that means no dropping bombs unless physical damage is done.
Then how would strikes against AWACS be justified? They're electronic warfare platforms, and legitimate targets, but they carry no physically offensive weapons, and cannot directly cause injury. You could even consider jamming as a wireless Denial Of Service attack.
When you look at it from a different angle your view changes. Like how a window works.
And if there are enough views (i.e. they change with a small enough angle, that angle being the angle subtended by the distance between your eyes at normal viewing distance) you have a passive multiview autostereo display. Which have been around for quite some time, so I can only imaging this HP thing is merely a semi-new implementation.
Carmack is on board, but he's busy on ID 5. The code written for Doom 3 was written before the Oculus Rift even had a name (back when it was Palmer's solitary prototype), and was written for a device using a different LCD and more importantly an entirely different tracker. The code, as was released with Doom 3 BFG's source release, will not work on the release-version Oculus Rift devkit. There is nothing to stop someone modifying the source to receive data from the new tracker, render at the wider FoV, and perform the new pre-warp. The only reason that it is not being done officially is because the only reason it was ever included in BFG at all was because the code was already written and free to include.
What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE.
Have you heard about people going outside? At midday, the sun can put out 1000 watts per square metre! If you ever looked upwards, that would be BEAMED RIGHT INTO YOUR EYES!
I prefer the 'medieval siege' analogy of 'cyber war'. You country is the outer palisades of a walled city. Your Important Government Networks are castles in the city. Viruses are diseases, spear-phishing are saboteurs. You can totally wall off yourself from the outside world (shut down all trans-oceanic cables and sat links), but that's just slow death. You can monitor all travellers passing through your gates (enforced whole-country DPI), but there are so many you cannot rigorously inspect all, guards may not be perfect, and alternate routes are too easy to open. Et-cetera.
Yes, it does, as the video demonstrates. Their algorithm requires a static background (i.e. a stationary camera) and handles and moving foreground objects as user-selected special cases. If the background were to move, they'd need to either motion-compensate the entire footage first (assuming the camera only changed orientation, and not position, so parallax was not an issue), or perform an exhaustive search over the entire footage (which is the specific situation their algorithm is trying to avoid!).
Can you use Android without serving yourself up to Google?
Yes.
Is it true that you have to have a Google account to start up your phone?
No.
Can you (easily) install apps by just downloading them to your computer and then transferring to the phone?
Yes, generally referred to as 'sideloading'.
Do you have to give up your credit card info and name/address to sign up for the Google app store? (In light of the recent story that app developers get all your info, I don't know if I want every 2-bit app to get that info. The info itself could be worth more than the 99 cents for the application.)
No, you can use a regular google account. However, to pay for an app you will need to do so.
Also, do free apps also get your personal information?
Each app has a list of what features it requests access to available on the store page (and you will be notified of them before installation). There are apps that allow you to enforce your own arbitrary restrictions on any app, but it may casue some to stop working.
Any hints or links re: using Android without the all-seeing eye?
Try some of the various alternative Android distros like Cyanogenmod. XDA Developers is a good place to start.
Might the (oft maligned) BitCoin work here? Sidestepping the diminishing-returns-due-to-transaction-cost issue by having a currency value that is highly divisible. Of course, you then have to deal with the value of BtC being unstable (compared to regular national fiat currencies), but if each transaction has an actual useful value rather than having to wait to the end of the month to aggregate values, that may not be an issue.
Like one of those Final Fantasy music orchestra concert that have been held a few times for the last few years
A very prime example: the latest Distant Worlds concert booked out the Royal Albert Hall within 2 hours of tickets going on sale, and most of that was due to unprecedented website load.
Because EEG is a measure of voltage from outside of the skull. With just two electrodes, the best you can possibly measure is whether the average of all anterior-posterior (front-back) aligned neurons is mostly in one direction or the other. Laterally oriented neurons are ignored, and you have no idea what's going on in different regions.
As you add electrodes, you resolution increases and you can start to guess whether activity is occurring in which quadrant of the brain. Add some more, and you might even be guess as to which region of the brain activity is occurring in.
It's more like a tomographic measurement than 'stuff is occurring under this electrode': you can only measure the relative voltage difference between pairs of electrodes, and to pick out signals from one area you need to measure the signals from the entire brain to cancel that out.
The Neroskys, as EEG headsets, are crap. You'd be lucky to pick up anything other than forehead muscle contractions. The Emotive EPOC isn't half bad, and is probably the cheapest way to get an actually functional EEG headset that you don't have to build yourself. If you want to do any actual controlling of things with conscious intent, it's the bare minimum, but you'd be better off with a full electrode mesh and some proper instrumentation amplifiers, but that's not going to be anywhere close to cheap or easy to work with without a good amount of prior knowledge.
This "Throw Trucks With Your Mind" thing is a waste of money, unless you really want to play "Sometimes Throw Trucks With Your Forehead".
And since when tomahawks decided what their targets should be based on general autonomous and situational considerations?
Most missiles (modern Air to Air missiles being an excellent example) fly to their targets inertially, then in the final homing phase look for the target that matches the pre-programmed target criteria, then home in on it for the terminal phase.
The Tomahawk is given its route to the estimated target location and what it's target looks like, then launched. The missile then autonomously finds it way (either through GPS or TERCOM), gets to the desired location, then picks out it's target to hit. It does this without phoning home to make sure "hey, is this the right thing to blow up?".
Now, replace 'Tomahawk' with 'UCAV', and instead of flying itself into the target have it drop a smaller bomb onto the target. Nothing has changed: there is still no human in the loop beyond the original launch, and the robot is still picking its target autonomously.
Ultraconductors got killed in the 2008 market crash. Had they not got killed, they were making superconductors out of plastic, they called it Ultraconductor [chavaenergy.com]. (Not to be confused with the speaker cables of the same name). This stuff conducted at room temperature a million times better than silver! I have no doubt they could have done it, had the economy not killed them.
A viable room-temperature superconductor (even if only unidirectional) would be so useful that I can't believe that the '2008 market crash' was the only factor keeping them from market. Heck, that's Nobel-prize-worthy research if they can prove how it works.
With patents to back it up rather than peer-reviewed papers, this squarely into 'extraordinary claims without extraordinary results' land.
Well thank goodness that MS already mandates that you MUST be able to add your own keys to the Secure Boot key store on x86 machines. Not ARM, they're in line with everyone else on the phone/tablet lockdown game, but for any desktop machine or motherboard with a little 'Windows 8' badge on the box, the ability to self-sign your bootloader is a requirement.
Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following: It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx), which puts the system into setup mode.
Para.18:
Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv.
Only seen one claim for that so far but it would be foolish to think this won't happen, it's not forbidden by Microsoft rules.
But neither is it required, or even implied. It would be entirely up to the OEM to implement. Who could do the exact same thing right now with existing non-secure-boot UEFI firmware, or even BIOS, if they so wished.
But they won't, because they're not blithering idiots.
What if we side with the replicators instead of those squishy human things?
Uh, dude, human beings are already uncontrolled replicators. Green Goo flooded the planet a few billion years ago, followed not long after by Pink Goo. If we ever manage to (or even bother too, it's not a particularly efficient manufacturing method) create Grey Goo, it would have to beat off a lot of competition from existing replicators before it could start spreading.
Speaking of F-16s and UCAVs, the F-16 was once mooted for conversion into an unmanned version. There's not too much information floating about in public, but it was eventually cancelled due to the conversion (retrorit + service of the old airframes) being more expensive than buying a brand new RQ-1. Here's a (small, blurry) picture of one.
3. it is hard to imagine where the two aircraft would be operating together and need direct ship to ship communications...
4. especially as they always have the ability to communicte indirectly via AWACS, etc.
Whoops, somebody whacked your local AWACS with K-100 or R-37. Now nobody can talk to each other!
Slashdot Mirror
Discretising is just quantising in the spacial domain!
Clean the fan? Easier said than done.
that means no dropping bombs unless physical damage is done.
Then how would strikes against AWACS be justified? They're electronic warfare platforms, and legitimate targets, but they carry no physically offensive weapons, and cannot directly cause injury. You could even consider jamming as a wireless Denial Of Service attack.
When you look at it from a different angle your view changes. Like how a window works.
And if there are enough views (i.e. they change with a small enough angle, that angle being the angle subtended by the distance between your eyes at normal viewing distance) you have a passive multiview autostereo display. Which have been around for quite some time, so I can only imaging this HP thing is merely a semi-new implementation.
Carmack is on board, but he's busy on ID 5. The code written for Doom 3 was written before the Oculus Rift even had a name (back when it was Palmer's solitary prototype), and was written for a device using a different LCD and more importantly an entirely different tracker. The code, as was released with Doom 3 BFG's source release, will not work on the release-version Oculus Rift devkit.
There is nothing to stop someone modifying the source to receive data from the new tracker, render at the wider FoV, and perform the new pre-warp. The only reason that it is not being done officially is because the only reason it was ever included in BFG at all was because the code was already written and free to include.
What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE.
Have you heard about people going outside? At midday, the sun can put out 1000 watts per square metre! If you ever looked upwards, that would be BEAMED RIGHT INTO YOUR EYES!
I prefer the 'medieval siege' analogy of 'cyber war'. You country is the outer palisades of a walled city. Your Important Government Networks are castles in the city. Viruses are diseases, spear-phishing are saboteurs.
You can totally wall off yourself from the outside world (shut down all trans-oceanic cables and sat links), but that's just slow death. You can monitor all travellers passing through your gates (enforced whole-country DPI), but there are so many you cannot rigorously inspect all, guards may not be perfect, and alternate routes are too easy to open. Et-cetera.
Yes, it does, as the video demonstrates. Their algorithm requires a static background (i.e. a stationary camera) and handles and moving foreground objects as user-selected special cases. If the background were to move, they'd need to either motion-compensate the entire footage first (assuming the camera only changed orientation, and not position, so parallax was not an issue), or perform an exhaustive search over the entire footage (which is the specific situation their algorithm is trying to avoid!).
And people complain about CCTV. Just wait until they hear about Interceptors!
Additionally, the lenses focus the display at infinity, so you're not straining your eyes trying to look at something right in front of your face.
Can you use Android without serving yourself up to Google?
Yes.
Is it true that you have to have a Google account to start up your phone?
No.
Can you (easily) install apps by just downloading them to your computer and then transferring to the phone?
Yes, generally referred to as 'sideloading'.
Do you have to give up your credit card info and name/address to sign up for the Google app store? (In light of the recent story that app developers get all your info, I don't know if I want every 2-bit app to get that info. The info itself could be worth more than the 99 cents for the application.)
No, you can use a regular google account. However, to pay for an app you will need to do so.
Also, do free apps also get your personal information?
Each app has a list of what features it requests access to available on the store page (and you will be notified of them before installation). There are apps that allow you to enforce your own arbitrary restrictions on any app, but it may casue some to stop working.
Any hints or links re: using Android without the all-seeing eye?
Try some of the various alternative Android distros like Cyanogenmod. XDA Developers is a good place to start.
Might the (oft maligned) BitCoin work here? Sidestepping the diminishing-returns-due-to-transaction-cost issue by having a currency value that is highly divisible. Of course, you then have to deal with the value of BtC being unstable (compared to regular national fiat currencies), but if each transaction has an actual useful value rather than having to wait to the end of the month to aggregate values, that may not be an issue.
Like one of those Final Fantasy music orchestra concert that have been held a few times for the last few years
A very prime example: the latest Distant Worlds concert booked out the Royal Albert Hall within 2 hours of tickets going on sale, and most of that was due to unprecedented website load.
How would the benefits of an automobile end up in such a person's research?
Through thorough and independent testing of cars v.s horses. A full-page ad of "BUY OUR CARS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOOD" is a mere unsubstantiated claim.
Not sure why you'd need a "full electrode mesh."
Because EEG is a measure of voltage from outside of the skull. With just two electrodes, the best you can possibly measure is whether the average of all anterior-posterior (front-back) aligned neurons is mostly in one direction or the other. Laterally oriented neurons are ignored, and you have no idea what's going on in different regions.
As you add electrodes, you resolution increases and you can start to guess whether activity is occurring in which quadrant of the brain. Add some more, and you might even be guess as to which region of the brain activity is occurring in.
It's more like a tomographic measurement than 'stuff is occurring under this electrode': you can only measure the relative voltage difference between pairs of electrodes, and to pick out signals from one area you need to measure the signals from the entire brain to cancel that out.
The Neroskys, as EEG headsets, are crap. You'd be lucky to pick up anything other than forehead muscle contractions. The Emotive EPOC isn't half bad, and is probably the cheapest way to get an actually functional EEG headset that you don't have to build yourself. If you want to do any actual controlling of things with conscious intent, it's the bare minimum, but you'd be better off with a full electrode mesh and some proper instrumentation amplifiers, but that's not going to be anywhere close to cheap or easy to work with without a good amount of prior knowledge.
This "Throw Trucks With Your Mind" thing is a waste of money, unless you really want to play "Sometimes Throw Trucks With Your Forehead".
I have no modpoints, as my Supply Crawlers were blown up during transit.
And since when tomahawks decided what their targets should be based on general autonomous and situational considerations?
Most missiles (modern Air to Air missiles being an excellent example) fly to their targets inertially, then in the final homing phase look for the target that matches the pre-programmed target criteria, then home in on it for the terminal phase.
The Tomahawk is given its route to the estimated target location and what it's target looks like, then launched. The missile then autonomously finds it way (either through GPS or TERCOM), gets to the desired location, then picks out it's target to hit. It does this without phoning home to make sure "hey, is this the right thing to blow up?".
Now, replace 'Tomahawk' with 'UCAV', and instead of flying itself into the target have it drop a smaller bomb onto the target. Nothing has changed: there is still no human in the loop beyond the original launch, and the robot is still picking its target autonomously.
Ultraconductors got killed in the 2008 market crash. Had they not got killed, they were making superconductors out of plastic, they called it Ultraconductor [chavaenergy.com]. (Not to be confused with the speaker cables of the same name). This stuff conducted at room temperature a million times better than silver! I have no doubt they could have done it, had the economy not killed them.
A viable room-temperature superconductor (even if only unidirectional) would be so useful that I can't believe that the '2008 market crash' was the only factor keeping them from market. Heck, that's Nobel-prize-worthy research if they can prove how it works.
With patents to back it up rather than peer-reviewed papers, this squarely into 'extraordinary claims without extraordinary results' land.
Windows 8 certification guidelines, specifically System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot Para.17:
Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following: It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx), which puts the system into setup mode.
Para.18:
Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv.
Only seen one claim for that so far but it would be foolish to think this won't happen, it's not forbidden by Microsoft rules.
But neither is it required, or even implied. It would be entirely up to the OEM to implement. Who could do the exact same thing right now with existing non-secure-boot UEFI firmware, or even BIOS, if they so wished.
But they won't, because they're not blithering idiots.
What if we side with the replicators instead of those squishy human things?
Uh, dude, human beings are already uncontrolled replicators. Green Goo flooded the planet a few billion years ago, followed not long after by Pink Goo. If we ever manage to (or even bother too, it's not a particularly efficient manufacturing method) create Grey Goo, it would have to beat off a lot of competition from existing replicators before it could start spreading.
Luckily, Shadowline have all but the last volume (20) of Platinum Grit available as regular images, derived from the print edition layouts.
I'm not sure whether to praise Oglaf for being hilarious, or damn it for putting the nail in the coffin of Platinum Girt.
Speaking of F-16s and UCAVs, the F-16 was once mooted for conversion into an unmanned version. There's not too much information floating about in public, but it was eventually cancelled due to the conversion (retrorit + service of the old airframes) being more expensive than buying a brand new RQ-1. Here's a (small, blurry) picture of one.
3. it is hard to imagine where the two aircraft would be operating together and need direct ship to ship communications... 4. especially as they always have the ability to communicte indirectly via AWACS, etc.
Whoops, somebody whacked your local AWACS with K-100 or R-37. Now nobody can talk to each other!