More relevant car analogy: If you have the specs for a car (hp, torque, weight, drag coefficients, etc.) that had not yet been built you could prove mathematically, without it ever actually happening or the car even existing at the time except on paper, whether or not the car could accelerate to 60 mph.
What they are saying here is that, according to the math, the universe could have formed this way. The math does not prevent it so it's a valid theoretical possibility. This does not mean that another model won't show that it could have formed in a different way as well. After all we have three perfectly mathematically valid geometries yet we know only one can be the true geometry of the physical universe.
Now, it would take a lot more than a mathematical model to say that it did form that way.
Here's a proposal for a minor change in the legislation. If this law is all about protecting the consu--I mean citizen, and limiting abuses of the inspectors, providing an accurate record, etc, then instead of the inspectors wearing a recording device, how about requiring those being inspected to wear them instead? Same results, right? Surely the state inspectors won't have ANY problem whatsoever being recorded doing their jobs - if everything's so above board, then they have nothing to fear.
I think they idea here is that the video would pick up what the inspector sees (since it would be sitting on his/her face it would have the same POV). This way if there is a dispute the video can be used to clarify what was seen. I don't see a problem with the owner also creating his own video of the inspection, but I don't think it's fair to do what you say and force the owners to wear a camera during the inspection.
After a while the content producers would realize they didn't need a middle man and go direct. That could be a good thing. It could also be annoying if they force you through their own sites/devices.
"Force you through their own sites/devices" counts as vertical integration.
Not really, no. Even if you want to go that route, then you are back to fragmentation like you see now with netflix/hulu/amazon, etc.
The cable to get your broadband Internet comes from the same company as the one that provides you with Internet which is also the same as the one that provides you with television.
Imagine if you could take Comcast and split it up into physical cable provider, television content provider and internet provider. No common ownership structure allowed upwards or downwards. Now the ISP company needs to buy access from the cable provider at a wholesale level that should be offered to all ISPs at the same rate.
If there aren't enough IPv4 addresses then just become an IPv6 ISP with an appropriate IPv4 - IPv6 gateway.
I kind of agree with this but there is a problem: The biggest competitive advantage most providers have is their physical network. If you remove that, we end up with a "race to the bottom" situation. That ends up with consolidation of players (since no one can gain a pricing advantage since they would all have essentially the same costs) and pretty much bring us back around to where we are now. At least for internet access. For content, it's who can get the best deals, which will go to the bigger companies. Since the providers would no longer be constrained by region, we would end up with a lot of fragmentation when it comes to content. At least at first. After a while the content producers would realize they didn't need a middle man and go direct. That could be a good thing. It could also be annoying if they force you through their own sites/devices.
Streams are not. Netflix pays once for each DVD, then rents them multiple times. Streams are not re-usable. I would imagine Netflix's deals include per-stream revenue back to the studios as well as an overall fee.
Do you really think game companies would use an API that injected third-party* "bullshit" into their games that would do nothing but piss off their users? Or would they instead, just not support it or support a different company's hardware?
*We know they will inject their own bullshit content and DRM, but that benefits them. This wouldn't.
Of course the founders are saying that, facebook probably even portrayed it to them in that way, but i severely doubt FB will enter the gaming market i am confident that this technology will end up in the IP Graveyard of a giant corporation
Why? Again, it makes zero sense. They might as well burn a pile of cash and stock certificates on their parking lot. They have no IP of any real value to Facebook. What you are saying is that Facebook is going to hand them $2 billion ($400 million of that in cash), and immediately shut them down. That, versus that FB sees the potential for the VR market to be huge and that Zuck wants to get in on the ground floor of it?
Hell, considering how much VC money they had already taken in and they were still struggling to get a product out in the face of rapidly approaching competition from Sony and others, it's probably more likely that the product will make it to market now than before.
Except that it seems everyone is, and everything is.
You seem to be confusing paranoia with critical thinking. They are not the same. Many/.'ers lately are just default to crap like that, and it takes away from the validity of things that are real threats. It's gone from a site for geeks to a site for paranoid Luddites.
Ethically, yes, they do. Legally? Well, they made sure the laws didn't work that way. As for merchants not wanting to ditch magstipes, the national retailers have wanted to ditch them for a while (oddly, around the same time PCI came into existence). It's the banks dragging their feet over it. The cards cost more and there are questions about how Chip and PIN transactions costs will work (as a swipe transaction or a PIN transaction) and what networks they will use.
You seem to be operating under the assumption facebook will continue to develop the oculus rift as intended and is not buying it simply to obtain some piece of IP they want to bastardize and use in some way to monetize its existing user base further.
I strongly suspect the only oculus rift gaming devices to ever see market, are the ones that are already in the hands of developers and kickstarter backers we should expect this to more likely appear in some other form of social tool that in no way appeals to the original audience of oculus
I'm not the only one. If you read the founders Reddit posts they also appear to be under that assumption. Also, what possible IP could facebook want from Oculus that would be worth that much to them? That just does not make sense. They are not buying a user base, like with What'sApp. Aquiri-hire also doesn't make any sense here. They bought a hardware company. They (Oculus) is already saying that they are planning to start work on custom hardware components (versus being tied to off-the-shelf parts for mobile phones), and part of the deal terms was to allow them to lower the final cost of the consumer hardware. The more likely explanation is that they (Facebook) want to branch out into an emerging tech. I don't see it any differently than Microsoft developing the XBox. Just because they are a social company doesn't mean that's ALL they can do. It would be smart of Zuck to branch out. He, like the rest of the world, has to know that social platforms have a shelf life and if Facebook wants to survive they need to start doing other things.
And how, exactly, will a VR headset be used for that?
Both exactly like, and somewhat different, from how you do it on a web page.
You really think Facebook has altruistic motives here? Or that they see a potential cash cow in the future?
Of course they see a future cash cow. Why would they not?! As for my original question, that's a dumb answer and you know it. They have no reason to spend 2 BILLION just to sell you a VR headset so you can.... what? Read Facebook posts? Most likely they, like Microsoft and the XBox, are trying to branch out into a new (for them) industry.
I'm really amazed at the complete lack of critical thinking on/. these days. Everyone is a shill for [insert company you hate here] and every new anything is obviously an NSA plot. Get your heads out of your asses already.
Anyone that pays someone to make money with no expectations in return is a fool.
Expectation: Pay money and get promised reward.
I'm pretty sure they met the expectation for that project. As for them "selling out", well duh. The vast majority of their funding came from their VC rounds, not kickstarter. VCs are usually looking for an exit and these days want to control burn rate until they get to there. Honestly they are probably better off now with Facebook. FB will want to get the product to market, where the VCs wanted to get the COMPANY to market.
As for all the paranoid NSA, ads in my eyes crap, it's just nerd-rage bullshit. As long as they don't close the SDK, and there is literally no logical reason for them to do that in this case, I don't see a problem. And hey, at least Google didn't aquiri-hire or Moto them.
1.
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
The plural of "anecdote" is "data". Or did you think that an individual's experience wasn't a valid data point because it was "just" an individual's experience? Also, remember that the word "anecdote" doesn't necessarily mean self-reported, since there's no indication in the definition that the subject of the story has to be the person telling that story. The observer recording data in a completely valid scientific study is technically recording anecdotes about what's going on in that study. They must do so in an accurate way, but it in no way changes the fact that their actions fit the definition of recording an anecdote about each study subject.
You're wrong. Like "calling a tomato a suspension bridge" wrong. Researchers are not collecting anecdotes, they are collecting evidence. This can include factual information from a patient (I eat this, I don't smoke that), but usually also includes empirical data such as blood tests, imaging, etc. Anecdotal evidence, by definition, is from small populations and usually cannot be subjected to rigorous analysis to a) validate it and b) filter it for confounding factors. It is often the basis for "folk knowledge' or "old wive's tales", many of which prove to be incorrect when subjected to real scientific study.
Faced with a choice between clean, safe power for people (France's nuclear power plants) and physicists having it a bit easier to discover the answer to a question that 99.9999999999999% of the world's population could care less about, I'd opt for the former.
I'm pro-science, but I'm for a science that respects people first and foremost. Not one with an exaggerated sense of its own importance (i.e. Carl Sagan) or one that's in league with those intent in carrying out H. G. Wells' nasty agenda of having a select few run the lives of the rest of humanity. And I'm for a science with enough backbone to take up moral causes, such as opposition to legalized abortion.
I don't think anyone is saying, in this case, that it's an either/or situation. They are just looking to make sure that their experiments are not affected by man-made nuclear reactors. So they made a map to show the likely spots that would and would not be problematic for them.
Really? Are you saying the micromanagingest president in history was so inept he didn't READ THE ORDER HE SIGNED kicking off the operation?
On 3 July 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[2] Following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December Operation Storm-333 and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Babrak Karmal, Carter announced, "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War".[12]
What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.
Well he did supply arms and training to what would become the Taliban...
On the other hand, you have the realm of vitamins and other alternative treatments which may not necessarily be shown to be effective in FDA-approved studies, but seem to offer genuine anecdotal evidence to their benefits..
Look it up. Microwaves made excellent radiation seeker decoys. Of course now you claim they've fixed that. Given that you didn't know about them until reading this post...
This is a myth. It's been debunked for over 20 years now.
Slashdot Mirror
More relevant car analogy: If you have the specs for a car (hp, torque, weight, drag coefficients, etc.) that had not yet been built you could prove mathematically, without it ever actually happening or the car even existing at the time except on paper, whether or not the car could accelerate to 60 mph.
What they are saying here is that, according to the math, the universe could have formed this way. The math does not prevent it so it's a valid theoretical possibility. This does not mean that another model won't show that it could have formed in a different way as well. After all we have three perfectly mathematically valid geometries yet we know only one can be the true geometry of the physical universe.
Now, it would take a lot more than a mathematical model to say that it did form that way.
Here's a proposal for a minor change in the legislation. If this law is all about protecting the consu--I mean citizen, and limiting abuses of the inspectors, providing an accurate record, etc, then instead of the inspectors wearing a recording device, how about requiring those being inspected to wear them instead? Same results, right? Surely the state inspectors won't have ANY problem whatsoever being recorded doing their jobs - if everything's so above board, then they have nothing to fear.
I think they idea here is that the video would pick up what the inspector sees (since it would be sitting on his/her face it would have the same POV). This way if there is a dispute the video can be used to clarify what was seen. I don't see a problem with the owner also creating his own video of the inspection, but I don't think it's fair to do what you say and force the owners to wear a camera during the inspection.
Yes, didn't you get the memo?
Certainly I utilize this now to skim Slashdot in seconds....
You may want to slow down enough to at least make sure you are commenting on the right article :)
"Force you through their own sites/devices" counts as vertical integration.
Not really, no. Even if you want to go that route, then you are back to fragmentation like you see now with netflix/hulu/amazon, etc.
The problem in the USA is vertical integration.
The cable to get your broadband Internet comes from the same company as the one that provides you with Internet which is also the same as the one that provides you with television.
Imagine if you could take Comcast and split it up into physical cable provider, television content provider and internet provider. No common ownership structure allowed upwards or downwards. Now the ISP company needs to buy access from the cable provider at a wholesale level that should be offered to all ISPs at the same rate.
If there aren't enough IPv4 addresses then just become an IPv6 ISP with an appropriate IPv4 - IPv6 gateway.
I kind of agree with this but there is a problem: The biggest competitive advantage most providers have is their physical network. If you remove that, we end up with a "race to the bottom" situation. That ends up with consolidation of players (since no one can gain a pricing advantage since they would all have essentially the same costs) and pretty much bring us back around to where we are now. At least for internet access. For content, it's who can get the best deals, which will go to the bigger companies. Since the providers would no longer be constrained by region, we would end up with a lot of fragmentation when it comes to content. At least at first. After a while the content producers would realize they didn't need a middle man and go direct. That could be a good thing. It could also be annoying if they force you through their own sites/devices.
Voyager leave the solar system every month. The solar system is a ever-growing boundary.
It's not leaving, it's fleeing the solar system which is obviously trying to chase it down.
Streams are not. Netflix pays once for each DVD, then rents them multiple times. Streams are not re-usable. I would imagine Netflix's deals include per-stream revenue back to the studios as well as an overall fee.
Do you really think game companies would use an API that injected third-party* "bullshit" into their games that would do nothing but piss off their users? Or would they instead, just not support it or support a different company's hardware?
*We know they will inject their own bullshit content and DRM, but that benefits them. This wouldn't.
Of course the founders are saying that, facebook probably even portrayed it to them in that way, but i severely doubt FB will enter the gaming market i am confident that this technology will end up in the IP Graveyard of a giant corporation
Why? Again, it makes zero sense. They might as well burn a pile of cash and stock certificates on their parking lot. They have no IP of any real value to Facebook. What you are saying is that Facebook is going to hand them $2 billion ($400 million of that in cash), and immediately shut them down. That, versus that FB sees the potential for the VR market to be huge and that Zuck wants to get in on the ground floor of it?
Hell, considering how much VC money they had already taken in and they were still struggling to get a product out in the face of rapidly approaching competition from Sony and others, it's probably more likely that the product will make it to market now than before.
Except that it seems everyone is, and everything is.
You seem to be confusing paranoia with critical thinking. They are not the same. Many /.'ers lately are just default to crap like that, and it takes away from the validity of things that are real threats. It's gone from a site for geeks to a site for paranoid Luddites.
Banks hold some of the responsibility too...
Ethically, yes, they do. Legally? Well, they made sure the laws didn't work that way. As for merchants not wanting to ditch magstipes, the national retailers have wanted to ditch them for a while (oddly, around the same time PCI came into existence). It's the banks dragging their feet over it. The cards cost more and there are questions about how Chip and PIN transactions costs will work (as a swipe transaction or a PIN transaction) and what networks they will use.
You seem to be operating under the assumption facebook will continue to develop the oculus rift as intended and is not buying it simply to obtain some piece of IP they want to bastardize and use in some way to monetize its existing user base further.
I strongly suspect the only oculus rift gaming devices to ever see market, are the ones that are already in the hands of developers and kickstarter backers we should expect this to more likely appear in some other form of social tool that in no way appeals to the original audience of oculus
I'm not the only one. If you read the founders Reddit posts they also appear to be under that assumption. Also, what possible IP could facebook want from Oculus that would be worth that much to them? That just does not make sense. They are not buying a user base, like with What'sApp. Aquiri-hire also doesn't make any sense here. They bought a hardware company. They (Oculus) is already saying that they are planning to start work on custom hardware components (versus being tied to off-the-shelf parts for mobile phones), and part of the deal terms was to allow them to lower the final cost of the consumer hardware. The more likely explanation is that they (Facebook) want to branch out into an emerging tech. I don't see it any differently than Microsoft developing the XBox. Just because they are a social company doesn't mean that's ALL they can do. It would be smart of Zuck to branch out. He, like the rest of the world, has to know that social platforms have a shelf life and if Facebook wants to survive they need to start doing other things.
Both exactly like, and somewhat different, from how you do it on a web page.
You really think Facebook has altruistic motives here? Or that they see a potential cash cow in the future?
Of course they see a future cash cow. Why would they not?! As for my original question, that's a dumb answer and you know it. They have no reason to spend 2 BILLION just to sell you a VR headset so you can.... what? Read Facebook posts? Most likely they, like Microsoft and the XBox, are trying to branch out into a new (for them) industry.
/. these days. Everyone is a shill for [insert company you hate here] and every new anything is obviously an NSA plot. Get your heads out of your asses already.
I'm really amazed at the complete lack of critical thinking on
Instead, it will be used to check in with your friends on Facebook and to ensure they're monetizing everything you can do with it.
And how, exactly, will a VR headset be used for that?
Anyone that pays someone to make money with no expectations in return is a fool.
Expectation: Pay money and get promised reward.
I'm pretty sure they met the expectation for that project. As for them "selling out", well duh. The vast majority of their funding came from their VC rounds, not kickstarter. VCs are usually looking for an exit and these days want to control burn rate until they get to there. Honestly they are probably better off now with Facebook. FB will want to get the product to market, where the VCs wanted to get the COMPANY to market.
As for all the paranoid NSA, ads in my eyes crap, it's just nerd-rage bullshit. As long as they don't close the SDK, and there is literally no logical reason for them to do that in this case, I don't see a problem. And hey, at least Google didn't aquiri-hire or Moto them.
You're right, and yet so very, very wrong.
The plural of "anecdote" is "data". Or did you think that an individual's experience wasn't a valid data point because it was "just" an individual's experience? Also, remember that the word "anecdote" doesn't necessarily mean self-reported, since there's no indication in the definition that the subject of the story has to be the person telling that story. The observer recording data in a completely valid scientific study is technically recording anecdotes about what's going on in that study. They must do so in an accurate way, but it in no way changes the fact that their actions fit the definition of recording an anecdote about each study subject.
You're wrong. Like "calling a tomato a suspension bridge" wrong. Researchers are not collecting anecdotes, they are collecting evidence. This can include factual information from a patient (I eat this, I don't smoke that), but usually also includes empirical data such as blood tests, imaging, etc. Anecdotal evidence, by definition, is from small populations and usually cannot be subjected to rigorous analysis to a) validate it and b) filter it for confounding factors. It is often the basis for "folk knowledge' or "old wive's tales", many of which prove to be incorrect when subjected to real scientific study.
The plural of anecdote is data: http://blog.revolutionanalytic...
No, it's anecdotes
Faced with a choice between clean, safe power for people (France's nuclear power plants) and physicists having it a bit easier to discover the answer to a question that 99.9999999999999% of the world's population could care less about, I'd opt for the former. I'm pro-science, but I'm for a science that respects people first and foremost. Not one with an exaggerated sense of its own importance (i.e. Carl Sagan) or one that's in league with those intent in carrying out H. G. Wells' nasty agenda of having a select few run the lives of the rest of humanity. And I'm for a science with enough backbone to take up moral causes, such as opposition to legalized abortion.
I don't think anyone is saying, in this case, that it's an either/or situation. They are just looking to make sure that their experiments are not affected by man-made nuclear reactors. So they made a map to show the likely spots that would and would not be problematic for them.
On 3 July 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[2] Following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December Operation Storm-333 and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Babrak Karmal, Carter announced, "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War".[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
No he didn't. Reagan did.
Uh, no. Operation Cyclone ring a bell?
What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.
Well he did supply arms and training to what would become the Taliban...
Carter was a good president, probably the one of the best, that just happened to be not as good at politics.
Citation needed.
On the other hand, you have the realm of vitamins and other alternative treatments which may not necessarily be shown to be effective in FDA-approved studies, but seem to offer genuine anecdotal evidence to their benefits. .
Internet science at its best!
I'd say one of us doesn't.
Look it up. Microwaves made excellent radiation seeker decoys. Of course now you claim they've fixed that. Given that you didn't know about them until reading this post...
This is a myth. It's been debunked for over 20 years now.