What about if the user wasn't inside the "hamster ball", but on it? Or on many of them?
What about a platform beneath the user consisting of a grid of very closely spaced rolling spheres (like trackballs) set into sockets? Most of the spheres would be for simple support, some could be used to vibrate or brake, and some would track the motion and speed of the user's feet. A combination of wheels and spheres could also be used.
Simulating walls would still be difficult as you wouldn't really want your users slamming into your projection screens.
If you're not using projection screens, but instead using goggles, you could put the user in a harness tethered at multiple points. If the user slammed into a wall in the virtual world, all balls on the platform could lock and not move in the direction of the wall, the user would get traction and physically move forward until stopped by the harness.
The leads on the harness might also be attached in some kind of mounts that could be controlled, so that a waist-high obstacle could be simulated by disallowing forward motion to the feet, legs and hips, but allowing forward motion to the chest, arms, and head. The user might also be able to climb over the obstacle with some creative use of the vertical parts of the harness (physically lowering the user when his back foot leaves the ground at the same rate he is virtually traveling "up", so that he physically contacts the motion platform at the same time as he virtually contacts the top of the obstacle).
The harnesses might be somewhat similar to the flight harnesses used for the Rhinemadens in the Seattle Opera's production of Das Rheingold (pictures are unavailable right now, as the Seattle Opera has just redone their site -- they allowed full motion in all directions).
Hm. Even if the motion sensing part of it didn't work as expected, anything that involves a full body suspension harness and VR has got to draw at least a few fans.
Yes, clearly the EULA does not refer to the editing and publishing capabilities of FrontPage.
It seems like that's fairly standard for any company. I doubt you can use the Coca-Cola logo on a site which disparages Coca-Cola, either. Using the FrontPage web components explicitly named in the EULA would be exactly the same thing, and IMO Microsoft - or any other company - has the right to protect its property. Besides, if you want to make a site which disparages a company, why would you want to use their components in the first place?
The restriction in the EULA about not using those components on sites which violate laws makes sense as well. What company would not want to have such language to fall back on if its very identifiable property were to be featured on a site promoting illegal or unsavory activity?
Imagine that (for example) Red Hat's snappy logo were to show up on, say, Stormfront. Big huge "This White Nationalist website brought to you by Red Hat Linux!" Imagine that Red Hat didn't want to be associated with Stormfront. If there were no legal language to fall back on which stated that using the logo would be a violation of the license for the distribution, there would be no way other than politely asking to remove the logo from the site. Admittedly, a logo is not a "Web component", but notice that only those web components which would directly connect to Microsoft content -- thereby associating the site on which they appeared with Microsoft -- are explicitly referenced.
I bet a tech with an MBA reading/. would really p*ss people off... hehe.. oh wait, that's me. All that and a chick too. Now where's my private supersonic jet? =)
How many times have you heard anyone say "Having conversed with *him* on a number of occasions, I can attest to him being smart?" Gee, without this comment, I would have just assumed the writer was another stupid chick.
After working in the tech field with an international MBA, foreign language skills, and coding skills that are really not too shabby I'd have to conclude that the most useful thing for a techie to have is still a penis. If you've got good skills, an MBA, and a penis, you'll probably go far in whatever aspect of the business you choose. If you don't have that critical attachment, don't bother about the MBA.
Seriously, the coursework for the MBA helps a lot with communication between the business side and the production side. It won't make you a business genius any more than a music degree will make you Jimi Hendrix, but you'll be able to translate geek speak to PHB lingo. That could make you either highly useful, roundly hated, or both.
Check out some of the specialized MBA programs that focus on IT. If you are doing it to get a higher salary, well... that might not be a sure thing. If you're doing it for the knowledge, go for it.
Slashdot Mirror
What about if the user wasn't inside the "hamster ball", but on it? Or on many of them?
What about a platform beneath the user consisting of a grid of very closely spaced rolling spheres (like trackballs) set into sockets? Most of the spheres would be for simple support, some could be used to vibrate or brake, and some would track the motion and speed of the user's feet. A combination of wheels and spheres could also be used.
Simulating walls would still be difficult as you wouldn't really want your users slamming into your projection screens.
If you're not using projection screens, but instead using goggles, you could put the user in a harness tethered at multiple points. If the user slammed into a wall in the virtual world, all balls on the platform could lock and not move in the direction of the wall, the user would get traction and physically move forward until stopped by the harness.
The leads on the harness might also be attached in some kind of mounts that could be controlled, so that a waist-high obstacle could be simulated by disallowing forward motion to the feet, legs and hips, but allowing forward motion to the chest, arms, and head. The user might also be able to climb over the obstacle with some creative use of the vertical parts of the harness (physically lowering the user when his back foot leaves the ground at the same rate he is virtually traveling "up", so that he physically contacts the motion platform at the same time as he virtually contacts the top of the obstacle).
The harnesses might be somewhat similar to the flight harnesses used for the Rhinemadens in the Seattle Opera's production of Das Rheingold (pictures are unavailable right now, as the Seattle Opera has just redone their site -- they allowed full motion in all directions).
Hm. Even if the motion sensing part of it didn't work as expected, anything that involves a full body suspension harness and VR has got to draw at least a few fans.
Yes, clearly the EULA does not refer to the editing and publishing capabilities of FrontPage.
It seems like that's fairly standard for any company. I doubt you can use the Coca-Cola logo on a site which disparages Coca-Cola, either. Using the FrontPage web components explicitly named in the EULA would be exactly the same thing, and IMO Microsoft - or any other company - has the right to protect its property. Besides, if you want to make a site which disparages a company, why would you want to use their components in the first place?
The restriction in the EULA about not using those components on sites which violate laws makes sense as well. What company would not want to have such language to fall back on if its very identifiable property were to be featured on a site promoting illegal or unsavory activity?
Imagine that (for example) Red Hat's snappy logo were to show up on, say, Stormfront. Big huge "This White Nationalist website brought to you by Red Hat Linux!" Imagine that Red Hat didn't want to be associated with Stormfront. If there were no legal language to fall back on which stated that using the logo would be a violation of the license for the distribution, there would be no way other than politely asking to remove the logo from the site. Admittedly, a logo is not a "Web component", but notice that only those web components which would directly connect to Microsoft content -- thereby associating the site on which they appeared with Microsoft -- are explicitly referenced.
I bet a tech with an MBA reading /. would really p*ss people off... hehe.. oh wait, that's me. All that and a chick too. Now where's my private supersonic jet? =)
How many times have you heard anyone say "Having conversed with *him* on a number of occasions, I can attest to him being smart?" Gee, without this comment, I would have just assumed the writer was another stupid chick.
Windows Update won't install anything without your consent. It doesn't work like that.
After working in the tech field with an international MBA, foreign language skills, and coding skills that are really not too shabby I'd have to conclude that the most useful thing for a techie to have is still a penis. If you've got good skills, an MBA, and a penis, you'll probably go far in whatever aspect of the business you choose. If you don't have that critical attachment, don't bother about the MBA. Seriously, the coursework for the MBA helps a lot with communication between the business side and the production side. It won't make you a business genius any more than a music degree will make you Jimi Hendrix, but you'll be able to translate geek speak to PHB lingo. That could make you either highly useful, roundly hated, or both. Check out some of the specialized MBA programs that focus on IT. If you are doing it to get a higher salary, well... that might not be a sure thing. If you're doing it for the knowledge, go for it.