Oh, regarding those "relationship skills". These are harder to learn than socialization skills, because once you're in a relationship, it's easy to backslide and forget everything you learned about being appealing.
There's only a couple of things I have to say here, because I can't say a lot about what I don't know:
1) Say something nice before you offer criticism. In fact, say something nice even when you don't have any criticism to offer. If someone only hears the criticism, they'll stop listening.
2) Listen. Show that you listen. It's a form of respect, and we all want that.
3) Maintaining a relationship takes time dedicated to doing so. Again, if you wait until you're not busy, the relationship will die.
And regarding socialization skills once more, here are my two biggest hints to make yourself attractive:
1) Have good posture. Straight back and all that. 2) Smile. That is, make your "neutral" expression look friendly. Don't overdo it, though.
(Someone already mentioned good hygiene; that's a given.)
1) Get out. Go somewhere where people are. Talk to them. Ask them what time it is. Ask them their opinion about something relevant (in a movie store? Ask for a movie opinion. In a grocery store? Ask about food or cooking. Etc.) While the chances of meeting like-minded people may be small this way, it's a good way to practice being social. Learn how to make small talk. Small steps lead to bigger ones.
2) Find groups of people that do something interesting. Or start one. Have a movie night. Have people over, make it a regular thing; have friends invite friends, etc. The thing to remember here is that you've got to make time to do something social. Make it a priority. If you wait until you're free, then it will never happen.
3) There is no 3. Okay, maybe there is. This is just like (2), but replace "interesting" with "new". It might be something that scares the living daylights out of you, like sky-diving or dancing. You might only do it once, but you'll probably have a great story to tell afterward.
Speaking of which, telling stories and jokes is something that should be practiced and developed. For starters, try to memorize at least one good joke, and practice telling it until you can do it well without thinking. It will come it handy someday.
That's all for now. I need to go find a good joke.
There are two sets of skills that a person needs to learn to develop relationships.
1) Socialization skills - How to meet people and appeal to them.
2) Relationship skills - How to not make people hate you over the long term.
Both of these things are skills that need to be developed, just like learning to code. Only they're a lot harder to learn, since instead of a computer that just tells you if things worked or not, you've got to practice on people, and figuring out what went over well is a lot harder. And instead of black & white specs for programming languages, there are a mountain of guides & non-succinct books that don't necessarily tell you what you need to know about people.
Nevertheless, once you find a good guide, learning is the same - practice practice practice. The more you practice, the easier it gets. Once you realize that embarrassing yourself is no big deal, it gets even easier.
As far as where to find & meet people, that can be done in many ways. I'll post on that later when I'm not so sleepy.
Both systems need accelerometers + gyros to sense the controller rotation (X & Y absolute, Z relative).
The Wii uses a camera on the remote and targets in the sensor bar to detect position and Z-rotation (absolute).
The PS3 thingy uses a camera on the TV and a target on the controller to detect position. I don't know how it detects Z-rotation (absolute); maybe it uses a magnetometer?
The PS3 can track position better because the Eye can see the controller most of the time. The Wii tracks better when the controller is pointed at the screen.
All displays produce an image "directly on your retina." That is to say, they all shine light through your lens onto your retina.
Anything that's near your eye will involve some kind of optics to make the image seem farther away than it really is.
Whether the initial light source is a panel display or a scanned laser is not really relevant, except that it sounds cooler to say that the laser light is "scanned directly onto your retina".
Microvision is the company the article was referring to (if not UW, where the tech originated).
There are several different HMD application areas:
-immersive VR (games that enclose you in CGI*) -full view AR (games that add CGI to the real world) -heads up display (alone or AR) (narrow FOV CGI) -probably others
(CGI = computer generated imagery)
The first two require wide a field of view (FOV), and this is tricky to do well, as you know. [I must add that I don't think it's impossible; I've been shown an unconventional design that ought to work well, should it turn out to be manufacturable.]
The third is something that can be done easily enough today, and it's actually something that I look forward to being done well. It would take care of the following situations, for instance:
1) Trying to hold a laptop over your head to browse the web while lying down.
2) Trying to walk down the street and stare at your iPhone at the same time. (Still probably not too safe; a purely audio computer interface is still safer, perhaps.)
In either case, you can just put on some glasses rather than having to look at a screen. If the glasses are small/light/cheap/good enough, they should definitely beat the alternatives here.
It remains to be seen whether display-panel-based systems (OLED?) or Microvision-type scanning systems will be smaller & cheaper. Advances in LED technology may push the latter in front.
Given that wide FOV isn't needed, then holographic lens systems seem like a good match for small, light, cheap optics for applications like this.
Of course, given all the failures in this market, it's easy to see why big tech companies don't seem too interested. But once the tech is good & cheap enough, it ought to take off.
It used vibrating mirrors (one per eye) to scan out a single row LED display into a 2D surface, and traditional optics to make the surface seem far away. Two displays were used (one per eye) to give a stereoscopic view.
The reason that ALL stereoscopic displays give people headaches is that they don't account for the fact that your eyes want to focus differently on things that are near vs. things that are far, whereas stereoscopic displays only provide images at a single real depth (but arbitrary apparent depth).
In addition, stereoscopic displays also generally don't track your eyeballs, so they can't account for you turning your eyeballs inward when looking at something that's close by either. Instead, they assume a certain gaze and render only for that particular view.
In either issue, the images you see don't always match up with what you "should" see, your brain gets confused, and you get a headache.
This is apparently Microsoft's solution to fixing bugs: require you to buy the upgrade to the next version. When Outlook crashed recently, the dialog box that came up afterward told me I could click on a link for a fix to the problem. The page that came up said I should buy the upgrade.
I'd be happier if Microsoft would just fix the damn software I bought, or else offer the upgrade for free. I don't want to pay for software that they know doesn't work.
If, instead of a horn button, they had to crank a generator to honk, it would certainly extend the range considerably, or perhaps make the city a quieter place to live, either of which is an improvement.
Cable TV doesn't turn into internet service by just flipping a switch. They had to change out all the distribution equipment to convert from merely distribution amplifiers into modem racks and IP routers (per every 20-200 customers). Sure, the cable was laid already, but that's not the only piece.
But yes, you are right; they don't want to upgrade that equipment to handle increasing demand. It would be costly.
They built out some infrastructure, put out some plans, then people starting signing on.
As the system fills up, they have two choices: -build out more infrastructure, sign up more people -jack up prices (and hope to keep signing people up)
The short-term plan is easier to "sell" to stockholders, most likely.
I agree that the wrong terminology is being thrown around. Bandwidth is a rate, and they're charging you for an amount, which is a different thing.
I guess you can say that they are indeed talking about a rate if you consider bandwidth as the amount of data per month.
Still, rather than jack up the prices as demand increases, it would be preferable if they increased supply instead, but this means building out more infrastructure, and this only happens when there's competition.
Refresh errors are a big issue with memory testing programs. They can be very hard to detect, and common tests may actually hide the problem.
Remember that DRAM cells are capacitors, and that capacitors lose their charge over time. DRAM needs to be periodically read out and rewritten in order to refresh the charge on all the cells. Today's memory cells use the smallest capacitors yet, and they are still expected to hold their contents for several milliseconds.
To detect a refresh errors, you have to write a pattern, wait for some period of time beyond the refresh period, then read the pattern back. When you access a memory location, whether read or write, you've automatically refreshed the whole page of memory the location is in. Therefore, there's a lot of waiting required to perform this test, and as a result, it can be very slow.
In addition, how long do you wait between the write & the read? What if there's some kind of refresh issue where a cell looses its charge over extended time even though it's supposedly being refreshed? What if a cell refreshes correctly only 99% of the time? It might take milliseconds or it might take hundreds of seconds before it goes bad. As well, the conditions under which a cell doesn't refresh right may also vary with the data pattern of it and its neighbors.
In short, refresh errors are difficult to find, and memory tests often do not find them.
We need to start rating these electric cars by their efficiency. I don't care about the 0-60 time or top speed. I want to know the cost to run it (both to my wallet and to the environment). So how many miles does it get per kilowatt-hour?
Slashdot Mirror
And finally!
Oh, regarding those "relationship skills". These are harder to learn than socialization skills, because once you're in a relationship, it's easy to backslide and forget everything you learned about being appealing.
There's only a couple of things I have to say here, because I can't say a lot about what I don't know:
1) Say something nice before you offer criticism. In fact, say something nice even when you don't have any criticism to offer. If someone only hears the criticism, they'll stop listening.
2) Listen. Show that you listen. It's a form of respect, and we all want that.
3) Maintaining a relationship takes time dedicated to doing so. Again, if you wait until you're not busy, the relationship will die.
And regarding socialization skills once more, here are my two biggest hints to make yourself attractive:
1) Have good posture. Straight back and all that.
2) Smile. That is, make your "neutral" expression look friendly. Don't overdo it, though.
(Someone already mentioned good hygiene; that's a given.)
And another thing!
You may find people say "Confidence is attractive." Ah, but where does confidence come from?
1) Daring - you do something & don't care if it doesn't work out. This is probably not the geek way.
2) Drink - Confidence in a bottle. Never tried it much myself, but some people swear by it.
3) Practice - This is the real thing. You've practiced many times, perhaps failed many times, and by now you know exactly what you're doing.
Ah, where was I? Ah yes, meeting people:
There are zillions of ways to do this.
1) Get out. Go somewhere where people are. Talk to them. Ask them what time it is. Ask them their opinion about something relevant (in a movie store? Ask for a movie opinion. In a grocery store? Ask about food or cooking. Etc.) While the chances of meeting like-minded people may be small this way, it's a good way to practice being social. Learn how to make small talk. Small steps lead to bigger ones.
2) Find groups of people that do something interesting. Or start one. Have a movie night. Have people over, make it a regular thing; have friends invite friends, etc. The thing to remember here is that you've got to make time to do something social. Make it a priority. If you wait until you're free, then it will never happen.
3) There is no 3. Okay, maybe there is. This is just like (2), but replace "interesting" with "new". It might be something that scares the living daylights out of you, like sky-diving or dancing. You might only do it once, but you'll probably have a great story to tell afterward.
Speaking of which, telling stories and jokes is something that should be practiced and developed. For starters, try to memorize at least one good joke, and practice telling it until you can do it well without thinking. It will come it handy someday.
That's all for now. I need to go find a good joke.
There are two sets of skills that a person needs to learn to develop relationships.
1) Socialization skills - How to meet people and appeal to them.
2) Relationship skills - How to not make people hate you over the long term.
Both of these things are skills that need to be developed, just like learning to code. Only they're a lot harder to learn, since instead of a computer that just tells you if things worked or not, you've got to practice on people, and figuring out what went over well is a lot harder. And instead of black & white specs for programming languages, there are a mountain of guides & non-succinct books that don't necessarily tell you what you need to know about people.
Nevertheless, once you find a good guide, learning is the same - practice practice practice. The more you practice, the easier it gets. Once you realize that embarrassing yourself is no big deal, it gets even easier.
As far as where to find & meet people, that can be done in many ways. I'll post on that later when I'm not so sleepy.
This is progress! This means that the transition to rails is one step further along!
Am I being cynical? Maybe not!?
There's a BIG difference between the two examples:
Natal: compared latency between live person and rendered result.
Sony: compared latency between rendered (video of) person and rendered result.
In other words, the Sony example had latency as well, but if you're only looking at the rendered result, you won't see it.
"No, we're from, uh, France."
Live and learn:
http://wiibrew.org/wiki/Wiimote/#IR_Camera
Both systems need accelerometers + gyros to sense the controller rotation (X & Y absolute, Z relative).
The Wii uses a camera on the remote and targets in the sensor bar to detect position and Z-rotation (absolute).
The PS3 thingy uses a camera on the TV and a target on the controller to detect position. I don't know how it detects Z-rotation (absolute); maybe it uses a magnetometer?
The PS3 can track position better because the Eye can see the controller most of the time. The Wii tracks better when the controller is pointed at the screen.
All displays produce an image "directly on your retina." That is to say, they all shine light through your lens onto your retina.
Anything that's near your eye will involve some kind of optics to make the image seem farther away than it really is.
Whether the initial light source is a panel display or a scanned laser is not really relevant, except that it sounds cooler to say that the laser light is "scanned directly onto your retina".
Microvision is the company the article was referring to (if not UW, where the tech originated).
I know something of this field too.
There are several different HMD application areas:
-immersive VR (games that enclose you in CGI*)
-full view AR (games that add CGI to the real world)
-heads up display (alone or AR) (narrow FOV CGI)
-probably others
(CGI = computer generated imagery)
The first two require wide a field of view (FOV), and this is tricky to do well, as you know. [I must add that I don't think it's impossible; I've been shown an unconventional design that ought to work well, should it turn out to be manufacturable.]
The third is something that can be done easily enough today, and it's actually something that I look forward to being done well. It would take care of the following situations, for instance:
1) Trying to hold a laptop over your head to browse the web while lying down.
2) Trying to walk down the street and stare at your iPhone at the same time. (Still probably not too safe; a purely audio computer interface is still safer, perhaps.)
In either case, you can just put on some glasses rather than having to look at a screen. If the glasses are small/light/cheap/good enough, they should definitely beat the alternatives here.
It remains to be seen whether display-panel-based systems (OLED?) or Microvision-type scanning systems will be smaller & cheaper. Advances in LED technology may push the latter in front.
Given that wide FOV isn't needed, then holographic lens systems seem like a good match for small, light, cheap optics for applications like this.
Of course, given all the failures in this market, it's easy to see why big tech companies don't seem too interested. But once the tech is good & cheap enough, it ought to take off.
No, Virtual Boy was "VR done cheaply."
It used vibrating mirrors (one per eye) to scan out a single row LED display into a 2D surface, and traditional optics to make the surface seem far away. Two displays were used (one per eye) to give a stereoscopic view.
The reason that ALL stereoscopic displays give people headaches is that they don't account for the fact that your eyes want to focus differently on things that are near vs. things that are far, whereas stereoscopic displays only provide images at a single real depth (but arbitrary apparent depth).
In addition, stereoscopic displays also generally don't track your eyeballs, so they can't account for you turning your eyeballs inward when looking at something that's close by either. Instead, they assume a certain gaze and render only for that particular view.
In either issue, the images you see don't always match up with what you "should" see, your brain gets confused, and you get a headache.
This is apparently Microsoft's solution to fixing bugs: require you to buy the upgrade to the next version. When Outlook crashed recently, the dialog box that came up afterward told me I could click on a link for a fix to the problem. The page that came up said I should buy the upgrade.
I'd be happier if Microsoft would just fix the damn software I bought, or else offer the upgrade for free. I don't want to pay for software that they know doesn't work.
An apartment building (and a stadium) is a source or a sink, depending upon its current state and the surrounding conditions.
So if the building is currently charged up and the proper conditions arrive outside of it (morning, nice weather), then the building becomes a source.
Similarly, when the building is nearly empty, other conditions (evening, bad weather) might turn things around and it becomes a sink again.
You can think of these things as capacitors.
Also, the interconnections between buildings (sidewalks, streets, transit) offer varying degrees of resistance, just like real wires do.
Seriously, though, what will they do with the excess heat in summer time?
If, instead of a horn button, they had to crank a generator to honk, it would certainly extend the range considerably, or perhaps make the city a quieter place to live, either of which is an improvement.
Cable TV doesn't turn into internet service by just flipping a switch. They had to change out all the distribution equipment to convert from merely distribution amplifiers into modem racks and IP routers (per every 20-200 customers). Sure, the cable was laid already, but that's not the only piece.
But yes, you are right; they don't want to upgrade that equipment to handle increasing demand. It would be costly.
If they do that, I'd only need 1 favorite website: a proxy!
They built out some infrastructure, put out some plans, then people starting signing on.
As the system fills up, they have two choices:
-build out more infrastructure, sign up more people
-jack up prices (and hope to keep signing people up)
The short-term plan is easier to "sell" to stockholders, most likely.
They can get away with it because they have monopolies in many markets. Speakeasy is not available everywhere.
Indeed you are correct. In one month, there is a hard data transfer limit that can not be exceeded.
I agree that the wrong terminology is being thrown around. Bandwidth is a rate, and they're charging you for an amount, which is a different thing.
I guess you can say that they are indeed talking about a rate if you consider bandwidth as the amount of data per month.
Still, rather than jack up the prices as demand increases, it would be preferable if they increased supply instead, but this means building out more infrastructure, and this only happens when there's competition.
Professor Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters?
Refresh errors are a big issue with memory testing programs. They can be very hard to detect, and common tests may actually hide the problem.
Remember that DRAM cells are capacitors, and that capacitors lose their charge over time. DRAM needs to be periodically read out and rewritten in order to refresh the charge on all the cells. Today's memory cells use the smallest capacitors yet, and they are still expected to hold their contents for several milliseconds.
To detect a refresh errors, you have to write a pattern, wait for some period of time beyond the refresh period, then read the pattern back. When you access a memory location, whether read or write, you've automatically refreshed the whole page of memory the location is in. Therefore, there's a lot of waiting required to perform this test, and as a result, it can be very slow.
In addition, how long do you wait between the write & the read? What if there's some kind of refresh issue where a cell looses its charge over extended time even though it's supposedly being refreshed? What if a cell refreshes correctly only 99% of the time? It might take milliseconds or it might take hundreds of seconds before it goes bad. As well, the conditions under which a cell doesn't refresh right may also vary with the data pattern of it and its neighbors.
In short, refresh errors are difficult to find, and memory tests often do not find them.
We need to start rating these electric cars by their efficiency. I don't care about the 0-60 time or top speed. I want to know the cost to run it (both to my wallet and to the environment). So how many miles does it get per kilowatt-hour?