Totally. This is yet another attempt by the government to monitor its drones and keep them in line, another little teeter down the slippery slope to an Orwellian future.
But by analyzing how you react to this, they'll be able to offer you the customised Orwellian future that you really want.
Pull a stunt like that and you'd strike out if I was interviewing you.
If you won't hire anyone who's smart enough to ask about the tools he's going to be using for the next couple of years, then I don't think I'd want to work for you.
I've conducted dozens of programmer interviews, and I totally disagree. The point of the interview is not to get a job, it's to allow both parties a chance to see if this pairing will work. If I can tell that a prospective employee is just concerned with getting hired, that's a huge red flag. I want to hire someone passionate about the same things that my team is passionate about, someone who will have a good sense of humor when we're both still there at 2 AM, and, of course, someone who has the skills required.
Exactly. When I look for a job, I look for a job I can be passionate about. I don't just want to be paid for menial labour, I want a job I can love, and employer I can love, even. I work better when I'm happy about my work. I'm also happier when I'm happy about my work, and that's worth quite a lot to me.
I rarely choose the highest-paying job. To get my current job, I passed over several much better paying offers, because this job sounded like more fun, more interesting co-workers, and more new stuff to learn. To get my previous job, it was exactly the same thing. Of course, when job offers are low and employers can afford to be picky, I may have to be less picky, but so far that hasn't happened yet. (Well, my first post-university job turned out to be a bit lame, but hey, you've got to start somewhere, right?)
You're kidding me, right? Spending time with my family is very important to any good parent, and planned events are even harder to move because they have to arrange babysitters and stuff like that.
I had no problem working overtime when I was single. It got a lot harder when I got married. Now that I have a son, you need a truly excellent reason to get me to work overtime at the office (home might be a different matter).
When developing for Windows using Visual Studio, local admin rights are needed to run the debugger.
Really? That's amazingly stupid. I've never heard of needing admin rights for a debugger before, and I can't imagine a good reason why it would be different for Visual Studio. A good reason to use something else, I guess.
or the first line? "a neat idea, for collaborative brainstorming or throwaway conversations perhaps, but i hope that nobody is planning on using this for any communication that is mission critical, in it's *current form* anyway."
by current form, i mean, hosted on googles waveservers.
But currently you can't use Google's wave servers yet, because they haven't even gone live yet. You can play around on the dev sandbox, but that's really not the same thing.
And by the time Wave goes live, every ISP should put up their own wave server, and within a year, I bet there will be some choice in various servers and clients.
The entire business plan of Google is: give people lots of free, cool stuff so they'll use it a lot and do funky new things with it, which Google can then analyse and use for cleverly targeted advertisement.
I think the burden of proof is on dunkelfalke here. He's the one who claimed the Touch HD is better than the iPhone, yet the figures he uses to support that claim have some suspicious holes.
So we take one of the slowest and most bloated virtual machines for static languages, the JVM,
Boy, do you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about! JVM one of the slowest VMs? You need to get your head out of the '90s. It's one of the fastest now. And JRuby is one of the fastest Ruby implementation. (Definitely faster than Ruby 1.8, which is dreadfully slow.)
You're correct that Ruby's dynamic typing doesn't go well with JVM's static typing, which is why Scala is much faster than JRuby. Still, the JVM is so impressive, and Ruby nice enough to work with, that JRuby is still a pretty good idea.
Display resolution: 480x800 vs 480x320 - Touch HD wins big time
It's more pixels, sure, but I've never had the feeling that the iPhone (mine is a generation older) is seriously lacking. So Touch HD wins, but I don't see it as a big time.
Internal memory: 512 MB vs 8GB or 16GB: iPhone wins
This one on the other hand: the iPhone has way more storage. Half a Gig is just not enough, and hasn't been for ages.
Memory card: microSDHC up to 32GB vs none at all - Touch HD wins big time again (and you get a 8GB or 16GB card with every new Touch HD)
This compensates a lot, of course, but is that memory card as fast as the iPhone's internal storage? Speed counts.
How is it crappy now?
The big category you skipped is speed. How fast is the Touch HD? How fast can its GPS find where you are? How fast does it switch between apps, get your mail, show where you are on the map, etc? Without that, your comparison is woefully incomplete.
From what I read, it worked really well, but I'd wonder how the focal length worked out. It would seem your eyes would be adjusting back and forth constantly to be able to read it.
Exactly. That's why I was so intrigued by projecting straight onto the retina. No need to focus on it.
The phone's output is wearable. Not anywhere as useful due to it being audio only, sure, but we don't define computing by the presence of a screen. Some phones have voice recognition.
That'd count as wearable for me. If you can use it while wearing it, that is without having to dedicate hands to it, then it's wearable IMO. A smart phone that allows you to use its full computer-like functionality through voice control would fit my definition of a wearable computer.
If you can only make phone calls, it might be a wearable phone, but that's not nearly as interesting.
With the iPhone, there are apparently more apps that use voice control. I haven't tried it, but if you can open those apps through voice control, use them and close them without every having to touch or look at your iPhone, then it counts as a wearable computer to me. A very limited one, though, because I think the majority of the apps won't work that way. It's designed around touch, not voice.
I'm not sure that "wearing" is a useful qualifier, or anything more than a matter of definitions. Consider, I "wear" my trousers, but I don't "wear" the phone in my trouser pocket - yet if I tied a bit of string and wrapped it round my waist, I'd then be "wearing" it. Yet little has changed from a practical or functional point of view.
It doesn't matter if it's in your pocket or tied around your waist. What matters is if you can use it that way.
Yes, what you said, and, for the love of Christ, a way to "talk" without having a one-sided conversation with the freaking air. I hate that. Fifteen years ago you would have been sent to the loony bin for talking to voices in your head. Now, we assume one half of a bluetooth-enabled conversation. Seriously, how many completely, balls-out fucking crazy people are walking the streets who we assume are on the phone?
Why is that a problem? Suddenly crazies can pretend to be normal well-adjusted members of society too. Isn't that great?
The big idea behind augmented reality is that it should assist you in your current activity, rather than distract you with irrelevant stuff. Consider fighter pilots who get extra visual input about their own speed and direction, and data about possible threats and targets on their HUD display.
Now translate that to your car: you'd get a good impression of how fast you're going (and if you're over the speed limit) without looking at the dashboard, you can get an extra warning if there's traffic in a place you weren't paying attention to, you might get automatic traffic info, etc.
AR could be incredinly useful in traffic and enhance your safety. As long as you don't go reading your mail while driving.
Unless you simply want to say that everyone that allows themselves to be distracted by "new toys" while driving is stupid. I could go along with that. It's more of a conscious decision sort of stupidity than a ignorance or intellectual issue. Very, very smart and intellectual people can be extremely stupid.
Allowing unnecessary distractions during driving is definitely stupid. And yes, being very intellectual doesn't stop you from being stupid. You can be very informed about all sorts of interesting stuff that's completely irrelevant to your current activity, and completely ignorant about what's important right now (keeping your attention on the road, rather than elsewhere).
He has a computer in his backpack and wears a headset. Compare with someone with a phone in their pocket, and wearing a bluetooth headset. I don't think even of them count as wearable computers. Yes, he's wearing a headset, and people talk about wearing bluetooth headsets with their phones too.
The computer's output is definitely wearable. The big question is the input. Do you need to get your smartphone out to type stufff? Does it have voice recognition? Do you have an input device in your pocket that you can use without looking at it? Does it track your eye movement?
Ideally it has both audible and visible wearable output, and several types of wearable input. But with even one type of practical output and one type of practical input, it'd count as a wearable computer in my book.
Over 10 years ago I saw a project that did truly interest me: transparent glasses that project the computer's output directly on your retina, using fighter jet technology. No idea what happened to that, but I won't be happy with anything less than that.
The problem with the setup from TFA is that, while a tiny screen hanging in front of your glasses might look very cool and cyberpunky, it's not terribly practical. It does block part of your vision, and it doesn't really overlay the computer output over your regular vision, which is what you need for good AR.
What I want to find is a setup that hooks up to both a long infrared (thermal imaging) and a short infrared (night vision) cameras, and overlays the images on reality through the glasses.
I think that shouldn't be too hard to add to any system. Just add some cameras. The big question is: do you want to overlay that info over a transparent screen, or do you want it next to regular vision. For the second approach, the setup from TFA might be perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
it's very annoying when people do that.
Totally. This is yet another attempt by the government to monitor its drones and keep them in line, another little teeter down the slippery slope to an Orwellian future.
But by analyzing how you react to this, they'll be able to offer you the customised Orwellian future that you really want.
Pull a stunt like that and you'd strike out if I was interviewing you.
If you won't hire anyone who's smart enough to ask about the tools he's going to be using for the next couple of years, then I don't think I'd want to work for you.
I've conducted dozens of programmer interviews, and I totally disagree. The point of the interview is not to get a job, it's to allow both parties a chance to see if this pairing will work. If I can tell that a prospective employee is just concerned with getting hired, that's a huge red flag. I want to hire someone passionate about the same things that my team is passionate about, someone who will have a good sense of humor when we're both still there at 2 AM, and, of course, someone who has the skills required.
Exactly. When I look for a job, I look for a job I can be passionate about. I don't just want to be paid for menial labour, I want a job I can love, and employer I can love, even. I work better when I'm happy about my work. I'm also happier when I'm happy about my work, and that's worth quite a lot to me.
I rarely choose the highest-paying job. To get my current job, I passed over several much better paying offers, because this job sounded like more fun, more interesting co-workers, and more new stuff to learn. To get my previous job, it was exactly the same thing. Of course, when job offers are low and employers can afford to be picky, I may have to be less picky, but so far that hasn't happened yet. (Well, my first post-university job turned out to be a bit lame, but hey, you've got to start somewhere, right?)
You're kidding me, right? Spending time with my family is very important to any good parent, and planned events are even harder to move because they have to arrange babysitters and stuff like that.
I had no problem working overtime when I was single. It got a lot harder when I got married. Now that I have a son, you need a truly excellent reason to get me to work overtime at the office (home might be a different matter).
When developing for Windows using Visual Studio, local admin rights are needed to run the debugger.
Really? That's amazingly stupid. I've never heard of needing admin rights for a debugger before, and I can't imagine a good reason why it would be different for Visual Studio. A good reason to use something else, I guess.
I think the problem was that they did it in a bad and annoying way.
Sounds very interesting. Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it from now on.
So you're intentionally trying to confuse the discussion?
Users are authenticated. You can't wave as anonymously and untraceably as you can email. I think.
or the first line?
"a neat idea, for collaborative brainstorming or throwaway conversations perhaps, but i hope that nobody is planning on using this for any communication that is mission critical, in it's *current form* anyway."
by current form, i mean, hosted on googles waveservers.
But currently you can't use Google's wave servers yet, because they haven't even gone live yet. You can play around on the dev sandbox, but that's really not the same thing.
And by the time Wave goes live, every ISP should put up their own wave server, and within a year, I bet there will be some choice in various servers and clients.
how is Google going to make money off of it???
Lie they do with everything: magically.
The entire business plan of Google is: give people lots of free, cool stuff so they'll use it a lot and do funky new things with it, which Google can then analyse and use for cleverly targeted advertisement.
I think the burden of proof is on dunkelfalke here. He's the one who claimed the Touch HD is better than the iPhone, yet the figures he uses to support that claim have some suspicious holes.
First of all, it's been done already. Obviously google couldn't use the standards already in place.
It hasn't and Google does. Wave is based on XMPP, but extended to do stuff that hasn't been done before.
So we take one of the slowest and most bloated virtual machines for static languages, the JVM,
Boy, do you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about! JVM one of the slowest VMs? You need to get your head out of the '90s. It's one of the fastest now. And JRuby is one of the fastest Ruby implementation. (Definitely faster than Ruby 1.8, which is dreadfully slow.)
You're correct that Ruby's dynamic typing doesn't go well with JVM's static typing, which is why Scala is much faster than JRuby. Still, the JVM is so impressive, and Ruby nice enough to work with, that JRuby is still a pretty good idea.
Display resolution: 480x800 vs 480x320 - Touch HD wins big time
It's more pixels, sure, but I've never had the feeling that the iPhone (mine is a generation older) is seriously lacking. So Touch HD wins, but I don't see it as a big time.
Internal memory: 512 MB vs 8GB or 16GB: iPhone wins
This one on the other hand: the iPhone has way more storage. Half a Gig is just not enough, and hasn't been for ages.
Memory card: microSDHC up to 32GB vs none at all - Touch HD wins big time again (and you get a 8GB or 16GB card with every new Touch HD)
This compensates a lot, of course, but is that memory card as fast as the iPhone's internal storage? Speed counts.
How is it crappy now?
The big category you skipped is speed. How fast is the Touch HD? How fast can its GPS find where you are? How fast does it switch between apps, get your mail, show where you are on the map, etc? Without that, your comparison is woefully incomplete.
From what I read, it worked really well, but I'd wonder how the focal length worked out. It would seem your eyes would be adjusting back and forth constantly to be able to read it.
Exactly. That's why I was so intrigued by projecting straight onto the retina. No need to focus on it.
The phone's output is wearable. Not anywhere as useful due to it being audio only, sure, but we don't define computing by the presence of a screen. Some phones have voice recognition.
That'd count as wearable for me. If you can use it while wearing it, that is without having to dedicate hands to it, then it's wearable IMO. A smart phone that allows you to use its full computer-like functionality through voice control would fit my definition of a wearable computer.
If you can only make phone calls, it might be a wearable phone, but that's not nearly as interesting.
With the iPhone, there are apparently more apps that use voice control. I haven't tried it, but if you can open those apps through voice control, use them and close them without every having to touch or look at your iPhone, then it counts as a wearable computer to me. A very limited one, though, because I think the majority of the apps won't work that way. It's designed around touch, not voice.
I'm not sure that "wearing" is a useful qualifier, or anything more than a matter of definitions. Consider, I "wear" my trousers, but I don't "wear" the phone in my trouser pocket - yet if I tied a bit of string and wrapped it round my waist, I'd then be "wearing" it. Yet little has changed from a practical or functional point of view.
It doesn't matter if it's in your pocket or tied around your waist. What matters is if you can use it that way.
640x480
While this may be fine for watching video without getting neck strain from being hunched over, it makes computing life a pain.
Until one of these things can give me a full 1024x768 or better display, it'll always be a niche toy for computing.
It's not supposed to be a workstation. High resolution is mainly important for workstations.
Yes, what you said, and, for the love of Christ, a way to "talk" without having a one-sided conversation with the freaking air. I hate that. Fifteen years ago you would have been sent to the loony bin for talking to voices in your head. Now, we assume one half of a bluetooth-enabled conversation. Seriously, how many completely, balls-out fucking crazy people are walking the streets who we assume are on the phone?
Why is that a problem? Suddenly crazies can pretend to be normal well-adjusted members of society too. Isn't that great?
The big idea behind augmented reality is that it should assist you in your current activity, rather than distract you with irrelevant stuff. Consider fighter pilots who get extra visual input about their own speed and direction, and data about possible threats and targets on their HUD display.
Now translate that to your car: you'd get a good impression of how fast you're going (and if you're over the speed limit) without looking at the dashboard, you can get an extra warning if there's traffic in a place you weren't paying attention to, you might get automatic traffic info, etc.
AR could be incredinly useful in traffic and enhance your safety. As long as you don't go reading your mail while driving.
Unless you simply want to say that everyone that allows themselves to be distracted by "new toys" while driving is stupid. I could go along with that. It's more of a conscious decision sort of stupidity than a ignorance or intellectual issue. Very, very smart and intellectual people can be extremely stupid.
Allowing unnecessary distractions during driving is definitely stupid. And yes, being very intellectual doesn't stop you from being stupid. You can be very informed about all sorts of interesting stuff that's completely irrelevant to your current activity, and completely ignorant about what's important right now (keeping your attention on the road, rather than elsewhere).
He has a computer in his backpack and wears a headset. Compare with someone with a phone in their pocket, and wearing a bluetooth headset. I don't think even of them count as wearable computers. Yes, he's wearing a headset, and people talk about wearing bluetooth headsets with their phones too.
The computer's output is definitely wearable. The big question is the input. Do you need to get your smartphone out to type stufff? Does it have voice recognition? Do you have an input device in your pocket that you can use without looking at it? Does it track your eye movement?
Ideally it has both audible and visible wearable output, and several types of wearable input. But with even one type of practical output and one type of practical input, it'd count as a wearable computer in my book.
I still haven't seen one that truly interests me.
Over 10 years ago I saw a project that did truly interest me: transparent glasses that project the computer's output directly on your retina, using fighter jet technology. No idea what happened to that, but I won't be happy with anything less than that.
The problem with the setup from TFA is that, while a tiny screen hanging in front of your glasses might look very cool and cyberpunky, it's not terribly practical. It does block part of your vision, and it doesn't really overlay the computer output over your regular vision, which is what you need for good AR.
What I want to find is a setup that hooks up to both a long infrared (thermal imaging) and a short infrared (night vision) cameras, and overlays the images on reality through the glasses.
I think that shouldn't be too hard to add to any system. Just add some cameras. The big question is: do you want to overlay that info over a transparent screen, or do you want it next to regular vision. For the second approach, the setup from TFA might be perfect.
Not just in Australia, but I'm sure there are a lot of countries where it would be illegal, and I admit I don't know where maxwell demon lives.