Does that differ from hardcore basketball or baseball or football or tennis players?
I am in a gamer group that has some hardcore gamers, but many have families are play more casually now. They are out there. On a similar vein, this is why I started playing ultimate frisbee. There are "pick-up" groups and they allow anyone to play. When I started I couldn't throw a frisbee >10 feet with 30 degrees of accuracy. I still suck, but not quite as badly.:-)
In general, be it games or sports or wine or movies - you have to find people who aren't snobs about their hobby.
I'm kinda glad someone posted this because it is somewhat of an elephant in the room on gaming discussions.
There is a perception that gamers play video games because they are lazy. While that probably applies to many, I think many gamers play video games because they are imaginative, not because they want to escape the physical world. The Wii would not be successful if gamers didn't want to move around. I play games, but I also love laser tag and physically interactive motion sensing arcades like Police 911. The glory of a holodeck is the ability to have both: physical interaction and an imagined reality.
First of all, clearly the video falls short of what everyone imagines: a holodeck. Instead we see bad game with poor graphics, limited accuracy, and bad response times. Just a reminder to everyone: Is it 2014 not 2364. The most fascinating part is to see it map out the room by drawing those horizontal and vertical bars. It seems like the hardware might actually be ahead of the software here. Since it knows the layout of the room, it should not show characters walking on the walls or stuck in corners, yet it does so.
I wonder if this would be better if they didn't try to make it work in a living room covered in furniture. Instead, these could replace the arcade: a custom made arena for playing these kinds of games. The benefit here over a VR helmet is the social aspect, and no motion sickness. But clearly we need better software, better projectors, and better sensors before this is a reality. I just hope they don't launch something before it is ready: that could delay the industry a decade because then, even once the tech IS ready, everyone will be remembering the cruddy version that came out 10 years prior.
I wish I had time to test this. In theory, I agree with you, but in practice, it doesn't seem to hold-up. I would love to setup a PC, run some benchmarks, install everything in the universe, rerun the benchmarks, leave it up for a year, rerun the benchmarks,uninstall, rerun the benchmarks,.... I would use a VM, but then one could attribute the performance lost to the host operating system.
While it is legal to make back-ups for personal use, it remains an offence to share the data with friends or family.
How far does that go? I'm thinking in both the US and the UK. I bought a CD, and my wife listens to it on the CD player. No problem, she has the disc, she holds the copy. Now I upload it to cloud storage and she streams it. Still fine. But what if we both stream it? Did I need to buy a second disc so I have a second license?
Since the registry is so often modified, it tends to become fragmented. Microsoft addresses that with background defragmentation, but that induces more I/O cycles. Even on an SSD that means more FAT entries so there is some cost. Windows also makes periodic backups of the registry, which takes time and causes more fragmentation. And while a query for a single specific registry key won't be TOO much slower on a larger more fragmented registry, lots of operations involve enumerating which IS slower. So the more entries under HKCR\CLSID, the longer it takes to instantiate a COM object. Some of that is dealt with by caching, but now there is more data to cache so less memory is available. Similarly, the more hardware devise you have used (displays, USB keys,...), the longer it takes to search for a driver since they are all in the registry under HKLM. If you run Process Monitor you will be amazed at how an idle Windows PC is constantly enumerating registry keys.
I can confirm this, having worked for a company that wrote backup software. While Microsoft does have some rules in place, they are not good enough. We had to make all kinds of exclusion rules to prevent backups of temp files, cache files, etc.
I wonder how many people are left on those grandfathered accounts. The only way to stay on it is to continue to buy a phone outside of Verizon and swap in a sim card. As soon as you buy so much as a lollipop from the Verizon store you are switched to the new plan.
Then why are protestors in Hong Kong only infected by the government malware if they are using Jailbroken iPhones? I don't really know much about how an iPHone jailbreak works, but the consensus seems to be that it somehow compromises security. I'm unclear how though. http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...
Yes, as long as there are words, someone must define them: brilliant observation. If the president wishes to redefine the word "collection" to weasel around the law, everyone should ignore it. It should not be the government who decides what those words mean.
Every protocol that runs over RS232 has packets and some kind of ACK/NAK system on top. CTS,RTS,DCR,DTR, etc. are rarely used since most implementations are 3-wire RS232. ASTM is an example of such a protocol.
I've worked on-and-off in healthcare and the standards for transmitting *anything* are ancient and bad. Formats like HL7 and ASTM are ancient delimited-text formats with no UTF-8 support, no encryption, and even have RS232 ACK/NAK packets in the standard.
Americans accept this when it comes to terms like "speech" or "arms" all the time. Rather than change a law or amend the constitution, we just accept subtle redefinitions of terms. We don't want people to own own nuclear weapons, even though we have the right to bear arms. So we redefined "arms" to not include certain kinds of bombs. Similarly, the first amendment protects speech, so we redefined "speech" so it does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Unfortunately, this is a dangerous solution because it delegates the power to change the constitution to the very institution who is bound by it.
Bottom line (and there are exceptions), merchants aren't on the hook if it's a face-to-face transaction.
Nope! Read on to see why:
Usually, however, it is the banks that get hurt the most.
And how do they get hurt? In that quote, the word "banks" links to a BusinessWeek article that explains:
issuing banks are shifting the expense of fraudulent face-to-face transactions to retailers. One reason: complaints that the buyer's signature didn't match the one on the card. These "charge-backs" drive up retailers' costs, which are ultimately passed along to the consumer, says Mallory Duncan, the NRF's general counsel.
So the law says the credit card holder isn't liable. The CC company says they aren't liable, the bank is. But since the retailer is responsible for verifying the signature, they were at fault. Notice that it specifically says that in face-to-face transactions the retailer is responsible.
I'm unclear why the BusinessWeek article says "shifting" since this was the way things were back in 1996 when I worked retail. This isn't new.
I have 2 stories on this: One: in the brief time I worker retail I worked at a store that actually checked this. Your photo ID + name on card + signature had to match. We even turned away corporate customers making big purchases because sometimes the boss would give an employee their Amex business card, but we wouldn't let them make the purchase. I know the store manager got chewed-out by some business people for enforcing it and they always stood their ground.
The other example was when I was at a retailer and I got asked for me photo ID. I thanked the manager in person for having the employee check, but was told that the employee would now get in trouble because they aren't allowed to ask!
So are you citing this as evidence that the show is generally factual, and that in the one case they got it wrong they apologized? Or are you citing it as proof that they are liars, and only admit it when they are caught?
The picture in the first article shows "bumps" added to the outside of the material. Is this kinda like how a diffraction grating works? Where the spacing between those "bumps" matches the wavelength of the light?
The newer ones are "full wave rectified" so they flicker at 100hz/120hz instead of 50/60, so you don't notice it. Here is an article on how to eliminate the flicker by adding a capacitor but that is a pretty big, expensive, and ?potentially unreliable? capacitor. It looks big in the picture, so I checked online and found one for $5 that was over an inch tall. Also, I don't think electrolytic capacitors would do so well outdoors. (I'm no EE, so I may be wrong.)
Nope: it's statistics. It is impossible to actually really guarantee a minimum. They can only guarantee that a certain percentage of their stock will meet that minimum. Think about it this way: You buy a bulb. The only way to guarantee that this particular bulb will run X hours is to actually run it X hours. But if they sell it to you after that, it now has to run 2X hours to meet the guarantee! So all they can do is run 1000 bulbs, and if 99% of them make it X hours they slap the guarantee on the next lot of bulbs that come off the plant.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of a gzillion studies that have come to this conclusion. But note that we are still unable to isolate any of those genes.
Does that differ from hardcore basketball or baseball or football or tennis players?
I am in a gamer group that has some hardcore gamers, but many have families are play more casually now. They are out there. On a similar vein, this is why I started playing ultimate frisbee. There are "pick-up" groups and they allow anyone to play. When I started I couldn't throw a frisbee >10 feet with 30 degrees of accuracy. I still suck, but not quite as badly. :-)
In general, be it games or sports or wine or movies - you have to find people who aren't snobs about their hobby.
I'm kinda glad someone posted this because it is somewhat of an elephant in the room on gaming discussions.
There is a perception that gamers play video games because they are lazy. While that probably applies to many, I think many gamers play video games because they are imaginative, not because they want to escape the physical world. The Wii would not be successful if gamers didn't want to move around. I play games, but I also love laser tag and physically interactive motion sensing arcades like Police 911. The glory of a holodeck is the ability to have both: physical interaction and an imagined reality.
But the best games have really bad consequences.
Just some thoughts.
First of all, clearly the video falls short of what everyone imagines: a holodeck. Instead we see bad game with poor graphics, limited accuracy, and bad response times. Just a reminder to everyone: Is it 2014 not 2364. The most fascinating part is to see it map out the room by drawing those horizontal and vertical bars. It seems like the hardware might actually be ahead of the software here. Since it knows the layout of the room, it should not show characters walking on the walls or stuck in corners, yet it does so.
I wonder if this would be better if they didn't try to make it work in a living room covered in furniture. Instead, these could replace the arcade: a custom made arena for playing these kinds of games. The benefit here over a VR helmet is the social aspect, and no motion sickness. But clearly we need better software, better projectors, and better sensors before this is a reality. I just hope they don't launch something before it is ready: that could delay the industry a decade because then, even once the tech IS ready, everyone will be remembering the cruddy version that came out 10 years prior.
no machine writing, no photographs where there's not even the slimmest claim of artistic composition or whatever.
This is not true in the US or the UK. As an example, Wolfram Alpha copyrights all its output.
http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/...
I wish I had time to test this. In theory, I agree with you, but in practice, it doesn't seem to hold-up. I would love to setup a PC, run some benchmarks, install everything in the universe, rerun the benchmarks, leave it up for a year, rerun the benchmarks,uninstall, rerun the benchmarks, .... I would use a VM, but then one could attribute the performance lost to the host operating system.
While it is legal to make back-ups for personal use, it remains an offence to share the data with friends or family.
How far does that go? I'm thinking in both the US and the UK. I bought a CD, and my wife listens to it on the CD player. No problem, she has the disc, she holds the copy. Now I upload it to cloud storage and she streams it. Still fine. But what if we both stream it? Did I need to buy a second disc so I have a second license?
There's more to it than that.
Since the registry is so often modified, it tends to become fragmented. Microsoft addresses that with background defragmentation, but that induces more I/O cycles. Even on an SSD that means more FAT entries so there is some cost. Windows also makes periodic backups of the registry, which takes time and causes more fragmentation. And while a query for a single specific registry key won't be TOO much slower on a larger more fragmented registry, lots of operations involve enumerating which IS slower. So the more entries under HKCR\CLSID, the longer it takes to instantiate a COM object. Some of that is dealt with by caching, but now there is more data to cache so less memory is available. Similarly, the more hardware devise you have used (displays, USB keys, ...), the longer it takes to search for a driver since they are all in the registry under HKLM. If you run Process Monitor you will be amazed at how an idle Windows PC is constantly enumerating registry keys.
I can confirm this, having worked for a company that wrote backup software. While Microsoft does have some rules in place, they are not good enough. We had to make all kinds of exclusion rules to prevent backups of temp files, cache files, etc.
I wonder how many people are left on those grandfathered accounts. The only way to stay on it is to continue to buy a phone outside of Verizon and swap in a sim card. As soon as you buy so much as a lollipop from the Verizon store you are switched to the new plan.
Then why are protestors in Hong Kong only infected by the government malware if they are using Jailbroken iPhones? I don't really know much about how an iPHone jailbreak works, but the consensus seems to be that it somehow compromises security. I'm unclear how though.
http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...
Yes, as long as there are words, someone must define them: brilliant observation. If the president wishes to redefine the word "collection" to weasel around the law, everyone should ignore it. It should not be the government who decides what those words mean.
Every protocol that runs over RS232 has packets and some kind of ACK/NAK system on top. CTS,RTS,DCR,DTR, etc. are rarely used since most implementations are 3-wire RS232. ASTM is an example of such a protocol.
I've worked on-and-off in healthcare and the standards for transmitting *anything* are ancient and bad. Formats like HL7 and ASTM are ancient delimited-text formats with no UTF-8 support, no encryption, and even have RS232 ACK/NAK packets in the standard.
Americans accept this when it comes to terms like "speech" or "arms" all the time. Rather than change a law or amend the constitution, we just accept subtle redefinitions of terms. We don't want people to own own nuclear weapons, even though we have the right to bear arms. So we redefined "arms" to not include certain kinds of bombs. Similarly, the first amendment protects speech, so we redefined "speech" so it does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Unfortunately, this is a dangerous solution because it delegates the power to change the constitution to the very institution who is bound by it.
Then, as a square, I will not vote for Joe Biden!
First they came for the Triangles, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Triangle.
Then they came for the Hexagons, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Hexagons.
Then they came for the Conic Sections, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Conic Section.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Did you actually read that story?
Yes, so let me explain:
Bottom line (and there are exceptions), merchants aren't on the hook if it's a face-to-face transaction.
Nope! Read on to see why:
Usually, however, it is the banks that get hurt the most.
And how do they get hurt? In that quote, the word "banks" links to a BusinessWeek article that explains:
issuing banks are shifting the expense of fraudulent face-to-face transactions to retailers. One reason: complaints that the buyer's signature didn't match the one on the card. These "charge-backs" drive up retailers' costs, which are ultimately passed along to the consumer, says Mallory Duncan, the NRF's general counsel.
So the law says the credit card holder isn't liable. The CC company says they aren't liable, the bank is. But since the retailer is responsible for verifying the signature, they were at fault. Notice that it specifically says that in face-to-face transactions the retailer is responsible.
I'm unclear why the BusinessWeek article says "shifting" since this was the way things were back in 1996 when I worked retail. This isn't new.
I have 2 stories on this: One: in the brief time I worker retail I worked at a store that actually checked this. Your photo ID + name on card + signature had to match. We even turned away corporate customers making big purchases because sometimes the boss would give an employee their Amex business card, but we wouldn't let them make the purchase. I know the store manager got chewed-out by some business people for enforcing it and they always stood their ground.
The other example was when I was at a retailer and I got asked for me photo ID. I thanked the manager in person for having the employee check, but was told that the employee would now get in trouble because they aren't allowed to ask!
The merchants are responsible for eating the costs. Merchants are also liable for chargebacks.
So are you citing this as evidence that the show is generally factual, and that in the one case they got it wrong they apologized? Or are you citing it as proof that they are liars, and only admit it when they are caught?
The picture in the first article shows "bumps" added to the outside of the material. Is this kinda like how a diffraction grating works? Where the spacing between those "bumps" matches the wavelength of the light?
The newer ones are "full wave rectified" so they flicker at 100hz/120hz instead of 50/60, so you don't notice it. Here is an article on how to eliminate the flicker by adding a capacitor but that is a pretty big, expensive, and ?potentially unreliable? capacitor. It looks big in the picture, so I checked online and found one for $5 that was over an inch tall. Also, I don't think electrolytic capacitors would do so well outdoors. (I'm no EE, so I may be wrong.)
Nope: it's statistics. It is impossible to actually really guarantee a minimum. They can only guarantee that a certain percentage of their stock will meet that minimum. Think about it this way: You buy a bulb. The only way to guarantee that this particular bulb will run X hours is to actually run it X hours. But if they sell it to you after that, it now has to run 2X hours to meet the guarantee! So all they can do is run 1000 bulbs, and if 99% of them make it X hours they slap the guarantee on the next lot of bulbs that come off the plant.
good point about the regulators.
Locking up tables for over 30 minutes when they haven't even been updated
There is no vacuuming on tables that have no updates.