This, while possibly a tongue-in-cheek comment, is unfortunately far more true than many may be initially inclined to believe. Below follows my personal reasoning outlining my agreement with the parent on the matter.
If we take the premise that, when we buy a music CD/Tape/Vinyl, we are buying the intellectual property on the media (as we are forcibly barred from exercising Fair Use) rather than the physical media, then the media is transient and unimportant. This, incidentally, is why it is possible and appropriate to charge for legal "media-free" music downloads. Indeed, this is the only scenario (the other being that consumers "buy" the supplied physical media itself) under which it becomes possible to enforce the protection of intellectual property.
With the establishment of that which is owned (or leased), let's poke at this a bit: what is our - as consumers - burden of proof regarding music "ownership"? Obviously, we need to demonstrate that which we have paid for. So we therefore need to present an appropriate depiction of the IP as we received it (viz., as an MP3, iTunes, WAV, or RAW file).
However, I posit that these formats are both transient and only tenuously coupled to their legal "owners". Moreover, a much more reasonable, logical, and verifiable mechanism of providing "proof" of ownership comes in the form of having the physical CD case. Yet the new(ish) paper cases, as opposed to the older-style plastic jewel cases, take this notion of phsyical presentation and reduce the window of time that a consumer has physical custody of proof of ownership via significantly reduced durability.
Of course, IP confuses the matter somewhat and makes the most obvious and intuitive analogy - that of a physical car being just a proxy for vehicle ownership (the true ownership being defined here through a car title) - invalid through setting up the argument that a consumer could have bought a song on CD through presenting a digital file, or that a consumer could have bought a song electronically through presenting a digital file. In short, the item itself becomes proof of ownership.
I've brought this up before, but the RIAA and other content distributors must make a decision on which demand they want to place on consumers and then stick with it. It is not possible to have this both ways, and that is exactly how they have it now: if I break my CD (media), but have purchased the IP, then consumers should be legally entitled to [and not blocked or dissuaded from] a backup copy under Fair Use. However, if instead a consumer has paid for the CD (media) and not the IP that is on that media, then the consumer ought to get a free replacement of the media, containing the IP which came with it, upon sending the broken CD to the distributor/studio. However, neither of these requirements are being met in the even of media damage (or data loss), so it is instead clear that consumers are leasing music within a retroactively- and unilaterally-mutable agreement between the consumer and the RIAA/recording company.
The point of it, methinks, is in asking how did we ever come to this point, whereupon logical and reasonable expectations of remedy and use are invalid?
For a couple of years now, television advertising has seemed, to me, as something that floats along on top of a misguided platform. This is not an attack against television itself, mind, but rather one leveled against the way in which we go about "thinking about" and "viewing" television itself. So my reaction to this news is as follows: is this a good start? Sure. However, it is doomed to ultimately fail (defined by lack of adaquate scoping, which leads to a lack of "stickiness" and inability to plant products squarely on the tip of the tongue of consumers) unless we re-examine the infrastructure of television itself.
(Yes, I'm aware that this is cagey - the full layout is something I've been tossing around in my mind for a couple of years and will hopefully submit in full before the new year.)
However, I think I may be able to add something to the puzzle: I was informed (but have not yet tested) that IEEE1394 (Firewire) cams will synch across the bus. This means that you no longer have to worry about adjusting for framedrops or timing or whatnot. Rather, the two cameras "see" their fields in lock-step with respect to time. I know that some folks here locally have had great success with Uni-Brain Fire-i cameras, but earlier in the thread someone reported a bad experience with them.
However, this being slashdot, I must remind you that YMMV.
I'm curious. I seriously wonder if this, too, will be used as evidence to support that men and women are more different than alike (philosophically speaking, note).
Here's my prediction: The current status quo tends towards women not being adopters, purveyors, or masters of technology. While there are certainly pockets of discourse and space that argue against this, I would suggest this story is more widespread than its alternative (e.g. "women are technologically-savvy"). I have to wonder at what point the evidence for the realization that there is more intra-group variability than extra-group variability between the sexes will become wholly overwhelming and force a change in the commonplace "line" on women in/and technology.
I promised a prediction - here it is.
When the above assertion becomes commonly accepted, so too will the notion that women are fully able and capable of using, enjoying, and mastering technology. However, we will supplant the current story with a new one - "Women are using technology as wholly a surrogate for that which they do best - that 'social stuff'."
I should blog on this, but it's late. Thoughts? Am I way off-topic here?
Instead, they should be working on desktop efficiencies. Monitors, harddisks, etc can be made a great deal more efficient. In particular, smaller drives (2.5"), in a office, small drives on desktop, with data on a central server, lcd monitors only, minimize the numbers of printers of make them sleep, etc, etc. There are far more desktops than servers.
What you seem to be talking about is the re-emergence of thin-client computing. This is A Good Thing(tm) for a great number of reasons, not the least of which is energy efficiency. Good point.
Remember that it's all a matter of usability vs. security. I could make the most secure airline in the world. But no one would ever want to fly completely naked and cuffed to their seats.
Ah yes - welcome to America, where we do fly like this. Or at least it sure seems like we are treated in a similar fashion when going through screening and (pre)boarding.
Nonsense. I use Truecrypt, and have encrypted a whole drive. *Nothing* on it is unencrypted. It has no partition table. Any sort of analysis of it would show that it is complete indistinguishible from random noise. Taken out of the workstation that it currently resides in, it would be completely and utterly secure. And, unintelligible. Granted, it's not the boot drive, but so what?
The really great thing about TrueCrypt, as I see it, is plausible deniability. This means that you can "nest" volumes and only have to account for the outer "envelope" when you are tortured by Homeland Security because you are using cryptography. The short of this: it is impossible to distinguish the "signal" of a nested hidden volume from the "noise" of random bits and such on the device.
Unless this is in the Journal of Irreproducible Results or the Annals of Improbable Research, then this doesn't belong in publication. Like another poster said, it's pretty straight-forward and has been answered many many times by individuals (myself included) via the mutation-into-chicken-embryo argument.
A former penal colony is opening up individual freedom... while here in the United States, we are going through the criminalization of ruled-upon timeshifting and Fair Use practices.
I know we looked at doing something similar from a company in CA for the art project I mentioned, but the "posture" thing is news to me. When did they start looking at that? The C4 was pretty non-functional when I left.
Well, the project (Icarus) that I mentioned was completed this semester in HCI 575x (Computer Perception). Throughout the semester I have been hearing that we'd like to include a couple of cameras in the C6 for body posture/pose/position tracking. While I can speculate that this has something to do with Alex Stoychev showing up (the instructor for 575x), this is only speculation and I'm unsure of just when/how the decision was made, nor how far down the road we are. However, to go back to what does work, the Icarus team (no, I'm not part of it) gave a demo in the C4, so I think that's functional now.
They don't track body position in the C6. They use the C4 for that, and that part of the setup is pretty buggy anyways. This page has a decent runthrough of the projects they do http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/research/index.php. Mostly it's industrial simulations for John Deere, P&G, etc. I worked on one art project there that was kind of neat, but it really suffered from the technology. Hopefully having some better hardware will let them do some more visually engaging stuff, although I sort of doubt it.
What you've seen via the C4 is a bunch of "bucks" (e.g. platforms on which tractor, helicopter, and other bodies sit on). Now, the tracking of body posture in the C6 is a new thing that is being examined - I have heard talk of a 2-camera system that is planned for this. As for tracking position, I believe that you are refering to the IR system that is used in the C4 (and C6) that sits in glasses or a "satchel", respectively. So - yes, they do currently track one body position in the C6 via the "satchel" approach, but there is a new system that is under investigation (camera(s)) that would be able to examine posture as well. Indeed, such a system (Icarus) has already been done in the C4 for flying around via flapping your arms and such. Remember, what I'm talking about here is visual- or camera- based inspection that is able to determine posture as opposed to the (rather) buggy infra-red (IR) system that is in place now. Hopefully this makes the post a bit more clear.
James Oliver, Virtual Reality Applications Center, (515) 294-2649
Chiu-Shui Chan, Architecture, (515) 294-8326
Eve Wurtele, Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, (515) 294-8989
Mark Bryden, Mechanical Engineering, (515) 294-3891
Mike Krapfl, News Service, (515) 294-4917
/
The most realistic virtual reality room in the world
AMES, Iowa -- More than $4 million in equipment upgrades will shine 100 million pixels on Iowa State University's six-sided virtual reality room.
(image)C6 battlespace
(image caption)Jared Knutzon, an Iowa State University graduate student in human computer interaction, demonstrates how Iowa State's C6 virtual reality room can control the military's unmanned aerial vehicles.
That's twice the number of pixels lighting up any virtual reality room in the world and 16 times the pixels now projected on Iowa State's C6, a 10-foot by 10-foot virtual reality room that surrounds users with computer-generated 3-D images. That means the C6 will produce virtual reality at the world's highest resolution.
Iowa State's C6 opened in June 2000 as the country's first six-sided virtual reality room designed to immerse users in images and sound. The graphics and projection technology that made such immersion possible hasn't been updated since the C6 opened.
The difference between the equipment currently in the C6 and the updated technology to be installed this summer, "is like putting on your glasses in the morning," said James Oliver, the director of Iowa State's Virtual Reality Applications Center and a professor of mechanical engineering.
The new equipment -- a Hewlett-Packard computer featuring 96 graphics processing units, 24 Sony digital projectors, an eight-channel audio system and ultrasonic motion tracking technology -- will be installed by Fakespace Systems Inc. of Marshalltown. The project is supported by a U.S. Department of Defense appropriation through the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
The project began this spring with a prototype upgrade to one wall of the C6. The remainder of the work will continue throughout the summer. Oliver said the improved C6 will open in the fall. A grand opening celebration is being planned for the spring of 2007.
A better C6 will be good news for the Iowa State researchers who study virtual reality.
Chiu-Shui Chan, an Iowa State professor of architecture, has used the C6 to develop 3-D models of buildings, cities and workplaces. He's studying how virtual reality can be a tool to create a library of historical buildings, plan urban growth and test workplace efficiency.
(image)virtual Beijing
(image caption) A virtual model of the Xidan business district in Beijing can help city planners manage urban growth.
Chan said the upgrade will improve the visual realism and interactive speed of his virtual reality applications. And that will enhance the sense of place in his applications and the effectiveness of his research.
Chan said the C6's existing technology requires him to balance and sacrifice some of a project's size, speed, realism or human-computer interaction. "With the new system I won't have to worry about that," he said.
Eve Wurtele, an Iowa State professor of genetics, development and cell biology, working with Julie Dickerson, an Iowa State associate professor of electrical and computer engineering, has used the C6 to develop new ways to visualize data from as many as 22,000 genes. She's also developing a virtual cell project that shows cells in 3-D action to help students learn about photosynthesis and other aspects of cell biology.
Wurtele said the higher speeds and better pictures will be a boost for her research and teaching.
"This upgrade is fantastic for us," she said. "It's essential for our research."
Mark Bryden, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, has used virtual reality to develop engineering tools that he
Does Hewlett-Packard actually make GPUs? I would think they would go with some off the shelf chips from Nvidia or ATI, surely those can push more pixels than anything else and they would have the advantage of a relatively standard API (opengl for example).
Is there some very specialised requirement I'm not seeing here?
I can only comment about the API - we're using something that is a standard (for us) and that fills in as nice middleware: VRJuggler. It sits atop (among other things) OpenGL.
There is nothing this room can do that a decent set of VR goggles can achieve.
The goggles would also have the benefit of being runnable on relatively standand class hardware.
I mean, this thing has to produce a spherical projection for every single point in the viewers space, its got to be crunching far too much data.
I personally don't see the benefits of this virtual magic carpet ride for the outlay required.
There actually are things you can do in the C6 that you cannot do with goggles. For one - and to name something that I know is implementable and implemented - you can track body posturing and position within the C6 to make the experience more engaging/real. Any pictures just do not do this justice; the "seams" shown in the picture are not nearly as obvious in the real thing. On that note, I will say that I've nearly walked into the wall before (on the old system), and missed walking into the screen by a matter of about 6 inches.
With respect to your other comment, the part about interoperability (The goggles would also have the benefit of being runnable on relatively standand class hardware), sometimes you want and need specialized solutions to do great things. Just because you or I cannot hope to afford such a system doesn't invalidate the system.
It seems to me that if the computer networks and computer industry enjoyed real regulation, any yahoo who passes a CompTIA test wouldn't be able to claim to be a computer consultant, or a security expert, and be allowed to set up crap that allegedly puts our nation at risk via cyberterrorism. as the trumpeters keep blaring. Imagine if anyone could just say he was a lineman and start modifying the power grid, or a police officer and start arresting people. If data is as important as power and control (they are all important types of busses, no?), then data people have to be better trained and regulated like power and control people. Ah, but it's a nascent profession...
I assume that you refer to the CISSP exam (or the Cisco CCxx security track?) in the first statement above. That's not really what I'd like to respond to, but the exams are fairly comprehensive and give a good "flavor" of what to look for as well as a "painting with broad strokes" overview of threat models and the like that face security personnel. However, I'm more concerned with the other point in your comment, which seems to point to a conclusion that the exams exist in a vacuum and are the only means/metric by which security personnel may be judged. This is just not the case. Depending on what you want in a "consultant", and depending on your approach (e.g. basic vs. applied research bent), there are exams and degree programs that exist, but the best measure of a security consultant is - I believe - the same as any other field:
* Do they come recommended?
* Do they appear to know what they're doing?
* Finally, do they appear to genuinely understand where security sits in the larger framework of an organization's infrastructure and develop a solution accordingly?
Just summing it up - unless I've misunderstood the grounding and guiding tenure of your post - with a flippant anyone can take a CompTIA exam and be a security consultant does not take into account the true nature of how things are done when individuals have a clue. (Yes, the last part is important)
I see the call for regulation that you are making here, but I think there are other (e.g. "market") forces involved. I am uncertain that regulation would in itself be able to fully cover this, as people's social and business networks have proven difficult to trump in applied practice.
(Parent's description of blood, gore, fire, and torture)
Oh... my... God. I'm going to have to go out and buy this game. Stories and descriptions like these let me know which games I should be investing my time and effort in, just like book burnings.
Why waste time with this garbage when there are so many better uses of State time? I really don't understand - besides the "low hanging fruit" or "government-as-mouthpiece-of-businesses" arguments - why this country is afraid to face issues and problems that are meaningful and need resolution. Instead, what we do over here is run around under the banner of intellectual property while the labor pool is vanishing, the economy's sluggish, and the citizenry aren't liking the actions taken by the government.
There is a way to use e-mail as such a tool, which was the preferred method used by the Spanish Al-Queda cell:
1. Open e-mail account (on your own web mail server, preferably) and publish username/password to members of cell/department/workgroup.
2. Write e-mail detailing plan and save as "draft."
3. After connecting by SSL, other co-workers/conspirators view and edit draft or attach comments for all to browse and update.
4. If server is owned by group, files are as secure as the passwords and OS. If a public/commercial server is used, drafts and connection IPs may be discovered and will persist on backups and logs.
No, there's actually a much better way for terrorist cells to get in touch with each other, and it does NOT involve email.
Come to academia! I'm serious; you certainly sound proficient enough to blow through a PhD in a few years and then you can leverage your age (as this is a proxy for training) as a good thing. "Old" academics are treasured - even in tech, because an "old" academic can tell you all about the g(l)ory days of punch cards. "Young" academics, OTOH, are hard-pressed to get "street-cred" in the community. Not a troll, I just would like to see you employed and helping out here in academia.
The "no profit" loophole was closed by the DMCA. Now the MPAA is fleeing to a locked door. This is going to be fun.
It'll only get fun if the film maker decides to try to take it somewhere. Right now it looks like the film wasn't harmed financially, and I don't think the film maker has a major studio backing him with financial and legal muscle. He'll probably milk it for publicity, and it'll all go away. Or at most be something we point to for the next five years or until the MPAA does something else stupid, whichever comes first.
Here we go, then... I was going to but This Movie Not Yet Rated when it was released, but I refuse to buy anything that the MPAA has duplicated without express written consent of the copyright holder. Therefore, the film maker now has incurred a loss of revenueas a direct result of the MPAA's actions in this matter.
Slashdot Mirror
This, while possibly a tongue-in-cheek comment, is unfortunately far more true than many may be initially inclined to believe. Below follows my personal reasoning outlining my agreement with the parent on the matter.
If we take the premise that, when we buy a music CD/Tape/Vinyl, we are buying the intellectual property on the media (as we are forcibly barred from exercising Fair Use) rather than the physical media, then the media is transient and unimportant. This, incidentally, is why it is possible and appropriate to charge for legal "media-free" music downloads. Indeed, this is the only scenario (the other being that consumers "buy" the supplied physical media itself) under which it becomes possible to enforce the protection of intellectual property.
With the establishment of that which is owned (or leased), let's poke at this a bit: what is our - as consumers - burden of proof regarding music "ownership"? Obviously, we need to demonstrate that which we have paid for. So we therefore need to present an appropriate depiction of the IP as we received it (viz., as an MP3, iTunes, WAV, or RAW file).
However, I posit that these formats are both transient and only tenuously coupled to their legal "owners". Moreover, a much more reasonable, logical, and verifiable mechanism of providing "proof" of ownership comes in the form of having the physical CD case. Yet the new(ish) paper cases, as opposed to the older-style plastic jewel cases, take this notion of phsyical presentation and reduce the window of time that a consumer has physical custody of proof of ownership via significantly reduced durability.
Of course, IP confuses the matter somewhat and makes the most obvious and intuitive analogy - that of a physical car being just a proxy for vehicle ownership (the true ownership being defined here through a car title) - invalid through setting up the argument that a consumer could have bought a song on CD through presenting a digital file, or that a consumer could have bought a song electronically through presenting a digital file. In short, the item itself becomes proof of ownership.
I've brought this up before, but the RIAA and other content distributors must make a decision on which demand they want to place on consumers and then stick with it. It is not possible to have this both ways, and that is exactly how they have it now: if I break my CD (media), but have purchased the IP, then consumers should be legally entitled to [and not blocked or dissuaded from] a backup copy under Fair Use. However, if instead a consumer has paid for the CD (media) and not the IP that is on that media, then the consumer ought to get a free replacement of the media, containing the IP which came with it, upon sending the broken CD to the distributor/studio. However, neither of these requirements are being met in the even of media damage (or data loss), so it is instead clear that consumers are leasing music within a retroactively- and unilaterally-mutable agreement between the consumer and the RIAA/recording company.
The point of it, methinks, is in asking how did we ever come to this point, whereupon logical and reasonable expectations of remedy and use are invalid?
For a couple of years now, television advertising has seemed, to me, as something that floats along on top of a misguided platform. This is not an attack against television itself, mind, but rather one leveled against the way in which we go about "thinking about" and "viewing" television itself. So my reaction to this news is as follows: is this a good start? Sure. However, it is doomed to ultimately fail (defined by lack of adaquate scoping, which leads to a lack of "stickiness" and inability to plant products squarely on the tip of the tongue of consumers) unless we re-examine the infrastructure of television itself.
(Yes, I'm aware that this is cagey - the full layout is something I've been tossing around in my mind for a couple of years and will hopefully submit in full before the new year.)
I can second the OpenCV nomination.
However, I think I may be able to add something to the puzzle: I was informed (but have not yet tested) that IEEE1394 (Firewire) cams will synch across the bus. This means that you no longer have to worry about adjusting for framedrops or timing or whatnot. Rather, the two cameras "see" their fields in lock-step with respect to time. I know that some folks here locally have had great success with Uni-Brain Fire-i cameras, but earlier in the thread someone reported a bad experience with them.
However, this being slashdot, I must remind you that YMMV.
I'm curious. I seriously wonder if this, too, will be used as evidence to support that men and women are more different than alike (philosophically speaking, note).
Here's my prediction: The current status quo tends towards women not being adopters, purveyors, or masters of technology. While there are certainly pockets of discourse and space that argue against this, I would suggest this story is more widespread than its alternative (e.g. "women are technologically-savvy"). I have to wonder at what point the evidence for the realization that there is more intra-group variability than extra-group variability between the sexes will become wholly overwhelming and force a change in the commonplace "line" on women in/and technology.
I promised a prediction - here it is.
I should blog on this, but it's late. Thoughts? Am I way off-topic here?
The really great thing about TrueCrypt, as I see it, is plausible deniability. This means that you can "nest" volumes and only have to account for the outer "envelope" when you are tortured by Homeland Security because you are using cryptography. The short of this: it is impossible to distinguish the "signal" of a nested hidden volume from the "noise" of random bits and such on the device.
Damn, I thought you lived in the U.S. and I could possibly get service like this. I see this is obviously not the case, though.
Unless this is in the Journal of Irreproducible Results or the Annals of Improbable Research, then this doesn't belong in publication. Like another poster said, it's pretty straight-forward and has been answered many many times by individuals (myself included) via the mutation-into-chicken-embryo argument.
Funny, too, that this "breakthrough" is highlighted on a day when slashdot is carrying a story that while fourth-graders' science scores are elevated from 10 years ago, Americans' high-schoolers scores have decreased.
A former penal colony is opening up individual freedom ... while here in the United States, we are going through the criminalization of ruled-upon timeshifting and Fair Use practices.
Interesting.
Well, the project (Icarus) that I mentioned was completed this semester in HCI 575x (Computer Perception). Throughout the semester I have been hearing that we'd like to include a couple of cameras in the C6 for body posture/pose/position tracking. While I can speculate that this has something to do with Alex Stoychev showing up (the instructor for 575x), this is only speculation and I'm unsure of just when/how the decision was made, nor how far down the road we are. However, to go back to what does work, the Icarus team (no, I'm not part of it) gave a demo in the C4, so I think that's functional now.
Cache
5-8-06
Contacts:
James Oliver, Virtual Reality Applications Center, (515) 294-2649
Chiu-Shui Chan, Architecture, (515) 294-8326
Eve Wurtele, Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, (515) 294-8989
Mark Bryden, Mechanical Engineering, (515) 294-3891
Mike Krapfl, News Service, (515) 294-4917
/
The most realistic virtual reality room in the world
AMES, Iowa -- More than $4 million in equipment upgrades will shine 100 million pixels on Iowa State University's six-sided virtual reality room.
(image)C6 battlespace
(image caption)Jared Knutzon, an Iowa State University graduate student in human computer interaction, demonstrates how Iowa State's C6 virtual reality room can control the military's unmanned aerial vehicles.
That's twice the number of pixels lighting up any virtual reality room in the world and 16 times the pixels now projected on Iowa State's C6, a 10-foot by 10-foot virtual reality room that surrounds users with computer-generated 3-D images. That means the C6 will produce virtual reality at the world's highest resolution.
Iowa State's C6 opened in June 2000 as the country's first six-sided virtual reality room designed to immerse users in images and sound. The graphics and projection technology that made such immersion possible hasn't been updated since the C6 opened.
The difference between the equipment currently in the C6 and the updated technology to be installed this summer, "is like putting on your glasses in the morning," said James Oliver, the director of Iowa State's Virtual Reality Applications Center and a professor of mechanical engineering.
The new equipment -- a Hewlett-Packard computer featuring 96 graphics processing units, 24 Sony digital projectors, an eight-channel audio system and ultrasonic motion tracking technology -- will be installed by Fakespace Systems Inc. of Marshalltown. The project is supported by a U.S. Department of Defense appropriation through the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
The project began this spring with a prototype upgrade to one wall of the C6. The remainder of the work will continue throughout the summer. Oliver said the improved C6 will open in the fall. A grand opening celebration is being planned for the spring of 2007.
A better C6 will be good news for the Iowa State researchers who study virtual reality.
Chiu-Shui Chan, an Iowa State professor of architecture, has used the C6 to develop 3-D models of buildings, cities and workplaces. He's studying how virtual reality can be a tool to create a library of historical buildings, plan urban growth and test workplace efficiency.
(image)virtual Beijing
(image caption) A virtual model of the Xidan business district in Beijing can help city planners manage urban growth.
Chan said the upgrade will improve the visual realism and interactive speed of his virtual reality applications. And that will enhance the sense of place in his applications and the effectiveness of his research.
Chan said the C6's existing technology requires him to balance and sacrifice some of a project's size, speed, realism or human-computer interaction. "With the new system I won't have to worry about that," he said.
Eve Wurtele, an Iowa State professor of genetics, development and cell biology, working with Julie Dickerson, an Iowa State associate professor of electrical and computer engineering, has used the C6 to develop new ways to visualize data from as many as 22,000 genes. She's also developing a virtual cell project that shows cells in 3-D action to help students learn about photosynthesis and other aspects of cell biology.
Wurtele said the higher speeds and better pictures will be a boost for her research and teaching.
"This upgrade is fantastic for us," she said. "It's essential for our research."
Mark Bryden, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, has used virtual reality to develop engineering tools that he
I can only comment about the API - we're using something that is a standard (for us) and that fills in as nice middleware: VRJuggler. It sits atop (among other things) OpenGL.
There actually are things you can do in the C6 that you cannot do with goggles. For one - and to name something that I know is implementable and implemented - you can track body posturing and position within the C6 to make the experience more engaging/real. Any pictures just do not do this justice; the "seams" shown in the picture are not nearly as obvious in the real thing. On that note, I will say that I've nearly walked into the wall before (on the old system), and missed walking into the screen by a matter of about 6 inches.
With respect to your other comment, the part about interoperability (The goggles would also have the benefit of being runnable on relatively standand class hardware), sometimes you want and need specialized solutions to do great things. Just because you or I cannot hope to afford such a system doesn't invalidate the system.
No, this concerns real genetics - primarily agricultural typing and visualization. And, yes, I am here at ISU.
I assume that you refer to the CISSP exam (or the Cisco CCxx security track?) in the first statement above. That's not really what I'd like to respond to, but the exams are fairly comprehensive and give a good "flavor" of what to look for as well as a "painting with broad strokes" overview of threat models and the like that face security personnel. However, I'm more concerned with the other point in your comment, which seems to point to a conclusion that the exams exist in a vacuum and are the only means/metric by which security personnel may be judged. This is just not the case. Depending on what you want in a "consultant", and depending on your approach (e.g. basic vs. applied research bent), there are exams and degree programs that exist, but the best measure of a security consultant is - I believe - the same as any other field:
* Do they come recommended?
* Do they appear to know what they're doing?
* Finally, do they appear to genuinely understand where security sits in the larger framework of an organization's infrastructure and develop a solution accordingly?
Just summing it up - unless I've misunderstood the grounding and guiding tenure of your post - with a flippant anyone can take a CompTIA exam and be a security consultant does not take into account the true nature of how things are done when individuals have a clue. (Yes, the last part is important)
I see the call for regulation that you are making here, but I think there are other (e.g. "market") forces involved. I am uncertain that regulation would in itself be able to fully cover this, as people's social and business networks have proven difficult to trump in applied practice.
Oh ... my ... God. I'm going to have to go out and buy this game. Stories and descriptions like these let me know which games I should be investing my time and effort in, just like book burnings.
No, I just live in a country where revealing a "better terrorist communication method" may well equate to sedition and/or treason.
Although you can freely read about it in publication.
Why waste time with this garbage when there are so many better uses of State time? I really don't understand - besides the "low hanging fruit" or "government-as-mouthpiece-of-businesses" arguments - why this country is afraid to face issues and problems that are meaningful and need resolution. Instead, what we do over here is run around under the banner of intellectual property while the labor pool is vanishing, the economy's sluggish, and the citizenry aren't liking the actions taken by the government.
That's it, I'm moving to the Netherlands. ;)
No, there's actually a much better way for terrorist cells to get in touch with each other, and it does NOT involve email.
You know your latest enterprise-class Operating System, OS/3? Well ... it's been "liberated" and will henceforth be known as Microsoft Windows Vista.
(I wish there was a +1, Sardonic tag...)
Come to academia! I'm serious; you certainly sound proficient enough to blow through a PhD in a few years and then you can leverage your age (as this is a proxy for training) as a good thing. "Old" academics are treasured - even in tech, because an "old" academic can tell you all about the g(l)ory days of punch cards. "Young" academics, OTOH, are hard-pressed to get "street-cred" in the community. Not a troll, I just would like to see you employed and helping out here in academia.
Here we go, then... I was going to but This Movie Not Yet Rated when it was released, but I refuse to buy anything that the MPAA has duplicated without express written consent of the copyright holder. Therefore, the film maker now has incurred a loss of revenue as a direct result of the MPAA's actions in this matter.
Heh.