I agree that the performance is hugely underwhelming, especially considering the power consumption and the release date. I have no regrets at all about my GeForce purchase now.
If this is a typical AMD/ATI driver clusterfuck, we can expect to see the performance ramp up to more reasonable levels over the next few months. This wouldn't be their first card to launch with subpar drivers. Not by a long shot.
But, yeah, right now there is no reason to recommend these as gaming cards at all. Maybe their compute performance will be strong, and AMD did sell out their Polaris cards primarily due to mining/folding performance.
I read that painfully bloated article, and it is very simple.
Either are buying tech to solve the wrong problems, or they are not updating processes across the enterprise when new tech is deployed.
This is not news. People have been doing this before I entered the workforce, and they will probably continue to do it long after I am dust.
And then there is this gem:
"It is no surprise, then, that more than 60 percent of customer-care leaders we surveyed are skeptical about eliminating inbound voice calls in the next ten years."
I would be skeptical about eliminating voice calls in my lifetime. Who seriously thinks this is within arms' reach?
AMD added support for System Management Mode support in their 486 line, several years after Intel first implemented it.
By definition, anything running in SMM is invisible to the operating system unless it explicitly outputs to or interfaces with the OS. E.g., legacy device emulation.
Every modern computer could be running arbitrary code without user consent or OS-level visibility. If that shocks your sensibilities, you can go back to the pre-Pentium era.
The problem is an insecure by design phone ecosystem, which in turn is driven by greed.
Bullshit.
It's a question of survival rather than greed; if Apple or Google does not deliver functionality, they will be upstaged on features and replaced. Look at Windows, IE, Java, and Adobe as the prime examples---lots of dead tech companies in their wake, and most of their competitors were technically superior.
A notification API is essential for the platform, and the Apple/Play Store has no business dictating which developers can use it. This means all apps have access---subject to approval by the user.
It's fundamentally impossible to secure a device from an ignorant owner without greatly restricting his access to it. The author of the article pointed out how to control notifications, so right there is an OS-level mechanism that the user controls. That's the most you can ask for, really---the platform has a mechanism that lets the user decide.
Security always involves a trade-off with convenience and usability. E.g., the same mechanism that allows Dropbox to access local photos will allow nefarious apps to do nefarious things if the user installs them. You either run each app in a silo, or you accept the risk of data exfiltration by a bad app.
The market demands functionality over security---not for the first time, either. They cannot sell a secure product that doesn't do what people want. In the consumer space, the market has repeatedly chosen insecure solutions because regular users do not care or understand.
Notifications are more of an annoyance than a security issue, and there is a setting to eliminate them. If a user does not want to do that, then he needs to make a choice: look at the app's internal notification settings, contact the developer, or find a replacement app.
Now that we know it works in theory, can they train it with:
* A larger sample * Schizophrenics who have been treated with various psych drugs (many of which affect brain function) * Schizophrenics who have never been treated with pharmaceuticals (probably not very many of these out there) * Non-schizophrenics who have been treated with various medications
If 74% is their first-run success rate, that is very promising.
If they focus on getting fMRIs from schizophrenics prior to drug treatments, they would have a better picture of schizophrenia as it exists in the wild---and a better idea of what undiagnosed schizophrenics look like. This seems like it would be the most useful data for reliably confirming a new diagnosis.
And maybe there should be public funding to try this with other disorders.
A verbal green light means almost nothing---some guy with some authority somewhere likes it. It doesn't give Musk so much as a construction permit.
Don't mistakte this for a lack of enthusiasm. I like the Hyperloop concept, and American transit desperately needs modernization.
But if I had to bet on whether this will be in service within 5-10 years... I would have to bet against it.
Musk needs three states and DC to agree---on top of the feds remaining unobtrusive (EPA, DOT, and DHS in particular). I hope he has either luck or contacts.
Think of ICMP+OSPF+BGP... this is used for the "Switches" in the telecom network to coordinate among themselves, and NOT to carry data (unless you consider SMSs data).
So if I could insert bogus routes/costs into your BGP exchange and then capture the traffic, you wouldn't count that as a compromise? Even when a lot of that "traffic" is not in an encrypted channel? Please.
Yes, SS7 itself is a protocol that contains little user data. But it is a control protocol that dictates where user data goes---which makes its weaknesses into pretty big problems. It can be used to eavesdrop and physically locate users, which are serious confidentiality violations.
In theory, when a vendor's product or service is defective, consumers have a right to sue and recover damages.
You have to show harm to recover damages. Did your service stop as a result of SS7 weaknesses? Can you prove you were hacked? No? Too bad.
SS7 has serious security deficiencies, and no one wants to fix it---because it costs a lot of money to replace equipment and train staff on the new equipment.
Maybe the amount of hacking will justify that expense, but good luck getting enough victims together to put that level of financial pressure on the telecoms.
In some cases, it's simpler to cut through the layers of bullshit. It's bad, people will be compromised, and we know a lot of sensitive information travels over those networks.
Ordering the carriers to fix a serious problem now is better than waiting for the individual harms to occur.
Oh wait, this is collective bargaining. No one fixes it and there is no where to go.
This not collective bargaining at all. It appears you do not know what that means.
The carriers need a standard to allow interoperability. ATT customers need to be able to call Sprint customers. The SS7 implementation is how they achieve that technical requirement.
Any carrier who fails to interoperate with SS7 will die. Who is going to sign up for a new carrier if you can only call other people on that carrier?
This is a market failure. It happens, and it's why we have regulations in the first place. I find myself in the unusual position of supporting DHS and Congressional intervention. We need security extensions or whole-cloth replacement of SS7.
On one hand, they are offering security updates through the expected lifetime of the OS that shipped with the devices. So I guess that's reasonable, and it probably avoids potential legal complaints.
On the other hand, they are engaged in massive cost-cutting that forces users onto an upgrade treadmill. I can understand that you don't want to validate your software against every piece of hardware from the last decade. But other developers are clearly capable of it.
The US and Russia have adversarial interests quite frequently. You can list every country in eastern Europe and the Middle East, and most of them have been a source of contention between the US and Russia in the last 20 years.
Given that frequency of conflict, why on earth would the US share sensitive technical information? What is Russia offering that Israel, Germany, and the UK aren't?
The US has a few arrangements already, and those include nations which are both technologically astute and far more friendly than Russia.
I don't care what Trump says; he knows jack about cyber security. What do the real experts think the US will gain? I.e., private sector and NSA/CIA security analysts.
If the laser's target is moving away from the laser device as it heads towards some destination, it's possible that the energy delivered might not be enough to destroy it.
This is a joke, right? The laser travels at the speed of light. The target is hardly going to move at all in the window between firing and impact.
I don't know if the $40 million is the cost per device or the development cost. The three operators also get paid whether they're using the device or sleeping, though they will likely have other duties. Nevertheless, this one shot cost at least $40 million +. The second will result in a cost of $20 million per shot.
You have no idea how to do basic accounting.
Development, maintenance, personnel, and consumables are all accounted for separately. You don't just mash everything together like that. LIterally no one does that---not private businesses, not government agencies.
You are free to make up whatever cost metrics you want, but those will not be comparable or usable in relation to anything anywhere else.
The aiming system, presumably RADAR or some such, must be able to follow such a target and likely uses a mechanical motor driven gear system for that. Can the aiming system follow that spot during the target's travels?
The military has very sophisticated target tracking systems, and most of that work is classified. This is one of the areas where the government has better technology than what is available or known publicly.
In the US and Europe, telephone network operators are required to provide 911 (or equivalent) access to all devices regardless of status.
It doesn't matter if the customer was disconnected for non-payment, or if the phone is missing a SIM. In the US, it should work on any network that the phone is physically capable of transmitting to, regardless of roaming agreements or other authorizations.
Supporting this functionality on the handset requires that the software (a) know which numbers qualify as emergency services, and (b) override the normal modem configuration. I suspect (a) is simple enough to implement, so (b) is probably where the problems lie.
Assuming this is a small business, everything related to computers---or electronics in general---will end up in your lap. (Assumption is based on the size of your conference phone order.)
You either need to willing to accept the responsibility or become adept at deflection. E.g., "I don't really know anything about that projector, let me see if I can google the manufacturer for you." Give them the number and walk away. Be polite and appear helpful, but make them do the work.
If you do the work once, you will do it forever---or until they hire a junior admin, which is likely the same time frame.
Only take on things that are in line with your interests. You can either grow into your role as the organization evolves, or you can expand your resume to find more suitable employment.
The pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to validate the shelf life of their drugs, since expired drugs lead to additional sales.
In light of this, why don't we fund the FDA to test the shelf life of modern drugs? Or let them contract out the testing to independent labs, then make policy based on the results.
We don't have to test everything either. I am sure doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals would be happy to provide a list of drugs that should be vetted first.
There are already things that you cannot legally contract for. If California wants to expand that list, then so be it. Let's see how that works out.
Non-compete agreements are a protection for the employer, who generally enjoys the position of power in negotiations. The company can already use salary adjustments and other benefits to dissuade employees from competing.
If the person is a high-level executive or has knowledge of trade secrets, then maybe some protection is reasonable.
Otherwise, screw it. Let them compete the way the market intended---with money and other benefits. This country cannot remain an economic leader if we sideline our best and brightest.
It is ILLEGAL to fix bugs in proprietary software, no matter how much active exploits are hurting you.
This is largely irrelevant at the enterprise level.
Very few enterprises have the expertise in-house to fix kernel bugs or contribute to Apache/Samba/etc. In both cases, they are beholden to their vendors. The same applies to home users.
There is only really a very small niche of people who can introduce custom fixes for zero-day exploits.
The vast majority of internet hosts will see better security from having dedicated firewall, IDS, and auditing personnel vs retaining a kernel hacker. Even having a competent sysadmin would be enough in most cases, as most of the Windows malware is the result of poor configuration. Granted, these are default settings so Microsoft shares some of the blame---but a decent admin should understand what he is building/deploying.
continues to be a security nightmare with new vulnerabilities being developed and exploited every month.
This is true of every piece of software. Making this out to be a Windows-specific problem is just ignorant. It applies to applications like IIS and Apache, too, not just operating systems.
Now, is Windows worse than the average Linux distro when considering both vulnerability count and severity? I would answer yes, but the gap is much smaller than the Win 9x/XP days.
Are the requirements to secure and monitor the infrastructure drastically different for Windows vs Linux hosts? No, not really.
In either case, you should have a secured master image which is customized as needed during deployment. No one should be running SMBv1 anymore, but it is enabled by default, so Microsoft owns that problem.
The Windows bashing is just stupid. It oversimplifies the problem and whitewashes Linux security issues.
Samba has a recent arbitrary code vulnerability.
NFS had some arbitrary remote code vulnerabilities too (although not recently).
The real fix is: layers of security, intrusion detection, and auditing---with trained, vigilant personnel to monitor it all. There is no single solution for security.
Microsoft has been compartmentalizing and hardening Windows for over a decade now. This is the result of hard work rather than blind luck.
I have complaints about their direction sometimes, but they do have some excellent developers who do amazing work---when they're not under orders to build user-hostile functionality.
VR can be useful outside of games. It can be much larger than a niche within a niche.
For everyday users, off the top of my head: real estate, hotels/tourism, shopping, campus visits, chat, and interviews.
And there are the special cases: * Professional venues could make their spaces explorable online for potential customers. * Architects and engineers could offer "life-sized" or interactive mockups to clients instead of models. * Psychologists can expose patients to carefully constructed environments to address their issues in novel ways. * Surgeons can work in VR and manipulate robotic instruments to enjoy visibility and precision that are impossible otherwise.
Some of things are possible right now, if people had the equipment at home. Some require a little bit of extra work, like a VR rendering plugin for engineers using Solidworks. Others require more fundamental work---e.g., sensors and visualization to enable the surgical usage.
VR can be much, much more than a video game frill.
It is only the consumer uses that rely upon video game acceptance---because the entertainment industry is the only place where they have an incentive to develop equipment priced for the masses.
Nokia is independent and sold on the NYSE. Ticker: NOK.
Nokia sold their mobile device division to Microsoft, which allowed Microsoft to sell phones---and prohibited Nokia from competing for several years.
With the expiration of the non-compete agreement, Nokia is once again able to sell phones under their own name. This is why the Nokia 5 and 6 are modern Android phones. Stock, affordable, solid, quick but not flagship---traditional Nokia, if anything.
Fun fact: Microsoft sold its phone business to HMD Global, who now partners with Nokia. The prodigal son has returned, as the old Nokia division is working closely with its parent once again.
Presidents are politicians, so their opinions on energy independence are largely worthless. They sell pipe dreams for votes. Same on both sides, regardless of who has done it the worst lately.
But now we have both academics and industry speaking favorably of renewables. Now I'm listening.
Traditional oil companies investing in renewable technologies? OK, the market is moving itself instead of being bullied by government incentives and regulations.
It's a long way from being a done deal, but it's actually happening as we speak.
You could have all of those things and still fail.
Google and Microsoft both came from behind and buried numerous competitors in their primary markets. These companies all had tech, customers, and mindshare.
Sometimes it takes a long time to go from a proof of concept to an actual, deliverable product. This is where most VCs come in---they provide the money to build the consumer-ready product. This is the scenario we're looking at.
In that case, you don't even really have the technology yet, and you could stumble in developing or deploying it. And obviously, no product means no customers.
A business plan tells the investors how you plan to handle the other things on that list. So, yes, they care deeply about that business plan and the other things. That's because they generally expect that you have few, if any, customers to begin with.
There is a set pool of money between the players and the house, and that money is redistributed within that group---generally in the house's favor.
Investment is a non-zero sum game, but it is very risky. Between this and the real-world consequences, it is quite different in spite of a superficial similarity.
That said, only risk-takers would find either gambling or VC investment appealing.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the performance is hugely underwhelming, especially considering the power consumption and the release date. I have no regrets at all about my GeForce purchase now.
If this is a typical AMD/ATI driver clusterfuck, we can expect to see the performance ramp up to more reasonable levels over the next few months. This wouldn't be their first card to launch with subpar drivers. Not by a long shot.
But, yeah, right now there is no reason to recommend these as gaming cards at all. Maybe their compute performance will be strong, and AMD did sell out their Polaris cards primarily due to mining/folding performance.
I read that painfully bloated article, and it is very simple.
Either are buying tech to solve the wrong problems, or they are not updating processes across the enterprise when new tech is deployed.
This is not news. People have been doing this before I entered the workforce, and they will probably continue to do it long after I am dust.
And then there is this gem:
"It is no surprise, then, that more than 60 percent of customer-care leaders we surveyed are skeptical about eliminating inbound voice calls in the next ten years."
I would be skeptical about eliminating voice calls in my lifetime. Who seriously thinks this is within arms' reach?
You're kind of beating a dead horse here.
AMD added support for System Management Mode support in their 486 line, several years after Intel first implemented it.
By definition, anything running in SMM is invisible to the operating system unless it explicitly outputs to or interfaces with the OS. E.g., legacy device emulation.
Every modern computer could be running arbitrary code without user consent or OS-level visibility. If that shocks your sensibilities, you can go back to the pre-Pentium era.
The problem is an insecure by design phone ecosystem, which in turn is driven by greed.
Bullshit.
It's a question of survival rather than greed; if Apple or Google does not deliver functionality, they will be upstaged on features and replaced. Look at Windows, IE, Java, and Adobe as the prime examples---lots of dead tech companies in their wake, and most of their competitors were technically superior.
A notification API is essential for the platform, and the Apple/Play Store has no business dictating which developers can use it. This means all apps have access---subject to approval by the user.
It's fundamentally impossible to secure a device from an ignorant owner without greatly restricting his access to it. The author of the article pointed out how to control notifications, so right there is an OS-level mechanism that the user controls. That's the most you can ask for, really---the platform has a mechanism that lets the user decide.
Security always involves a trade-off with convenience and usability. E.g., the same mechanism that allows Dropbox to access local photos will allow nefarious apps to do nefarious things if the user installs them. You either run each app in a silo, or you accept the risk of data exfiltration by a bad app.
The market demands functionality over security---not for the first time, either. They cannot sell a secure product that doesn't do what people want. In the consumer space, the market has repeatedly chosen insecure solutions because regular users do not care or understand.
Notifications are more of an annoyance than a security issue, and there is a setting to eliminate them. If a user does not want to do that, then he needs to make a choice: look at the app's internal notification settings, contact the developer, or find a replacement app.
Now that we know it works in theory, can they train it with:
* A larger sample
* Schizophrenics who have been treated with various psych drugs (many of which affect brain function)
* Schizophrenics who have never been treated with pharmaceuticals (probably not very many of these out there)
* Non-schizophrenics who have been treated with various medications
If 74% is their first-run success rate, that is very promising.
If they focus on getting fMRIs from schizophrenics prior to drug treatments, they would have a better picture of schizophrenia as it exists in the wild---and a better idea of what undiagnosed schizophrenics look like. This seems like it would be the most useful data for reliably confirming a new diagnosis.
And maybe there should be public funding to try this with other disorders.
A verbal green light means almost nothing---some guy with some authority somewhere likes it. It doesn't give Musk so much as a construction permit.
Don't mistakte this for a lack of enthusiasm. I like the Hyperloop concept, and American transit desperately needs modernization.
But if I had to bet on whether this will be in service within 5-10 years... I would have to bet against it.
Musk needs three states and DC to agree---on top of the feds remaining unobtrusive (EPA, DOT, and DHS in particular). I hope he has either luck or contacts.
Think of ICMP+OSPF+BGP... this is used for the "Switches" in the telecom network to coordinate among themselves, and NOT to carry data (unless you consider SMSs data).
So if I could insert bogus routes/costs into your BGP exchange and then capture the traffic, you wouldn't count that as a compromise? Even when a lot of that "traffic" is not in an encrypted channel? Please.
Yes, SS7 itself is a protocol that contains little user data. But it is a control protocol that dictates where user data goes---which makes its weaknesses into pretty big problems. It can be used to eavesdrop and physically locate users, which are serious confidentiality violations.
In theory, when a vendor's product or service is defective, consumers have a right to sue and recover damages.
You have to show harm to recover damages. Did your service stop as a result of SS7 weaknesses? Can you prove you were hacked? No? Too bad.
SS7 has serious security deficiencies, and no one wants to fix it---because it costs a lot of money to replace equipment and train staff on the new equipment.
Maybe the amount of hacking will justify that expense, but good luck getting enough victims together to put that level of financial pressure on the telecoms.
In some cases, it's simpler to cut through the layers of bullshit. It's bad, people will be compromised, and we know a lot of sensitive information travels over those networks.
Ordering the carriers to fix a serious problem now is better than waiting for the individual harms to occur.
Oh wait, this is collective bargaining. No one fixes it and there is no where to go.
This not collective bargaining at all. It appears you do not know what that means.
The carriers need a standard to allow interoperability. ATT customers need to be able to call Sprint customers. The SS7 implementation is how they achieve that technical requirement.
Any carrier who fails to interoperate with SS7 will die. Who is going to sign up for a new carrier if you can only call other people on that carrier?
This is a market failure. It happens, and it's why we have regulations in the first place. I find myself in the unusual position of supporting DHS and Congressional intervention. We need security extensions or whole-cloth replacement of SS7.
On one hand, they are offering security updates through the expected lifetime of the OS that shipped with the devices. So I guess that's reasonable, and it probably avoids potential legal complaints.
On the other hand, they are engaged in massive cost-cutting that forces users onto an upgrade treadmill. I can understand that you don't want to validate your software against every piece of hardware from the last decade. But other developers are clearly capable of it.
The US and Russia have adversarial interests quite frequently. You can list every country in eastern Europe and the Middle East, and most of them have been a source of contention between the US and Russia in the last 20 years.
Given that frequency of conflict, why on earth would the US share sensitive technical information? What is Russia offering that Israel, Germany, and the UK aren't?
The US has a few arrangements already, and those include nations which are both technologically astute and far more friendly than Russia.
I don't care what Trump says; he knows jack about cyber security. What do the real experts think the US will gain? I.e., private sector and NSA/CIA security analysts.
If the laser's target is moving away from the laser device as it heads towards some destination, it's possible that the energy delivered might not be enough to destroy it.
This is a joke, right? The laser travels at the speed of light. The target is hardly going to move at all in the window between firing and impact.
I don't know if the $40 million is the cost per device or the development cost. The three operators also get paid whether they're using the device or sleeping, though they will likely have other duties. Nevertheless, this one shot cost at least $40 million +. The second will result in a cost of $20 million per shot.
You have no idea how to do basic accounting.
Development, maintenance, personnel, and consumables are all accounted for separately. You don't just mash everything together like that. LIterally no one does that---not private businesses, not government agencies.
You are free to make up whatever cost metrics you want, but those will not be comparable or usable in relation to anything anywhere else.
The aiming system, presumably RADAR or some such, must be able to follow such a target and likely uses a mechanical motor driven gear system for that. Can the aiming system follow that spot during the target's travels?
The military has very sophisticated target tracking systems, and most of that work is classified. This is one of the areas where the government has better technology than what is available or known publicly.
In the US and Europe, telephone network operators are required to provide 911 (or equivalent) access to all devices regardless of status.
It doesn't matter if the customer was disconnected for non-payment, or if the phone is missing a SIM. In the US, it should work on any network that the phone is physically capable of transmitting to, regardless of roaming agreements or other authorizations.
Supporting this functionality on the handset requires that the software (a) know which numbers qualify as emergency services, and (b) override the normal modem configuration. I suspect (a) is simple enough to implement, so (b) is probably where the problems lie.
Assuming this is a small business, everything related to computers---or electronics in general---will end up in your lap. (Assumption is based on the size of your conference phone order.)
You either need to willing to accept the responsibility or become adept at deflection. E.g., "I don't really know anything about that projector, let me see if I can google the manufacturer for you." Give them the number and walk away. Be polite and appear helpful, but make them do the work.
If you do the work once, you will do it forever---or until they hire a junior admin, which is likely the same time frame.
Only take on things that are in line with your interests. You can either grow into your role as the organization evolves, or you can expand your resume to find more suitable employment.
The pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to validate the shelf life of their drugs, since expired drugs lead to additional sales.
In light of this, why don't we fund the FDA to test the shelf life of modern drugs? Or let them contract out the testing to independent labs, then make policy based on the results.
We don't have to test everything either. I am sure doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals would be happy to provide a list of drugs that should be vetted first.
There are already things that you cannot legally contract for. If California wants to expand that list, then so be it. Let's see how that works out.
Non-compete agreements are a protection for the employer, who generally enjoys the position of power in negotiations. The company can already use salary adjustments and other benefits to dissuade employees from competing.
If the person is a high-level executive or has knowledge of trade secrets, then maybe some protection is reasonable.
Otherwise, screw it. Let them compete the way the market intended---with money and other benefits. This country cannot remain an economic leader if we sideline our best and brightest.
It is ILLEGAL to fix bugs in proprietary software, no matter how much active exploits are hurting you.
This is largely irrelevant at the enterprise level.
Very few enterprises have the expertise in-house to fix kernel bugs or contribute to Apache/Samba/etc. In both cases, they are beholden to their vendors. The same applies to home users.
There is only really a very small niche of people who can introduce custom fixes for zero-day exploits.
The vast majority of internet hosts will see better security from having dedicated firewall, IDS, and auditing personnel vs retaining a kernel hacker. Even having a competent sysadmin would be enough in most cases, as most of the Windows malware is the result of poor configuration. Granted, these are default settings so Microsoft shares some of the blame---but a decent admin should understand what he is building/deploying.
continues to be a security nightmare with new vulnerabilities being developed and exploited every month.
This is true of every piece of software. Making this out to be a Windows-specific problem is just ignorant. It applies to applications like IIS and Apache, too, not just operating systems.
Now, is Windows worse than the average Linux distro when considering both vulnerability count and severity? I would answer yes, but the gap is much smaller than the Win 9x/XP days.
Are the requirements to secure and monitor the infrastructure drastically different for Windows vs Linux hosts? No, not really.
In either case, you should have a secured master image which is customized as needed during deployment. No one should be running SMBv1 anymore, but it is enabled by default, so Microsoft owns that problem.
The Windows bashing is just stupid. It oversimplifies the problem and whitewashes Linux security issues.
Samba has a recent arbitrary code vulnerability.
NFS had some arbitrary remote code vulnerabilities too (although not recently).
The real fix is: layers of security, intrusion detection, and auditing---with trained, vigilant personnel to monitor it all. There is no single solution for security.
Microsoft has been compartmentalizing and hardening Windows for over a decade now. This is the result of hard work rather than blind luck.
I have complaints about their direction sometimes, but they do have some excellent developers who do amazing work---when they're not under orders to build user-hostile functionality.
VR can be useful outside of games. It can be much larger than a niche within a niche.
For everyday users, off the top of my head: real estate, hotels/tourism, shopping, campus visits, chat, and interviews.
And there are the special cases:
* Professional venues could make their spaces explorable online for potential customers.
* Architects and engineers could offer "life-sized" or interactive mockups to clients instead of models.
* Psychologists can expose patients to carefully constructed environments to address their issues in novel ways.
* Surgeons can work in VR and manipulate robotic instruments to enjoy visibility and precision that are impossible otherwise.
Some of things are possible right now, if people had the equipment at home. Some require a little bit of extra work, like a VR rendering plugin for engineers using Solidworks. Others require more fundamental work---e.g., sensors and visualization to enable the surgical usage.
VR can be much, much more than a video game frill.
It is only the consumer uses that rely upon video game acceptance---because the entertainment industry is the only place where they have an incentive to develop equipment priced for the masses.
Wrong.
Nokia is independent and sold on the NYSE. Ticker: NOK.
Nokia sold their mobile device division to Microsoft, which allowed Microsoft to sell phones---and prohibited Nokia from competing for several years.
With the expiration of the non-compete agreement, Nokia is once again able to sell phones under their own name. This is why the Nokia 5 and 6 are modern Android phones. Stock, affordable, solid, quick but not flagship---traditional Nokia, if anything.
Fun fact: Microsoft sold its phone business to HMD Global, who now partners with Nokia. The prodigal son has returned, as the old Nokia division is working closely with its parent once again.
Presidents are politicians, so their opinions on energy independence are largely worthless. They sell pipe dreams for votes. Same on both sides, regardless of who has done it the worst lately.
But now we have both academics and industry speaking favorably of renewables. Now I'm listening.
Traditional oil companies investing in renewable technologies? OK, the market is moving itself instead of being bullied by government incentives and regulations.
It's a long way from being a done deal, but it's actually happening as we speak.
You could have all of those things and still fail.
Google and Microsoft both came from behind and buried numerous competitors in their primary markets. These companies all had tech, customers, and mindshare.
Sometimes it takes a long time to go from a proof of concept to an actual, deliverable product. This is where most VCs come in---they provide the money to build the consumer-ready product. This is the scenario we're looking at.
In that case, you don't even really have the technology yet, and you could stumble in developing or deploying it. And obviously, no product means no customers.
A business plan tells the investors how you plan to handle the other things on that list. So, yes, they care deeply about that business plan and the other things. That's because they generally expect that you have few, if any, customers to begin with.
Normal gambling is a zero-sum game.
There is a set pool of money between the players and the house, and that money is redistributed within that group---generally in the house's favor.
Investment is a non-zero sum game, but it is very risky. Between this and the real-world consequences, it is quite different in spite of a superficial similarity.
That said, only risk-takers would find either gambling or VC investment appealing.