I have have been thinking about this kind of technology for the last year ever since starting with OpenGL. I have a few random brain farts to share so here goes...
I don't see this complex interface working. I see the 2D windowed GUI and FPS games merging at some point in the future. People would navigate through the office, and 'carry' papers. Character in the virtual office could have labels detailing their names and any files they have checked out (or records they have locked). This is the way characters are identified in multiplayer FPS, so it could work.
I believe that over the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, people are just too used to thinking of things spatially. That's why we have the end-user who so badly wishes the office was how it was before, manual filing in cabinets in room 1A-220. He knew how to get up and walk there, and would spend the morning searching up his file. But he knew how at least.
I'm not saying just make an FPS display files instead of weapons, most end-users would have a mental freak-out. User controls would have to be super-intuitive, and the display would have to be responsive and large (it has been shown that dizzyness and disorientation can be minimized with larger and wider displays).
Other people in a database at the same time could see each other, and they could see who 'took' (read: locked) and record. External connections (passing outside a corporate network) could involve that character leaving the virtual building onto the virtual 'main street' and seeing all their options for external connections. It would be analogous to downtown shopping.
Power users could see all this navigation as a waste of time, and for those of us who are familiar with command-line use of computers need not use this interface. Just as we don't use the 2D GUI now, we would not be forced into the 3D one into the furture. However I do see the 3D navigation as a boon to some end-users. They could virtually 'file' documents in their virtual 'filing cabinets'. When in essence they are finally properly modifying and saving their online work for once in their lives! The added time in this navigation would truly (I believe) pay dividends.
But truly, a 3D repesentation of 2D windows will just serve to complicate matters. And cool spheres and icons will just further confuse people. Make it as close to reality as you can with simple, super intutive controls and and great wide display and I think we can realise the next computing revolution as far as a GUI is concerned.
I accept laws that protect innocent people from harm. I can also accept that those laws will span all types of violations, including mental, emotional and physical assaults.
What I do have trouble with are "morality" laws imposed by majority (sometimes not) where niether direct or indirect harm comes to an innocent person. These are laws such as "wear your seat belt" - it's a very good idea... but my own problem if I don't. Another example is "don't do pot" - I don't do it personally, but I think folk should free to do as they please - as long as they do not violate anyone else's rights. If someone assaults an innocent person while under the influence of drug "x" then that's their problem, that's the risk of taking the drug - and they should be prosecuted accordingly for the assault, but not for the drugs. Another worthy mention is gay rights and marriages... I really feel badly for all those people, what they live through is just not fair.
These kind of morality enforcements are everywhere now, I can only shake my head. How does the rest of slashdot feel about this?
That's my $0.02
Re:Ethics? Where was the human studies committee?
on
Smart Kindergarten
·
· Score: 1
Precisely why is it more valuable scientifically to track kids' classroom interactions than it would be to track the interactions of, say, executives working in a corporation?
My cynical answer: it isn't. They're studying kids because no adult would ever be likely to give permission to be studied in that way.
I was just thinking the same thing. IMO, allowing this sort of study and monitoring is the first step to accepting and even condoning "Big Brother", a la 1984
I'd have to agree. I'm employed as a programmer within a software development/solutions company and.Net has closed in on much of the development. We actually have clients asking for the software to be developed in.Net. Also, I should add that at home I use Linux with gcc/Emacs exclusively, I'm not in any way a Microsoft fan, yet I still find.Net a very nice product. Just being truthful.
This is a funny thing. Both countries say that the are free, and that its people are free, but I find something very wrong with the outlawing of drugs. Do people not realize that this is in violation of their rights? Now I do not use any drug, other than an occasional beer or wine, so I'm not a "user" arguing for the free usage of pot - BUT - it seems to me that this is a law designed to impede actions based on another group's particular set of moral standards.
Law and order is not about dictating moral code, as it is sometimes used in both the US and Canada, but to protect the innocent against crime. That's where law should end. If I am directly harming another human being through theft or rape or assault or whatever I should be punished, because at that point I have extended my decisions to directly negatively affect someone else. The argument that the use of drugs will lead to the inevitable crime against other persons does no sit with me. People adopting such an attitude are basically saying they can without doubt see the future, and no matter what the trends suggest, no one can predict that. There are many other examples - wear your seatbelt under penalty of fine; instances of swinger parties being broken up for unmoral conduct; the whole drug thing (not just pot, but others as well... if you commit a crime while under inflence THEN there is reason for punishment); law stating homosexual couples cannot be wed. The list can go on and on...
a small portion of that [allergies] might be due to the spreading and interbreeding of long isolated groups of humans- thus spreading around genes for hypersensitivities.
Sorry, but I must disagree with you here. My mother is half Spanish, half Italian (who is actually from Italy, and moved to Canada after her birth) and my father is half Scottish half we-don't-know (who's family moved to Canada before his birth). I think my genetic makeup is rather messy (or diverse... half full or half empty right). However, I have extreme hayfever, along with other reactions to insect bites. Oddly enough, neither parent has a sensitivy... go figure. From personal experience, I'd guess that your first hypothesis (pollution of environment) is spot on! Achoo!
making 64 bit chips is not the only way to "court" the gaming market. I'm sure intel has other plans for bigger (read: smaller) and better chips. Eventually I think they will start to make the 64's, but for now they're making chips with Hyper Threading (great for game servers).
Please don't take offense, but it seems to me this is a bit like saying there is no market for airtravel before there were airplanes, or more accurately no market for computer games before there were home computers. To me, market isn't something that's evident before creating something, market is the need/want of a certain community for product or service. I'd say the want for high fidelity gaming is pretty high, as demonstrated by the push by directx9 cards toward fp precision. Just my opinion.
You're missing the point. Crime will obviously exist in many forms. It's the rate you should be concerned with. While RATES OF CRIMES NOT INVOLVING FIREARM ARE SIMILAR (very close) IN BOTH COUNTRIES, VIOLENT CRIME AND DEATH RATES INVOLVING FIREARMS (and particularly small handguns) ARE MANY FOLD GREATER IN THE US THAN CANADA. I would argue that this problem exists because of the American attitude toward the right to bear firearms, especially handguns.
Everyone talks about how the other didn't do his/her research, yet all so often the counter arguments resort to being sarcastic and emotional devoid of any factual analysis. Talk is cheap my friends. Let's do it then... This will be a quick comparo between two similar countries (well close enough).
Guns per capita Canada:.25 US:.82 rate increase: 3.3x
Suicides with Firearms Canada: 3.4 US: 6.4 rate increase: 1.9x
Total Firearms Deaths Canada: 4.3 US: 11.4 rate increase: 2.7x
Crime Statistics (Rate per 100,000) Canada
Murders with Firearms Canada: 0.5 US: 4.4 rate increase: 7.9x
Murders with Handguns Canada: 0.23 US: 3.3 rate increase: 14.5x
Robberies with Guns Canada: 18 US: 63 rate increase: 3.5x
The only way I could explain away the significant rate increases of violent gun related crime is if all crime rates were much higher, that is, non-gun crime instances were in the realm of 5X-14X greater in the US than Canada. If you subscribe to that line of thought, these next stats may surprise you.
Roberries without Guns Canada: 78 US: 102 rate increase: 1.3x
Murders without Guns Canada: 1.3 US: 2.3 rate increase: 1.8x
Very close. Without significant increase of baseline non-firearm related crime, I'd say the presence of more gun per capita actually instigates more violent crime, and higher death rates due to violent crime. If some believe this makes a nation free, I'd encourage them to take a deeper look.
Given our inability to forecast weather accurately at any interval, I doubt very much the computers can handle the much greater complexities of climate change. Certainly more research is warranted and we may yet find some links to human activity that need to be addressed.
It's much easier to forecast a longterm gradual change such as an average yearly temperature increase, because these are trends that have developed over the course of a good many years. Therefore, it is much easier to iterate an everage temperature several years from than it is to accurately forecast whether or not it will rain this weekend.
When modelling local weather, you must take into account local area influences, such as local pressure, humidity, the jet stream and then incorporate factory outside your local region (for example a rigde of high pressure moving in). This all makes for an extraordinarily complex mathematical model, usually only predicting well for 2-3 days (after that- who the hell knows!).
Modeling global warming I'm sure is just as complex, but the important thing to remember is the time span they're working in. They're not predicting specifics, only marking a trend that's been recorded for many many years. So when predicting 10-20 years in advance with respect to avg. temperature, is probably similar to a 2-3 day forecast in weather.
Consider the materials necessary for flight alone.
For a kite that size to sustain it's structural integrity under even light-moderate winds requires very strong materials in the wing itself (like nylon) and the assembly that shapes the kite (more than likely tubing from an aluminium alloy). The moments produced around assembled components would be surprisingly high, especially near the center if the wing.
Although the Egyptians were known for managing huge loads, it seems to me they wouldn't have anything strong or light enough to support these kinds of forces. (My point being, if they did construct a wing, the freakin' Kite would most likely weigh several hundred pounds itself)
Linux IS a real OS.
Technically, an OS is simply software that enables the hardware it is installed on to function. Linux is obviously capable of this.
What I think you mean to say is that Linux is not a truly marketable product. That is, the fact that Linux is freely distributable software really undermines any potential that the OS can be made profitable. Sure, people order RH 7.1 and pay the $39, but having the option to download it for free really puts a bite into the value of the marked product. In this sense, I'd have to agree that the whole Linux PRODUCT is not real, and sadly is not financially sustainable within today's business model.
Having said that doesn't mean I think Linux will die either. The Linux community strongly stands for quality software, free information, sharing of ideas and technical experimentation. Since the Linux community is directly responsible for the OS's change and growth, Linux has become the representation of all these ideals. It is a project which many believe in, so as an OS Linux is real, superior and will never die.
A product sells for profit, and once it becomes unprofitable it will vanish. A project built on ideals will always be...well... whatever you want it to be. This is more true an OS than even the most profitable product.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, well maybe not Quake style, but...
I have have been thinking about this kind of technology for the last year ever since starting with OpenGL. I have a few random brain farts to share so here goes...
I don't see this complex interface working. I see the 2D windowed GUI and FPS games merging at some point in the future. People would navigate through the office, and 'carry' papers. Character in the virtual office could have labels detailing their names and any files they have checked out (or records they have locked). This is the way characters are identified in multiplayer FPS, so it could work.
I believe that over the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, people are just too used to thinking of things spatially. That's why we have the end-user who so badly wishes the office was how it was before, manual filing in cabinets in room 1A-220. He knew how to get up and walk there, and would spend the morning searching up his file. But he knew how at least.
I'm not saying just make an FPS display files instead of weapons, most end-users would have a mental freak-out. User controls would have to be super-intuitive, and the display would have to be responsive and large (it has been shown that dizzyness and disorientation can be minimized with larger and wider displays).
Other people in a database at the same time could see each other, and they could see who 'took' (read: locked) and record. External connections (passing outside a corporate network) could involve that character leaving the virtual building onto the virtual 'main street' and seeing all their options for external connections. It would be analogous to downtown shopping.
Power users could see all this navigation as a waste of time, and for those of us who are familiar with command-line use of computers need not use this interface. Just as we don't use the 2D GUI now, we would not be forced into the 3D one into the furture. However I do see the 3D navigation as a boon to some end-users. They could virtually 'file' documents in their virtual 'filing cabinets'. When in essence they are finally properly modifying and saving their online work for once in their lives! The added time in this navigation would truly (I believe) pay dividends.
But truly, a 3D repesentation of 2D windows will just serve to complicate matters. And cool spheres and icons will just further confuse people. Make it as close to reality as you can with simple, super intutive controls and and great wide display and I think we can realise the next computing revolution as far as a GUI is concerned.
He he... I see we've come full circle on this one.
... and yet somehow this site is slashdotted. Go figure.
I accept laws that protect innocent people from harm. I can also accept that those laws will span all types of violations, including mental, emotional and physical assaults.
What I do have trouble with are "morality" laws imposed by majority (sometimes not) where niether direct or indirect harm comes to an innocent person. These are laws such as "wear your seat belt" - it's a very good idea... but my own problem if I don't. Another example is "don't do pot" - I don't do it personally, but I think folk should free to do as they please - as long as they do not violate anyone else's rights. If someone assaults an innocent person while under the influence of drug "x" then that's their problem, that's the risk of taking the drug - and they should be prosecuted accordingly for the assault, but not for the drugs. Another worthy mention is gay rights and marriages... I really feel badly for all those people, what they live through is just not fair.
These kind of morality enforcements are everywhere now, I can only shake my head. How does the rest of slashdot feel about this?
That's my $0.02
Precisely why is it more valuable scientifically to track kids' classroom interactions than it would be to track the interactions of, say, executives working in a corporation?
My cynical answer: it isn't. They're studying kids because no adult would ever be likely to give permission to be studied in that way.
I was just thinking the same thing. IMO, allowing this sort of study and monitoring is the first step to accepting and even condoning "Big Brother", a la 1984
I'd have to agree. I'm employed as a programmer within a software development/solutions company and .Net has closed in on much of the development. We actually have clients asking for the software to be developed in .Net. Also, I should add that at home I use Linux with gcc/Emacs exclusively, I'm not in any way a Microsoft fan, yet I still find .Net a very nice product. Just being truthful.
This is a funny thing. Both countries say that the are free, and that its people are free, but I find something very wrong with the outlawing of drugs. Do people not realize that this is in violation of their rights? Now I do not use any drug, other than an occasional beer or wine, so I'm not a "user" arguing for the free usage of pot - BUT - it seems to me that this is a law designed to impede actions based on another group's particular set of moral standards.
./ ers feel about this?
Law and order is not about dictating moral code, as it is sometimes used in both the US and Canada, but to protect the innocent against crime. That's where law should end. If I am directly harming another human being through theft or rape or assault or whatever I should be punished, because at that point I have extended my decisions to directly negatively affect someone else. The argument that the use of drugs will lead to the inevitable crime against other persons does no sit with me. People adopting such an attitude are basically saying they can without doubt see the future, and no matter what the trends suggest, no one can predict that. There are many other examples - wear your seatbelt under penalty of fine; instances of swinger parties being broken up for unmoral conduct; the whole drug thing (not just pot, but others as well... if you commit a crime while under inflence THEN there is reason for punishment); law stating homosexual couples cannot be wed. The list can go on and on...
I wonder how other
a small portion of that [allergies] might be due to the spreading and interbreeding of long isolated groups of humans- thus spreading around genes for hypersensitivities.
... go figure. From personal experience, I'd guess that your first hypothesis (pollution of environment) is spot on! Achoo!
Sorry, but I must disagree with you here. My mother is half Spanish, half Italian (who is actually from Italy, and moved to Canada after her birth) and my father is half Scottish half we-don't-know (who's family moved to Canada before his birth). I think my genetic makeup is rather messy (or diverse... half full or half empty right). However, I have extreme hayfever, along with other reactions to insect bites. Oddly enough, neither parent has a sensitivy
making 64 bit chips is not the only way to "court" the gaming market. I'm sure intel has other plans for bigger (read: smaller) and better chips. Eventually I think they will start to make the 64's, but for now they're making chips with Hyper Threading (great for game servers).
Please don't take offense, but it seems to me this is a bit like saying there is no market for airtravel before there were airplanes, or more accurately no market for computer games before there were home computers. To me, market isn't something that's evident before creating something, market is the need/want of a certain community for product or service. I'd say the want for high fidelity gaming is pretty high, as demonstrated by the push by directx9 cards toward fp precision. Just my opinion.
You're missing the point. Crime will obviously exist in many forms. It's the rate you should be concerned with. While RATES OF CRIMES NOT INVOLVING FIREARM ARE SIMILAR (very close) IN BOTH COUNTRIES, VIOLENT CRIME AND DEATH RATES INVOLVING FIREARMS (and particularly small handguns) ARE MANY FOLD GREATER IN THE US THAN CANADA. I would argue that this problem exists because of the American attitude toward the right to bear firearms, especially handguns.
Everyone talks about how the other didn't do his/her research, yet all so often the counter arguments resort to being sarcastic and emotional devoid of any factual analysis. Talk is cheap my friends.
.25 .82
Let's do it then...
This will be a quick comparo between two similar countries (well close enough).
Guns per capita
Canada:
US:
rate increase: 3.3x
Firearms Death (Rate per 100,000)*
Accidental deaths with Firearms
Canada: 0.2
US: 0.3
rate increase: 1.5x
Suicides with Firearms
Canada: 3.4
US: 6.4
rate increase: 1.9x
Total Firearms Deaths
Canada: 4.3
US: 11.4
rate increase: 2.7x
Crime Statistics (Rate per 100,000) Canada
Murders with Firearms
Canada: 0.5
US: 4.4
rate increase: 7.9x
Murders with Handguns
Canada: 0.23
US: 3.3
rate increase: 14.5x
Robberies with Guns
Canada: 18
US: 63
rate increase: 3.5x
The only way I could explain away the significant rate increases of violent gun related crime is if all crime rates were much higher, that is, non-gun crime instances were in the realm of 5X-14X greater in the US than Canada. If you subscribe to that line of thought, these next stats may surprise you.
Roberries without Guns
Canada: 78
US: 102
rate increase: 1.3x
Murders without Guns
Canada: 1.3
US: 2.3
rate increase: 1.8x
Very close. Without significant increase of baseline non-firearm related crime, I'd say the presence of more gun per capita actually instigates more violent crime, and higher death rates due to violent crime. If some believe this makes a nation free, I'd encourage them to take a deeper look.
G
Given our inability to forecast weather accurately at any interval, I doubt very much the computers can handle the much greater complexities of climate change. Certainly more research is warranted and we may yet find some links to human activity that need to be addressed.
It's much easier to forecast a longterm gradual change such as an average yearly temperature increase, because these are trends that have developed over the course of a good many years. Therefore, it is much easier to iterate an everage temperature several years from than it is to accurately forecast whether or not it will rain this weekend.
When modelling local weather, you must take into account local area influences, such as local pressure, humidity, the jet stream and then incorporate factory outside your local region (for example a rigde of high pressure moving in). This all makes for an extraordinarily complex mathematical model, usually only predicting well for 2-3 days (after that- who the hell knows!).
Modeling global warming I'm sure is just as complex, but the important thing to remember is the time span they're working in. They're not predicting specifics, only marking a trend that's been recorded for many many years. So when predicting 10-20 years in advance with respect to avg. temperature, is probably similar to a 2-3 day forecast in weather.
Consider the materials necessary for flight alone.
For a kite that size to sustain it's structural integrity under even light-moderate winds requires very strong materials in the wing itself (like nylon) and the assembly that shapes the kite (more than likely tubing from an aluminium alloy). The moments produced around assembled components would be surprisingly high, especially near the center if the wing.
Although the Egyptians were known for managing huge loads, it seems to me they wouldn't have anything strong or light enough to support these kinds of forces. (My point being, if they did construct a wing, the freakin' Kite would most likely weigh several hundred pounds itself)
OS- Operating System
machine boots - check
memory and storage usable - check
output display works - check
input devices work - check
meets criterion for OS - CHECK!
No blind statements please, always backup opinions with sound reason.
Linux IS a real OS. Technically, an OS is simply software that enables the hardware it is installed on to function. Linux is obviously capable of this. What I think you mean to say is that Linux is not a truly marketable product. That is, the fact that Linux is freely distributable software really undermines any potential that the OS can be made profitable. Sure, people order RH 7.1 and pay the $39, but having the option to download it for free really puts a bite into the value of the marked product. In this sense, I'd have to agree that the whole Linux PRODUCT is not real, and sadly is not financially sustainable within today's business model. Having said that doesn't mean I think Linux will die either. The Linux community strongly stands for quality software, free information, sharing of ideas and technical experimentation. Since the Linux community is directly responsible for the OS's change and growth, Linux has become the representation of all these ideals. It is a project which many believe in, so as an OS Linux is real, superior and will never die. A product sells for profit, and once it becomes unprofitable it will vanish. A project built on ideals will always be ...well... whatever you want it to be. This is more true an OS than even the most profitable product.