent this kind of problem in the future then we're going to be far worse than boomers. Life expectancy tends to increase as the species ages.
Well, we have around a year still until the first DX12/Mantle games drop, and we haven't heard of any W10 features we can't live without. OEM won't stop shipping Windows 8 right away, so it looks like there's some time to ramp up interest and get things under control.
But I swear to God, if MS messes this one up and PR firms try to stop me from giving them crap, then I will repeat myself on every damn social media site that exists. I'll even make a (shudder) Facebook account for it.
But that won't be necessary. They got a great window to get it squared away still, and it's totally within their capabilities. Plus, with XP the original security crises that gave rise to service packs took them by surprise and they can plan for what's ahead. They got this.
And that may be true, but there's an inverse problem to the one you're replying to. If they filter the useless feedback, and the escalate the useful stuff then it's necessary that somebody deciding what is useful or not follows a set of guidelines and doesn't really know. Further, there can be organizational corruption of the process. For example, suppose a supervisor of that lower tier of feedback readers likes the aesthetics of something most people hate, so they tell readers not to escalate feedback about it.
This is a non-trivial problem. The only way to eliminate the organizational corruption potential and inject more expertise in the lower tier reading is to use a vote system, like Reddit or Slashdot. Politicians' staff does something like Slashdot, whereby feedback from constituents is categorized and summarized. But that kind of system isn't foolproof either.
It's a marketing ploy, but it's a very good one, and to some extent it certainly has helped to improve the OS. Microsoft would have to actively try to mess things up for that to not be true, and they surely wouldn't be the company they are if they did things that way. I'm hoping Windows 10 is to Windows 8 as Windows XP was to Windows ME. It very well may be, and Windows 8 isn't all that bad. DirectX 12 is almost certain to be amazing, for example.
1. It gets the deranged out of our society.
2. Their life to that point is effectively over.
3. We avoid all the problems with execution.
4. Considering that the only countries that would take them would probably enslave them, they'll die anyway.
In terms of a "home field advantage," absolutely. In terms of social theory, not at all. It depends upon whether we treat the appx 3x prize rate per capita as an input or a resultant of our considerations. It's meaningless as input, but if we try to figure out how to get it as a resultant then we can learn a lot.
There are layers of complexity here. Sweden has had its rocky relationship with the euro-style socialism that we hear more world-aware conservative politicians talk about. I've discussed that at great length with Swedes who have both good and bad ideas and feelings about it. They are equally persuasive on every level, so subjectivity can't answer this.
If I *had to* formulate a hypothesis, I'd say that the Swedish way of doing things goes to great lengths to "prime" a capitalist economy that in turn eventually erodes the previous phase's accomplishments. From that comes a great debate about when we should invest versus exploit economy. The United States, by comparison in this model, is at the worst end of the pure capitalism phase where the influences of business and personal ambition actually undermine the quality of research and development.
Hard core fiscal conservatives don't like economic stimulation, and they make it appear as if it's for simple-minded ideological reasons. But they're smarter than that, so we can further infer that economic stimulation can lead to new wealth that they fear erodes the power of old wealth. So, there we come to the conclusion that powerful people have a vested interest in keeping others from being successful due to subjective paranoia, and that too simply can't be true. Not everybody can be a Koch brother Bond villain.
So, here we are. I don't think we can solve this with investment nor policy at any level. If we're going to preserve the way we do things, and look after ourselves while being conservative at the same time, then we need science to have a relationship with laypersons as government has with constituency such that learned people are regarded as leaders who are subject to unlimited scrutiny and criticism.
The bottom line question is, therefore, are we smart enough as a nation to have capitalist science? I don't think we are, but I'm optimistic that we're taking great strides to reach that goal. As has been mentioned in this thread, science is self-correcting, so we'll always see high error right before the corrective effects kick in.
If our administrators in science don't defecate where they eat, then we'll probably see that elusive new golden era sooner. And that's going to take boomers dying and retiring. The next generation will have just as many scumbags, but they'll be relatively inexperienced scumbags.
Sweden had 5,142 researchers in R&D per capita in 2011, and the United States had 3,978. That's a ratio of 1.29 (approximately), so if we infer anything it should be that a culture that is warm to science produces more scientists and better results. I suppose we *could* pretend that there's a home advantage. We could also blame our compilers when our code has error, our lathes when we make milling mistakes, and our hammers when we miss the nail and hit ourselves. Point being, maybe we're doing it wrong by simultaneously having an anti-intellectual culture while somehow (don't ask me how) leading our laypersons to feel compelled to condescend using science they don't know.
If we want to improve, then we need to continue to make discussion of science fun. We need to continue to make sure people know that it's okay to be wrong. We need to only make the necessary mandatory, and never make people feel that we're forcing more upon them. What is necessary should become more advanced as technology advances, and casual discussion is already becoming more advanced. Aside from all this, we can only wait and hope that we don't end up with a government that hates science or businesses that intentionally corrupt it while we have a population that doesn't do either. Unfortunately, that previous sentence is a serious concern.
There's another post on this page about legislation passed in 2012 that very well explains what's going on here. The FAA certainly is lookin' to ruin fun because it's the only tool at their disposal thanks to our (yet still) incompetent national legislature. You should read that post.
The FAA aren't regulators nor is any other federal agency. They have only the authority endowed upon them by the congress, and their existence is a delegation of authority to people who know what they're doing; something a more recent congress undermined. Now we apparently have a majority party in congress that doesn't even know what authority it has, what authority past congresses delegated, nor why that authority was delegated.
The ultimate authority still rests with congress even though the current one can't seem to get over a, "Duh gubment am bad," mentality. That is, the very same congress that despises government and regulators ARE one third of the government's authority, and ARE the most powerful regulators. There are a few pejoratives I could use to describe them for that, but I won't because they'd be meant more as a diagnosis of their collective mind than an actual pejorative and somehow I doubt their fans would get that.
What does this have to do with terminal velocity? First of all, pressing a button to turn on a camera isn't so complicated that a drone pilot can't handle flying while doing it. So your alluding to that posing more of a hazard is a very poor argument. Second, terminal velocity is the downward direction speed at which acceleration due to gravity is countered by friction with the air (drag). A drone is not a penny either. Are you aware that gravitational acceleration is constant for all objects, but drag is not?
I appreciate your trying to defend the FAA. You probably think that just because I criticize them, I'm one of those online teenieboppers who just automatically hates all authority due to a rebellious young spirit. The only problem is that it's statistically likely that I'm older than you are, I'm not disrespecting the FAA's authority but rather (previously) their actions and (currently) the conditions that gave rise to their actions. It is an American's duty to criticize government... Do you know what a constitutional republic with representative democracy is? Finally, you're not going to make people feel stupid just because you throw out technical-sounding terms; it's okay to be wrong but don't condescend *and* be wrong.
Have you ever looked up just how many Bayesian algorithms have been patented? Even crackpot approaches that do literally nothing have been patented as if neither the authors nor the reviewers knew anything about Bayesian statistics or algorithms. My favorite is a way to calculate the number of iterations required to produce optimized posteriors for coupled probabilities where in order to manage computation time by knowing how many iterations the algorithm requires, it's run twice and counted forward and backward. Yes, you read that right. Somebody basically patented figuring out how many cards are in a deck by counting it twice.
Now consider how important Bayesian statistics are to science and consider the role of computation in research. Along with all the other sources of corruption, patent trolls are helping to kill research. Just another symptom of the idiocratic patent office.
Snowden talked about social control, economic espionage, etc etc... There are a lot of things that those could mean. Economic espionage could range from the somewhat innocent, possible necessary, such as monitoring potential dual application industry to ensure that weapons are not being made. But it could also mean that agencies are stealing incomplete intellectual property from citizens and giving it to huge businesses that can afford to complete and right protect it faster. Social control could mean that angry citizens are talked away from extremist groups that might operate among us, or it could mean that random agents choose people they personally dislike and harass them.
The important issues related to this topic have nothing to do with blame. People can't just drop their smart phones today any more than their cars. That's standard equipment, and one can get by without it, but only with hardship.
I'm worried primarily about two kinds of abuse: political capture of our nation (a coup through intelligence services) and theft from motivated American minds working to accomplish things that could benefit us all. The overarching problem is that there is absolutely no way for the average citizen to know these abuses are not happening.
The regulations affecting commercial flights are meant to keep people safe from disasters; not to stop people from posting footage. What about all the skydivers who do the same thing? What about passengers on commercial flights? They don't have a license; the airline or pilot does. This is just governance without a shred of common sense. That or someone at the FAA felt like being a dick and didn't expect articles about it.
The commercial use regulations are OBVIOUSLY meant to keep people from flying passengers or freight when they don't know what they're doing. Uploading a video to youtube from a drone does not endanger the public in any way so long as it's not being used to stalk somebody or invade their privacy. Obviously, footage from public spaces taken too high to make out individuals does neither of those things.
So, here's the point of the subject line: If we're going to apply laws and regulations to the utmost literal interpretation without any kind of reason or sensibility, then why don't we fire the FAA and replace them with robots? The only benefit to having actual humans perform these duties is that they can apply some measure of human common sense, whereas software would mechanically interpret everything exactly as programmed with no regard for the details.
It's more complicated than that too. This thing went back and forth between the houses of congress, the parties, and between the congress and president many times. It was a process of negotiation, and it's very common in legislation. Almost any way we describe it would be too simple.
In fact, there are only two reasons we talk about it at all. First, it's expensive and people are pissed. Second, the GOP has nearly nothing else to run on. Anti-abortion platforms isolate them from woman, which matters politically lately. Similarly, rambling drunken anti-science babbling only motivates the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of brains; Bobby Jindal said something about that once. Theocracy offends people because we know it leads to loss of freedom and, eventually, extremism.
I'm not saying any of this to insult the GOP, but rather to insult the last decade and a half or so of their marketing, post big tent and Tea Party take over. And I'm sure someone will call me a troll for saying something they disagree with. It's looking like the new GOP marketing will revolve around the party being Jesus Christ, making it blasphemy to criticize them.
I'd like to see sensible conservatives succeed more than they have, so don't get me wrong. It's just insulting when somebody takes me for someone stupid enough to be swayed by the hokey pokey obamacare anger marketing bullshit.
That depends upon whether curing the world's ills would too negatively impact those who hold the most power and wealth. I sincerely believe that when it really comes down to it, there are very powerful people who would rather see the world end than stop getting richer while it lasts.
There are four ban triggers that I can think of. In places with very high population density, letting people freely access stuff that not only can they do really stupid things with but probably will isn't a great idea because it will probably hurt, kill, or otherwise negatively impact more people. That makes New York an easy one.
Louisiana is an easy one too. Most of the people in Louisiana who aren't conservatives are felons, whether they're criminals or not. It just sort of seems to end up that way here, but we can probably guess that the process has some help. When I say "conservatives," what I mean is, "either rich of deeply theocratic." It's not so much that the constituency demanded the ban as they would have been out for legislator blood the first time some stupid stuff happened and Little Johnny Farmer Baptist got hurt.
Alaska is an easy one too. It's still mostly unsettled, and it's an effing cold place. Alcohol is a vital commodity out in the cold because it's an antiseptic, a painkiller, and it can make a person feel warm when they're not. So, two things about that. First, we can probably guess (though it isn't said) that the alcohol industry has a lot of pull in Alaska. Second, when you live in a place that can get stupidly dangerous due to natural factors that can be an everyday thing, doing more stupid stuff with chemicals is stupid^2.
Three states, three influences. I have no idea about South Carolina, but I have one more idea about a ban trigger: constituency pressure. It would be hard to guess how much of the influence was actual pressure from voters versus anticipated pressure, but I bet it's a similar situation as in Louisiana (though probably for totally different reasons).
If I'm right, then California will ban it after scientifically proving it's unhealthy for reasons none of us have thought of, Texas will ban it if they're paid to, Florida will ban it if the GOP says it should, and New Jersey will eventually make Powdered Alcohol Day a state holiday. Every other state will probably shrug and ignore it -- except for beverage manufacturers. You know, the only people who have a really good reason to buy the stuff to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody out there decided that as a developer, I'm not allowed to have ideas about the future of development... I wonder how many Slashdot moderation points are spent by people who favor competing sites and want to try and make Slashdot less useful for discussion. Funny thing about that is that a lot of the competitors have made their platforms useless for discussion for years and refuse to improve anything. I guess if you can't discuss, you disrupt, and if you can't develop, you cheat. Well, in terms of the understood "you" anyway. I don't.
At least we're all optimistic about Windows 10! That's a pretty good sign, and this socially and technologically awkward transition phase will not be missed (lmao). Thanks for the HowToGeek link! Off I go to read that right now!
It is! ..to an extent. Video game consoles are used for goofing off. Desktop computers are used to goof off, sure, but also to do work, store sensitive data, and pay bills. When video game consoles are sitting on the desks at architectural firms and law offices, instead of PCs, your point will hold.
You make a good point on Problem 6, and in fact capture the core of my patience where this is concerned. It's a painful transition, but when it's perfected, it will have been worth it. As a topic crossover, consider the usefulness of interfaces designed for mobile devices while using VR or AR. Where the future of computing lies for design and entertainment, Microsoft is ahead of the game, and we'll appreciate every annoyance when that time comes.
The problem with your counterargument to Problem 3 is that if it's okay for Microsoft, it's okay for everybody, and if it's okay for everybody then the fractions of pennies in the data trickle becomes tens to hundreds of dollars in the data flood, depending on the number of machines using a connection. If it's unethical to spend a thousand dollars of my money for me, then it's unethical to spend a hundredth of a cent for me as well. That's one area where everybody should at least add an off switch and ultimately it would be better to hands off. ISPs charging us data caps while software engineers are perfectly comfortable spending our bandwidth for us together mean that we're just getting plain fucked.
I shouldn't get into the details of my project, but I've been thinking this over. We're going to need lots of testing for a paradigm shift in interfaces.
Okay, so your basic game camera modes are top-down, isometric, third person, and first person. Simulations build on that with chase cams, orbital cams, fixed cams, and mobile cams that rotate around the subject. In VR, each one of these will have consequences, and those consequences need to be known.
Let's start with the obvious. First person will work, right off, no changes. It's the most suited to VR. Third person will work, but where we feel like we're watching our characters when we're in third person mode on a screen, in VR we it will feel more like an out of body experience. That is, if we continue to identify with the character, otherwise we'll feel like some kind of disembodied entity following a protagonist. We have to keep the player from feeling compelled to look "around" things, so keeping from obstructing the player's view will take on a new importance. If a tree gets in the way of the shot, instead of feeling like a tree is in the way, we'll feel like we've run into a tree.
But speaking of disembodied entities, that's exactly what top-down and isometric views will feel like. So, let's hone in on that. Will virtual worlds feel like shoebox dioramas or will we feel like birds, aircraft, or perhaps deific figures peering down upon the world? These analogies can be expressed literally in virtual spaces, so playing with them in interfaces can potentially do amazing things for the experience. Imagine a city-builder game, top-down, in VR, where the occasional cloud or birds below are timed and positioned just right to reinforce that feeling. Now imagine that the borders of the window and map make us feel like we're looking down on a model. Tilt-shift post processing can become very important, very soon!
Now we come to sims. Making these the first wave of VR games is a gimmick. It's like the gratuitous addition of objects protruding from the screen in 3D movies; done just to let us get the full experience. What do you imagine in VR? Feeling like you're flying, roller coasters, feeling like you're going very fast. But look at 3D. Having arrows or monster claws or whatever come out of the screen is neat the first few times, and then it takes more finesse. Simulations will probably be just like that. But there's a much bigger issue to think about here. It becomes apparent with simulations, but applies backward through this post all the way to first person.
Hone in on that rotating cam. Can you see the potential for motion sickness and dizziness? Uh oh. That same potential applies everywhere. The awesome thing about VR is that you can feel like you're there. The tricky thing about VR will be that you feel like you're there. I foresee posts about people throwing up while playing flight sims; not even trying to be funny. So, there's some balance between free movement, the rush of certain kinds of motion, gameplay, and the not-so-nice things our brains will do to us under certain conditions.
And we have absolutely no idea how to quantify or even accurately describe the balances involved in this. VR is going to rock when it fully takes off! I can foresee even an entirely new cinematic experience where we watch movies shot such that we can feel like the director or cameraman as we go. Imagine The Matrix with a character selector and cam changer similar to video games. Yes, please! Right? But VR is also going to involve some pain. We need labs quantifying these boundaries and building limits into engines, and we need that starting two years ago!
I just thought of the perfect analogy!
She wouldn't, but suppose my ol' lady goes out and gets the stereotypical trashy-street-walker-looking trailer park hoochie mama outfit. Of course, it would appall me, and I'd be entitled to that opinion, right? It's her clothes, her body they're being put on, her choice. It would annoy me, but it wouldn't necessarily be a relationship-killer unless she started trying wearing it to functions where it's *really* inappropriate.
However, suppose she paid some group of people to follow me everywhere and interrupt conversations or say rude things any time I mentioned the word "clothes" without involving some kind of glowing praise for the hoochie mama outfit. That would be a relationship-killer, right? That's basically what Microsoft has done, and the mobile interface is the hoochie mama outfit.
Before I get into this, know that I understand that it will take time for Microsoft to develop their new interface paradigm, and I know that it will get better as they do so. Much of what I say here will hopefully not apply at all one day, and it's completely understandable that they need time to reach that point.
Problem 1: Multiple instances of the same program.
In the past, this was simple. Go to it in the start menu and click it again. Now, I have to look up a new set of key-click combinations or run a new search in the start screen every time I want multiple instances of the same program. This forces me into a mobile interface on desktop, and lowers my productivity by making me stop and relearn a set of shortcuts. Sure, they're not that complicated, but people don't just sit around memorizing things just for the fun of it, and the fact that we need to means a downgrade in usability and productivity.
(https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/e9fd8b8a-bc5f-48a8-9e18-6da070c0caec/how-to-run-multiple-instances-of-the-same-application-from-the-metro-interface?forum=w8itproappcompat)
Problem 2: The start screen forces me into a mobile interface.
Simplistic, blocky interfaces aren't so much attractive on mobile and touch screen devices as they're necessary. We tolerate them because they make the device easier to use. However, that does not automatically mean that such interfaces are aesthetically pleasing nor the most useful. The entire point of such interfaces is to overcome the limitations of a touch screen interface, so by forcing desktop users to use that kind of interface is in general a downgrade in usability and productivity.
Problem 3: Windows 8 sends to Microsoft everything we locally search.
The problem with this isn't a matter of privacy paranoia, but rather economics. ISPs today are setting artificial resource limitations to price gouge for profit. That is, data caps. When we exceed these caps, we pay. This isn't a big deal for those who don't stream anything, don't update anything, and don't download any new programs or tools. Now, on top of this, we have an OS that uses bandwidth every time we need to find a program we haven't pinned. Microsoft is effectively spending our money for us. It's inconsiderate.
Problem 4: Functionality isn't everything.
Innovation has revolved around the concept of making things easier to do. If you have two devices that do the same thing but one is easier to use, which will you prefer? So, in general, making things harder to do and pushing everybody to learn something new and more complicated does not innovate. It does exactly the opposite. Furthermore, see item 2 again. The aesthetics of the operating system are sacrificed at the same time, which means on desktop it's all a gigantic step backward.
Problem 5: The new paradigm has a negative impact on consumer perceptions.
The absolute best way for Microsoft to introduce the changes we've seen with Windows 8 would have been to make them optional at the moment of installation. We could then have chosen the interface that best suits our device. Maybe by changing Windows components and features, we could have even made changes later, say, if we bought a touch screen. Instead, Microsoft forced these changed on every desktop user with reason to upgrade and not only have they not cared what any of us think, but they've hired public relations firms to aggressively treat us like shit for having our own opinions. Everything about the first step of this transition has been inconsiderate and disrespectful.
Problem 6: Nothing about the new Windows features is necessary.
I've used Windows 8 for about a year and a half. At one point, my metro apps quick working, and Windows advised me to refresh my PC from installation disc. That would have then involved time sacrificed to updates and reconfiguration. I didn't do it. I still haven't. And there is nothing at all about metro
Loading apps drains the battery more and wears out memory faster in mobile devices than just leaving them running. Even on an Android device, everything you do is kept running until you manually kill it, and some things just immediately restart. So, there's a sound technical reason for it.
The problem is, this leaves us feeling like we don't have control of our devices, and consumers with intermediate technical skills (read: almost the entire market for Microsoft's shiny new OS) are very uncomfortable with that feeling. Experts disagree, and will point out that it depends upon what exactly is running. Personally, I would have thought that taking control of the machine away from the user was proven bad when Gateway tanked. Also, isn't that why people hated that damned paperclip?
So, there's an element of frustration with that concept among those who consider having control over our machines to be sacrosanct. Then, in niche problems (like mobile environments), we're shown that if that's the case then there must be exceptions to sacrosanct. Now, here's Microsoft in the middle trying to get it all sorted without crossing desktop users. They are absolutely guaranteed to piss off somebody. Or at least they were with Windows 8.
If they can make us feel like the old brand has returned, start menu and all, on desktop then Windows 10 will be a success, simply put. That OS will fly, and so will MS stock in that case. But marketers, PR firms, and some systems engineers are trying like hell to change our perspective on that. Meanwhile, the exact conversations we COULD be having that would accomplish what they want are practically forbidden in social media. Note that you're downmodded just for saying how you feel as a consumer. Since when is consumer preference taboo? What's next? Hating on people for having a favorite color? Aesthetics count.
It's worth putting all this out there because it has been one gigantic clusterfuck ever since Windows 8's features were revealed. And I will continue to point out that PR firms and fanbois have harmed Microsoft more than help them. I really hope Windows 10 can put this awkward, uncomfortable, frustrating dynamic to bed. The social costs of Windows 8 have undermined its value as an OS, and that's so damn silly that it's a shame I have to type it. In the Army, we called that "Mickey Mouse bullshit." All that should matter is the OS itself, and I'm optimistic about Windows 10 in that regard.
With the "publish or perish" culture thriving, more studies that help to determine what needs to be studied would be great. I fear that this doesn't happen enough because people feel like it gives away ideas that others might complete. But if the researcher who can show the need for a study can actually follow up, then they can get a head start on that work. If not, then why not let someone else do it? In academia, this is supposed to be about the good of the species and not some misguided desire to become the next science pop star.
And that's point two. If you can't do, teach. If you can't do and you can't teach, become a celebrity. Help the public understand science in layperson's terms, without the need to teach the full rigorous skill set. We need that. The step before celebrity is journalist. So, that can come full circle back to doing and teaching. If you can crystallize concepts well, and you can communicate them in a tone others respond to, then we need you helping the public. What good does it do to answer humanity's questions if nobody can understand the answer?
Unfortunately, none of this is going to change until boomers finally pass the torch once and for all. And ladies and gents, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if we don't prevent this kind of problem in the future then we're going to be far worse than boomers. Life expectancy tends to increase as the species ages.
Well, we have around a year still until the first DX12/Mantle games drop, and we haven't heard of any W10 features we can't live without. OEM won't stop shipping Windows 8 right away, so it looks like there's some time to ramp up interest and get things under control.
But I swear to God, if MS messes this one up and PR firms try to stop me from giving them crap, then I will repeat myself on every damn social media site that exists. I'll even make a (shudder) Facebook account for it.
But that won't be necessary. They got a great window to get it squared away still, and it's totally within their capabilities. Plus, with XP the original security crises that gave rise to service packs took them by surprise and they can plan for what's ahead. They got this.
And that may be true, but there's an inverse problem to the one you're replying to. If they filter the useless feedback, and the escalate the useful stuff then it's necessary that somebody deciding what is useful or not follows a set of guidelines and doesn't really know. Further, there can be organizational corruption of the process. For example, suppose a supervisor of that lower tier of feedback readers likes the aesthetics of something most people hate, so they tell readers not to escalate feedback about it.
This is a non-trivial problem. The only way to eliminate the organizational corruption potential and inject more expertise in the lower tier reading is to use a vote system, like Reddit or Slashdot. Politicians' staff does something like Slashdot, whereby feedback from constituents is categorized and summarized. But that kind of system isn't foolproof either.
It's a marketing ploy, but it's a very good one, and to some extent it certainly has helped to improve the OS. Microsoft would have to actively try to mess things up for that to not be true, and they surely wouldn't be the company they are if they did things that way. I'm hoping Windows 10 is to Windows 8 as Windows XP was to Windows ME. It very well may be, and Windows 8 isn't all that bad. DirectX 12 is almost certain to be amazing, for example.
1. It gets the deranged out of our society.
2. Their life to that point is effectively over.
3. We avoid all the problems with execution.
4. Considering that the only countries that would take them would probably enslave them, they'll die anyway.
In terms of a "home field advantage," absolutely. In terms of social theory, not at all. It depends upon whether we treat the appx 3x prize rate per capita as an input or a resultant of our considerations. It's meaningless as input, but if we try to figure out how to get it as a resultant then we can learn a lot.
There are layers of complexity here. Sweden has had its rocky relationship with the euro-style socialism that we hear more world-aware conservative politicians talk about. I've discussed that at great length with Swedes who have both good and bad ideas and feelings about it. They are equally persuasive on every level, so subjectivity can't answer this.
If I *had to* formulate a hypothesis, I'd say that the Swedish way of doing things goes to great lengths to "prime" a capitalist economy that in turn eventually erodes the previous phase's accomplishments. From that comes a great debate about when we should invest versus exploit economy. The United States, by comparison in this model, is at the worst end of the pure capitalism phase where the influences of business and personal ambition actually undermine the quality of research and development.
Hard core fiscal conservatives don't like economic stimulation, and they make it appear as if it's for simple-minded ideological reasons. But they're smarter than that, so we can further infer that economic stimulation can lead to new wealth that they fear erodes the power of old wealth. So, there we come to the conclusion that powerful people have a vested interest in keeping others from being successful due to subjective paranoia, and that too simply can't be true. Not everybody can be a Koch brother Bond villain.
So, here we are. I don't think we can solve this with investment nor policy at any level. If we're going to preserve the way we do things, and look after ourselves while being conservative at the same time, then we need science to have a relationship with laypersons as government has with constituency such that learned people are regarded as leaders who are subject to unlimited scrutiny and criticism.
The bottom line question is, therefore, are we smart enough as a nation to have capitalist science? I don't think we are, but I'm optimistic that we're taking great strides to reach that goal. As has been mentioned in this thread, science is self-correcting, so we'll always see high error right before the corrective effects kick in.
If our administrators in science don't defecate where they eat, then we'll probably see that elusive new golden era sooner. And that's going to take boomers dying and retiring. The next generation will have just as many scumbags, but they'll be relatively inexperienced scumbags.
If you check replies to that comment, then you'll see a citation to the World Bank for that data.
Oh, pooh-berries. Should have cited. Here ya go! http://data.worldbank.org/indi...
Sweden had 5,142 researchers in R&D per capita in 2011, and the United States had 3,978. That's a ratio of 1.29 (approximately), so if we infer anything it should be that a culture that is warm to science produces more scientists and better results. I suppose we *could* pretend that there's a home advantage. We could also blame our compilers when our code has error, our lathes when we make milling mistakes, and our hammers when we miss the nail and hit ourselves. Point being, maybe we're doing it wrong by simultaneously having an anti-intellectual culture while somehow (don't ask me how) leading our laypersons to feel compelled to condescend using science they don't know.
If we want to improve, then we need to continue to make discussion of science fun. We need to continue to make sure people know that it's okay to be wrong. We need to only make the necessary mandatory, and never make people feel that we're forcing more upon them. What is necessary should become more advanced as technology advances, and casual discussion is already becoming more advanced. Aside from all this, we can only wait and hope that we don't end up with a government that hates science or businesses that intentionally corrupt it while we have a population that doesn't do either. Unfortunately, that previous sentence is a serious concern.
There's another post on this page about legislation passed in 2012 that very well explains what's going on here. The FAA certainly is lookin' to ruin fun because it's the only tool at their disposal thanks to our (yet still) incompetent national legislature. You should read that post.
The FAA aren't regulators nor is any other federal agency. They have only the authority endowed upon them by the congress, and their existence is a delegation of authority to people who know what they're doing; something a more recent congress undermined. Now we apparently have a majority party in congress that doesn't even know what authority it has, what authority past congresses delegated, nor why that authority was delegated.
The ultimate authority still rests with congress even though the current one can't seem to get over a, "Duh gubment am bad," mentality. That is, the very same congress that despises government and regulators ARE one third of the government's authority, and ARE the most powerful regulators. There are a few pejoratives I could use to describe them for that, but I won't because they'd be meant more as a diagnosis of their collective mind than an actual pejorative and somehow I doubt their fans would get that.
What does this have to do with terminal velocity? First of all, pressing a button to turn on a camera isn't so complicated that a drone pilot can't handle flying while doing it. So your alluding to that posing more of a hazard is a very poor argument. Second, terminal velocity is the downward direction speed at which acceleration due to gravity is countered by friction with the air (drag). A drone is not a penny either. Are you aware that gravitational acceleration is constant for all objects, but drag is not?
I appreciate your trying to defend the FAA. You probably think that just because I criticize them, I'm one of those online teenieboppers who just automatically hates all authority due to a rebellious young spirit. The only problem is that it's statistically likely that I'm older than you are, I'm not disrespecting the FAA's authority but rather (previously) their actions and (currently) the conditions that gave rise to their actions. It is an American's duty to criticize government... Do you know what a constitutional republic with representative democracy is? Finally, you're not going to make people feel stupid just because you throw out technical-sounding terms; it's okay to be wrong but don't condescend *and* be wrong.
Have you ever looked up just how many Bayesian algorithms have been patented? Even crackpot approaches that do literally nothing have been patented as if neither the authors nor the reviewers knew anything about Bayesian statistics or algorithms. My favorite is a way to calculate the number of iterations required to produce optimized posteriors for coupled probabilities where in order to manage computation time by knowing how many iterations the algorithm requires, it's run twice and counted forward and backward. Yes, you read that right. Somebody basically patented figuring out how many cards are in a deck by counting it twice.
Now consider how important Bayesian statistics are to science and consider the role of computation in research. Along with all the other sources of corruption, patent trolls are helping to kill research. Just another symptom of the idiocratic patent office.
Snowden talked about social control, economic espionage, etc etc... There are a lot of things that those could mean. Economic espionage could range from the somewhat innocent, possible necessary, such as monitoring potential dual application industry to ensure that weapons are not being made. But it could also mean that agencies are stealing incomplete intellectual property from citizens and giving it to huge businesses that can afford to complete and right protect it faster. Social control could mean that angry citizens are talked away from extremist groups that might operate among us, or it could mean that random agents choose people they personally dislike and harass them.
The important issues related to this topic have nothing to do with blame. People can't just drop their smart phones today any more than their cars. That's standard equipment, and one can get by without it, but only with hardship.
I'm worried primarily about two kinds of abuse: political capture of our nation (a coup through intelligence services) and theft from motivated American minds working to accomplish things that could benefit us all. The overarching problem is that there is absolutely no way for the average citizen to know these abuses are not happening.
The regulations affecting commercial flights are meant to keep people safe from disasters; not to stop people from posting footage. What about all the skydivers who do the same thing? What about passengers on commercial flights? They don't have a license; the airline or pilot does. This is just governance without a shred of common sense. That or someone at the FAA felt like being a dick and didn't expect articles about it.
The commercial use regulations are OBVIOUSLY meant to keep people from flying passengers or freight when they don't know what they're doing. Uploading a video to youtube from a drone does not endanger the public in any way so long as it's not being used to stalk somebody or invade their privacy. Obviously, footage from public spaces taken too high to make out individuals does neither of those things.
So, here's the point of the subject line: If we're going to apply laws and regulations to the utmost literal interpretation without any kind of reason or sensibility, then why don't we fire the FAA and replace them with robots? The only benefit to having actual humans perform these duties is that they can apply some measure of human common sense, whereas software would mechanically interpret everything exactly as programmed with no regard for the details.
It's more complicated than that too. This thing went back and forth between the houses of congress, the parties, and between the congress and president many times. It was a process of negotiation, and it's very common in legislation. Almost any way we describe it would be too simple.
In fact, there are only two reasons we talk about it at all. First, it's expensive and people are pissed. Second, the GOP has nearly nothing else to run on. Anti-abortion platforms isolate them from woman, which matters politically lately. Similarly, rambling drunken anti-science babbling only motivates the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of brains; Bobby Jindal said something about that once. Theocracy offends people because we know it leads to loss of freedom and, eventually, extremism.
I'm not saying any of this to insult the GOP, but rather to insult the last decade and a half or so of their marketing, post big tent and Tea Party take over. And I'm sure someone will call me a troll for saying something they disagree with. It's looking like the new GOP marketing will revolve around the party being Jesus Christ, making it blasphemy to criticize them.
I'd like to see sensible conservatives succeed more than they have, so don't get me wrong. It's just insulting when somebody takes me for someone stupid enough to be swayed by the hokey pokey obamacare anger marketing bullshit.
That depends upon whether curing the world's ills would too negatively impact those who hold the most power and wealth. I sincerely believe that when it really comes down to it, there are very powerful people who would rather see the world end than stop getting richer while it lasts.
There are four ban triggers that I can think of. In places with very high population density, letting people freely access stuff that not only can they do really stupid things with but probably will isn't a great idea because it will probably hurt, kill, or otherwise negatively impact more people. That makes New York an easy one.
Louisiana is an easy one too. Most of the people in Louisiana who aren't conservatives are felons, whether they're criminals or not. It just sort of seems to end up that way here, but we can probably guess that the process has some help. When I say "conservatives," what I mean is, "either rich of deeply theocratic." It's not so much that the constituency demanded the ban as they would have been out for legislator blood the first time some stupid stuff happened and Little Johnny Farmer Baptist got hurt.
Alaska is an easy one too. It's still mostly unsettled, and it's an effing cold place. Alcohol is a vital commodity out in the cold because it's an antiseptic, a painkiller, and it can make a person feel warm when they're not. So, two things about that. First, we can probably guess (though it isn't said) that the alcohol industry has a lot of pull in Alaska. Second, when you live in a place that can get stupidly dangerous due to natural factors that can be an everyday thing, doing more stupid stuff with chemicals is stupid^2.
Three states, three influences. I have no idea about South Carolina, but I have one more idea about a ban trigger: constituency pressure. It would be hard to guess how much of the influence was actual pressure from voters versus anticipated pressure, but I bet it's a similar situation as in Louisiana (though probably for totally different reasons).
If I'm right, then California will ban it after scientifically proving it's unhealthy for reasons none of us have thought of, Texas will ban it if they're paid to, Florida will ban it if the GOP says it should, and New Jersey will eventually make Powdered Alcohol Day a state holiday. Every other state will probably shrug and ignore it -- except for beverage manufacturers. You know, the only people who have a really good reason to buy the stuff to begin with.
Okay, so it must be helium fusion going on in dwarfs then? I will look that up and read later (soon as I'm not a human jungle gym).