T-mobile has indeed been on a roll with upgrading it's network.
It's interesting to note that this was made possible by a $3bil cash infusion from AT&T because AT&T failed to complete their attempted acquisition of T-mobile a few years ago. So even if Sprint fails to complete their merger attempt, they obviously won't have to pay up quite as much, but they're likely to have to fork over something, which could result in even more expansion of T-mobile's network.
(I'm a current t-mobile customer and the coverage is quite decent in the northern NJ/NYC area, I too have noticed coverage in areas around me moving up from 3G to LTE service).
I'll also add that AT&T's failed attempt to acquire T-mobile, resulted in AT&T having to hand over $3 billion in cash to T-mobile for failure to complete the merger, allowing for the very significant LTE rollout to major metropolitan areas that has allowed T-mobile to obtain the dramatic increase in customers and brand improvement they've seen in the past few years.
If Sprint acquisition of T-mobile fails, they probably won't be handing over $3bil since Sprint is a much smaller player in the market than AT&T, but there's a good chance that they'll have to cough up a considerable amount of cash to T-mobile too (these merger-failure contingencies are common since the acquiree has to open up it's books and business plans to a competitor in good faith expectation that the merger will succeed).
If we're dealing in the comic universe, and arguing from the viewpoint of those trapped inside, the justification that all databases WILL be compromised requires 4th wall perspective that only a select few characters have.
Really, the idea that super-villains will always be able to defeat anything the super-heroes can cobble up has little support within the universe, because the heroes constantly win against ludicrously slim odds...and do so with ridiculous regularity. They laugh while leaping into their apparent doom because they'll survive largely unscathed as they have many many times before. Their bravado has been supported by experience. From the viewpoint of the superheroes within that universe, It's just as feasible for the superheroes to cobble up insane security measures that could not conceivably be broken by any entity interested in earthly affairs. It's only the readers like you and I that know that comic authors only detail the complexity and robustness of a security system only to have it breached shortly afterward. But for the heroes, that's not a factor they can conceive, and it shouldn't be influencing their opinion on the matter unless they have 4th wall perspective.
For example, pick any superhero with a secret known by someone other than themselves, or documented outside of their own mind. The fact that secrets still exist in that universe shows that they can indeed be preserved. Even Spiderman's identify after being made public, was made secret again. The mutant registration act could just as easily succeed as it could fail. And given the heroes vs. villain track record, it should lean heavily in the direction of success from the viewpoint of the heroes. Hell, it's being pushed by the illuminati, masters of science, technology, magic, heck, reality itself was subject to their will.
If we want to go really really meta, then we should know that we'd never have the secret identify of every marvel superhero revealed to the world because it would derail far too many character arcs and make for bad reading. Leaks would be limited at best to C and D-level characters, or somehow retconned if it somehow happened to major characters.
I agree, the mutant registration was puffed up to be this big bad thing, but really, it's not unlike registering a firearm, and requiring that people walking around with guns have at least had some training in how to properly handle a gun, in order to prevent harm to themselves and to others. Even gun control activists would agree that proper firearms training is essential.
As for the active use of powers, the mutant registration act wanted them to register and answer for using their powers, like a cop deciding to use his gun. If the mutant doesn't want to actively use their powers and just go about their business like a normal person, that's fine, it's like leaving the gun holstered instead of popping it off willy nilly.
OTOH if you launch 1st generation product that's flawed just enough that there's no interest in a 2nd generation product, all of the development effort was wasted, and none of the feedback will make any difference since the opportunity has been lost.
Right now they have only mild interest in the 1st generation product to begin with, even if all of the promised features are fully realized.
Really, the "Steam Machine" isn't terribly exciting, it's just a branded PC. I don't see any realistic scenario where the Steam Machine makes an impact on the industry.
SteamOS is useful to me, since I play PC games on my TV, and further development to expand Big Picture mode into a full OS experience would be very welcome because a windows UI is horribly clunky for use on a TV. But even as one of the few people in their very niche market for this product, I'm not all that excited about it. My setup works already, though SteamOS might help, it won't be a full replacement for a long time(if ever).
The new controller is the most interesting piece since it may widen the types of games that can be playable with a controller on a couch. I have a rising coffee table and full keyboard and mouse, but I'll gladly take opportunities to play more comfortably with a controller so long as I'm not trying to play a game competitively.
I "believe" in evolution, because I don't have a deep enough knowledge of the theory's mechanics and the primary evidence to form what I'd need to really know it evolution to be true on a factual basis. For the most part, I'm simply accepting evolution to be true on the authority of experts. There's probably quite a lot of other people like me who accept scientifically derived facts based on an apparently high consensus among experts.
I'm taking comfort in the belief that if I were so inclined (and had the wherewithal to do so), I could directly examine supporting evidence that establishes this information as fact. It's an important distinction from a belief in religion which, even if it were somehow testable, makes no guarantees about holding up under direct observation.
The problem with the VAST majority of criticisms against drone warfare is this:/They don't cite alternatives./
If an author has a problem with intervention policy. THAT is what the author should be targeting! Drones are incidental to the intervention policy and are off-point. If the goal is to persuade the audience against intervention, then the subject of intervention needs to be directly addressed.
If an author has a problem with drone warfare itself, then present the alternatives. If "boots on the ground" is a more effective way to ensure surgical precision and minimal collateral damage, advocate for that and present the supporting arguments, and preemptively address the counter-argument of the potential for taking casualties along the way as a necessary cost of preserving civilian life and reducing the amount of backlash that creates new terrorists. If the author believes that counterintelligence and local partnerships is more effective, then THAT should also be presented, citing past successes in reducing insurgency and improvements to civilian quality of life.
But if the author has a beef with drone warfare, and presents no alternatives, then they leave the massive hole in their argument of "If not drones, then what?". If the perception of drones is that they kill enemies and prevent us from losing soldiers in the process, and the author wants to do away with drones, then the audience is left to wonder: "Is this author really suggesting that we should lose our soldiers for no good reason, when we could have used drones instead?" Address that question head on!
This happened at my previous job, it was about a quarter-mile walk to get to the coffee in the cafeteria (no free coffee). The bathrooms over there were also much cleaner since they were more inconvenient to reach, (so of course I took the extra walk for a cleaner toilet). Took about 10 minutes to walk there and back. It adds up over the course of the day.
Oh, and why do you want to prevent Jedis from having kids when using the Force is apparently an inherited trait?
I saw an interesting fantheory on this subject. To summarize, his theory was that the secret origin of the Jedi order is that force sensitives were growing in number across the galaxy due to the force sensitivity being a heritable trait. The power of the force easily lent itself to megalomaniacal personality development (essentially random people discovering themselves to be akin to gods among men). In order to resolve this growing issue. The Jedi Order was formed as a means of controlling the growth of the force sensitive population, by indoctrinating them with celibacy to cut down on the volume and potency of Force Sensitives in the galaxy, and avoid a need for mass genocide from the fearful majority of non-force sensitives, as well as avoiding too many power-mad force users. Over time, the overarching reason for the formation of the Jedi Order was lost over time, and all that they remember is the specific teachings of celibacy and self-discipline. Force users who simply embraced the gift of the force and welcomed the power it brought were labeled as the enemies of the Jedi Order, and called "Sith" by the Jedi.
I'm fine with Windows 8 too. I think the hate stems primarily from people who are attached to using the start menu. If you're not among those that use the pre-windows 8 start menu on a regular basis, there just isn't much that has changed in windows 8.
I like the new task manager, and the winkey+type to search functionality. Occasionally I mount a virtual ISO in windows 8 without needing a standalone program. I still don't know how to use their tile screen very well, but I pinned my shortcuts or placed them on the desktop, and I don't need to both with their tile screen. Overall, not a lot of benefit to windows 8 over windows 7, but also not a lot of downside. It was just $15 to get a legitimate windows license for a new PC I'd put together so I went with windows 8.
Had a professor in college who taught only 1 class for the semester. After that, he assigned topics to each student in the class with a few suggested areas to starting researching their topic.
Then every class for the rest of the semester consisted of students going up and presenting their findings, while the professor questioned them to guide their presentation to key areas, and clarified/corrected/expanded on their presentation as needed to ensure the audience gets the information they need for the exams.
This. class. was. awesome!
Being given responsibility to dive into a topic on your own, and having to develop enough understanding to present it to others was a huge breath of fresh air and a ton of fun. Very satisfying to go up there and nail the answers to everyone's questions. It also prepped students on how to handle public speaking, beyond the simple 15 minute memorized presentations you'd give in highschoool, but actually teaching a class for an hour.
Steam's move is just the natural extension of what they have already been doing to the games industry. Publishers had set pricing at the console manufacturer's stated standard of $60 and refused(or were discouraged) to let their pricing float with the market for their games. This led to games being strongly reliant on a big marketing push and collecting nearly all of the game's lifetime revenues within the first few months after release.
Steam steps in and aggressively pushes discount offers, creating sales to customers who weren't willing to pay $60, but were ok with paying $40 for an older game. That still left behind a lot of people who were willing to pay $30 for an older game. But the discounts keep coming and getting sharper as the game ages. All-in-all, Steam showed those publishers that discounting can get them money that they would never otherwise see. On consoles, the used game market had ballooned tremendously by taking advantage of the ability to sell games at lower prices. On PC, the publishers/developers can sell at used game market prices through discounts, and get a taste of that customer segment.
Now Steam is letting them control their own prices. Many will continue to leave their game at full price and opt for limited-time discount strategies, others will decrement their pricing as their game ages. But now that Steam is showing them the light, they are now being invited to decrease their prices on their own initiative. Many games find new life in sales, and have opened up the possibility of resurgent sales during the long tail of the game's lifetime. (Through Humble Bundle AMA threads on reddit, developers noted that the nearly-free "sales" on their games through humble bundle causes matching sales spikes on Steam, their theory is that any time they increase their exposure to the gaming community it revitalizes interest in their games and renews word-of-mouth marketing. I thought that was interesting since up to that point I had thought that the nearly-free humble bundle offers were holding down profitability of indie games).
Pretty sure most of the big stores (at least those with a perpetual inventory system) include location markers like aisle 4, shelf 5, 30 units (you can see those RGIS count tags left behind on shelves in the store with that information after a midnight inventory count).
If a product aisle 1, shelf 3, they'd just update that location in the database. So the store's indoor navigation map shouldn't just keep routing to static product locations, but just query for the current location. The underlying 3d map of the store layout would still be valid for navigating.
I like the idea of mapping public spaces like that, sounds like Google is laying a foundation for quite a lot of useful technologies with this data (whether we want them or not).
Is the combat strategy of overwhelming opposing forces by sheer numbers no longer workable? I'm sure 5th gen planes would fly virtually unopposed in many scenarios, but wouldn't the hundreds/thousands of cheap disposable drones they could get for the same price would be incredibly difficult to stop too when sent en masse?
Can you elaborate on that? Why does Luxembourg want to rent a fighter jet? What threats is that jet meant to protect against? I get why larger countries need military forces as a defensive measure, but given Luxembourg's scale, it seems like there's no military force short of nuclear weapons that they could raise that would present a deterrent against potential aggressors.
Stepping back from the specifics of this event, the issue of inadvertently pointing recording devices at other is an important hurdle for Google Glass that will need to be addressed.
1) It makes other people uncomfortable, but more importantly: 2) It makes the wearer of Google Glass uncomfortable to be making other people uncomfortable (unless they're an inconsiderate asshole).
This severely restricts the practical uses of Google Glass to only situations where public recording devices are commonly accepted, such as school sporting events, family gatherings, and the like. It's not usable in the many situations where a smartphone is acceptable. This makes Google Glass a very tough sell to the wider public. So to that end:
Sell it with a lens cover. Make the cap a different color than the rest of the frame (preferably an accenting color for fashion, or just plain black.), so that it's obvious that there's no recording going on.
The result is that walking around with an uncapped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smartphone camera held in front of you at face level. Walking around with a capped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smart phone camera aimed downwards. It's giving a clear signal to others that you're not trying to record them in secrets.
I'm sure some will point out that there are stupid people who don't understand what a lens cap is and that it means they're not being recorded. To that I would say: There are always stupid people, regardless of the situation. But this solution is a cheap and easy fix to address the majority of scenarios. Hope someone at Google picks up on this early enough. (I guess Griffin might do it if Google doesn't. I bet they can't wait to sell you a ton of inane accessories for it).
Well, let's think about it. What if some parent showed up at the swim meet with a camcorder to film their kid's performance? Soccer game? Marching band? Maybe a birthday party? Those people aren't getting punched in the face today, what if they try filming those events on their phone? When they film it on a head-mounted camera, is it punchy-time yet? No, it's fairly well understood by those present why that person brought a recording device and it's accepted that recording devices are likely to show up at these kinds of events.
Now, if someone sat down on the subway in the seat across from you and pointed a camcorder at you (whether or not you can tell it's off), that's clearly unsettling and I could very well imagine that person getting punched in the face. It seems there are already fairly clear social norms around when you can record in public. An etiquette for its use has already been established, and in reports from those using the explorer models, I'm already starting to see examples where the writer felt uncomfortable putting on Glass in places like the aforementioned subway. Word about how to recognize the appropriate etiquette will spread in time, and the usage will eventually follow (and of course we'll have people with bad behavior too, much like smartphone creep shots today). Overall, I'm not exactly in a panic about this technology. I'm also not terribly concerned about using Glass to record my kid doing things because the only time I'd take out the Glasses is in typical recording situations.
Like most first-gen hardware, it's going to be a rough experience. Doing the limited release they way they have was a good idea.
In the meantime, I think the most compelling part of Google Glass is the first-person recording. There are other wearable cameras of course, but they typically record from over-the-head views. It seems like Google Glass is a unique video recorder for parents.
Like that saying: "The best camera is the one you have with you" nearly all of the pictures and video of my son are from my phone. Our family's actual camera stopped being used after we got smartphones last year. One of the most annoying problems with the phone is that I have to position the phone, and aim the phone to record moments with my son that I want to remember later. That means I have to choose 1) between recording the moment so that my wife and I can remember it for years, or 2) watching the moment directly instead of watching it through a fucking phone. With Google Glass, I get to see the moment directly, while also getting a first-person recording for later. Plus I wouldn't have to hold it while I'm waiting for the right time to start the video or take a picture, it's ready to go.
If a consumer version of google glass comes out that isn't insanely expensive, even if was garbage for everything else, I might still buy one to just to record special events.
I think that's mainly because that'd be someone else's platform. These guys can't sell it.
Looks like they're trying to make a very small helicopter, with a very small overhead outline to avoid getting blades stuck on things when they land, and when they drive in farther to the position of the wounded.
Does anyone know if folding blades would have worked just as well as using 6 smaller rotors? What is the trade-off in reliability & performance between folding blades vs. multiple small rotors?
Slashdot Mirror
T-mobile has indeed been on a roll with upgrading it's network.
It's interesting to note that this was made possible by a $3bil cash infusion from AT&T because AT&T failed to complete their attempted acquisition of T-mobile a few years ago. So even if Sprint fails to complete their merger attempt, they obviously won't have to pay up quite as much, but they're likely to have to fork over something, which could result in even more expansion of T-mobile's network.
(I'm a current t-mobile customer and the coverage is quite decent in the northern NJ/NYC area, I too have noticed coverage in areas around me moving up from 3G to LTE service).
I'll also add that AT&T's failed attempt to acquire T-mobile, resulted in AT&T having to hand over $3 billion in cash to T-mobile for failure to complete the merger, allowing for the very significant LTE rollout to major metropolitan areas that has allowed T-mobile to obtain the dramatic increase in customers and brand improvement they've seen in the past few years.
If Sprint acquisition of T-mobile fails, they probably won't be handing over $3bil since Sprint is a much smaller player in the market than AT&T, but there's a good chance that they'll have to cough up a considerable amount of cash to T-mobile too (these merger-failure contingencies are common since the acquiree has to open up it's books and business plans to a competitor in good faith expectation that the merger will succeed).
If we're dealing in the comic universe, and arguing from the viewpoint of those trapped inside, the justification that all databases WILL be compromised requires 4th wall perspective that only a select few characters have.
Really, the idea that super-villains will always be able to defeat anything the super-heroes can cobble up has little support within the universe, because the heroes constantly win against ludicrously slim odds...and do so with ridiculous regularity. They laugh while leaping into their apparent doom because they'll survive largely unscathed as they have many many times before. Their bravado has been supported by experience. From the viewpoint of the superheroes within that universe, It's just as feasible for the superheroes to cobble up insane security measures that could not conceivably be broken by any entity interested in earthly affairs. It's only the readers like you and I that know that comic authors only detail the complexity and robustness of a security system only to have it breached shortly afterward. But for the heroes, that's not a factor they can conceive, and it shouldn't be influencing their opinion on the matter unless they have 4th wall perspective.
For example, pick any superhero with a secret known by someone other than themselves, or documented outside of their own mind. The fact that secrets still exist in that universe shows that they can indeed be preserved. Even Spiderman's identify after being made public, was made secret again. The mutant registration act could just as easily succeed as it could fail. And given the heroes vs. villain track record, it should lean heavily in the direction of success from the viewpoint of the heroes. Hell, it's being pushed by the illuminati, masters of science, technology, magic, heck, reality itself was subject to their will.
If we want to go really really meta, then we should know that we'd never have the secret identify of every marvel superhero revealed to the world because it would derail far too many character arcs and make for bad reading. Leaks would be limited at best to C and D-level characters, or somehow retconned if it somehow happened to major characters.
I agree, the mutant registration was puffed up to be this big bad thing, but really, it's not unlike registering a firearm, and requiring that people walking around with guns have at least had some training in how to properly handle a gun, in order to prevent harm to themselves and to others. Even gun control activists would agree that proper firearms training is essential.
As for the active use of powers, the mutant registration act wanted them to register and answer for using their powers, like a cop deciding to use his gun. If the mutant doesn't want to actively use their powers and just go about their business like a normal person, that's fine, it's like leaving the gun holstered instead of popping it off willy nilly.
OTOH if you launch 1st generation product that's flawed just enough that there's no interest in a 2nd generation product, all of the development effort was wasted, and none of the feedback will make any difference since the opportunity has been lost.
Right now they have only mild interest in the 1st generation product to begin with, even if all of the promised features are fully realized.
Really, the "Steam Machine" isn't terribly exciting, it's just a branded PC. I don't see any realistic scenario where the Steam Machine makes an impact on the industry.
SteamOS is useful to me, since I play PC games on my TV, and further development to expand Big Picture mode into a full OS experience would be very welcome because a windows UI is horribly clunky for use on a TV. But even as one of the few people in their very niche market for this product, I'm not all that excited about it. My setup works already, though SteamOS might help, it won't be a full replacement for a long time(if ever).
The new controller is the most interesting piece since it may widen the types of games that can be playable with a controller on a couch. I have a rising coffee table and full keyboard and mouse, but I'll gladly take opportunities to play more comfortably with a controller so long as I'm not trying to play a game competitively.
I "believe" in evolution, because I don't have a deep enough knowledge of the theory's mechanics and the primary evidence to form what I'd need to really know it evolution to be true on a factual basis. For the most part, I'm simply accepting evolution to be true on the authority of experts. There's probably quite a lot of other people like me who accept scientifically derived facts based on an apparently high consensus among experts.
I'm taking comfort in the belief that if I were so inclined (and had the wherewithal to do so), I could directly examine supporting evidence that establishes this information as fact. It's an important distinction from a belief in religion which, even if it were somehow testable, makes no guarantees about holding up under direct observation.
The problem with the VAST majority of criticisms against drone warfare is this: /They don't cite alternatives./
If an author has a problem with intervention policy. THAT is what the author should be targeting! Drones are incidental to the intervention policy and are off-point. If the goal is to persuade the audience against intervention, then the subject of intervention needs to be directly addressed.
If an author has a problem with drone warfare itself, then present the alternatives. If "boots on the ground" is a more effective way to ensure surgical precision and minimal collateral damage, advocate for that and present the supporting arguments, and preemptively address the counter-argument of the potential for taking casualties along the way as a necessary cost of preserving civilian life and reducing the amount of backlash that creates new terrorists. If the author believes that counterintelligence and local partnerships is more effective, then THAT should also be presented, citing past successes in reducing insurgency and improvements to civilian quality of life.
But if the author has a beef with drone warfare, and presents no alternatives, then they leave the massive hole in their argument of "If not drones, then what?". If the perception of drones is that they kill enemies and prevent us from losing soldiers in the process, and the author wants to do away with drones, then the audience is left to wonder: "Is this author really suggesting that we should lose our soldiers for no good reason, when we could have used drones instead?" Address that question head on!
This happened at my previous job, it was about a quarter-mile walk to get to the coffee in the cafeteria (no free coffee). The bathrooms over there were also much cleaner since they were more inconvenient to reach, (so of course I took the extra walk for a cleaner toilet). Took about 10 minutes to walk there and back. It adds up over the course of the day.
Isn't Twitch the official streaming app for the XboxOne? (Isn't there something there with PS4 too?)
I bet the deals that allowed those service hooks to happen helped lock-in some positive margin on those users.
I saw an interesting fantheory on this subject. To summarize, his theory was that the secret origin of the Jedi order is that force sensitives were growing in number across the galaxy due to the force sensitivity being a heritable trait. The power of the force easily lent itself to megalomaniacal personality development (essentially random people discovering themselves to be akin to gods among men). In order to resolve this growing issue. The Jedi Order was formed as a means of controlling the growth of the force sensitive population, by indoctrinating them with celibacy to cut down on the volume and potency of Force Sensitives in the galaxy, and avoid a need for mass genocide from the fearful majority of non-force sensitives, as well as avoiding too many power-mad force users. Over time, the overarching reason for the formation of the Jedi Order was lost over time, and all that they remember is the specific teachings of celibacy and self-discipline. Force users who simply embraced the gift of the force and welcomed the power it brought were labeled as the enemies of the Jedi Order, and called "Sith" by the Jedi.
I'm fine with Windows 8 too. I think the hate stems primarily from people who are attached to using the start menu. If you're not among those that use the pre-windows 8 start menu on a regular basis, there just isn't much that has changed in windows 8.
I like the new task manager, and the winkey+type to search functionality. Occasionally I mount a virtual ISO in windows 8 without needing a standalone program. I still don't know how to use their tile screen very well, but I pinned my shortcuts or placed them on the desktop, and I don't need to both with their tile screen. Overall, not a lot of benefit to windows 8 over windows 7, but also not a lot of downside. It was just $15 to get a legitimate windows license for a new PC I'd put together so I went with windows 8.
Why Britain and not the Soviet Union? Wasn't most of the war fought in their territory in terms of men and materiel?
Had a professor in college who taught only 1 class for the semester. After that, he assigned topics to each student in the class with a few suggested areas to starting researching their topic.
Then every class for the rest of the semester consisted of students going up and presenting their findings, while the professor questioned them to guide their presentation to key areas, and clarified/corrected/expanded on their presentation as needed to ensure the audience gets the information they need for the exams.
This. class. was. awesome!
Being given responsibility to dive into a topic on your own, and having to develop enough understanding to present it to others was a huge breath of fresh air and a ton of fun. Very satisfying to go up there and nail the answers to everyone's questions. It also prepped students on how to handle public speaking, beyond the simple 15 minute memorized presentations you'd give in highschoool, but actually teaching a class for an hour.
Steam's move is just the natural extension of what they have already been doing to the games industry. Publishers had set pricing at the console manufacturer's stated standard of $60 and refused(or were discouraged) to let their pricing float with the market for their games. This led to games being strongly reliant on a big marketing push and collecting nearly all of the game's lifetime revenues within the first few months after release.
Steam steps in and aggressively pushes discount offers, creating sales to customers who weren't willing to pay $60, but were ok with paying $40 for an older game. That still left behind a lot of people who were willing to pay $30 for an older game. But the discounts keep coming and getting sharper as the game ages. All-in-all, Steam showed those publishers that discounting can get them money that they would never otherwise see. On consoles, the used game market had ballooned tremendously by taking advantage of the ability to sell games at lower prices. On PC, the publishers/developers can sell at used game market prices through discounts, and get a taste of that customer segment.
Now Steam is letting them control their own prices. Many will continue to leave their game at full price and opt for limited-time discount strategies, others will decrement their pricing as their game ages. But now that Steam is showing them the light, they are now being invited to decrease their prices on their own initiative. Many games find new life in sales, and have opened up the possibility of resurgent sales during the long tail of the game's lifetime. (Through Humble Bundle AMA threads on reddit, developers noted that the nearly-free "sales" on their games through humble bundle causes matching sales spikes on Steam, their theory is that any time they increase their exposure to the gaming community it revitalizes interest in their games and renews word-of-mouth marketing. I thought that was interesting since up to that point I had thought that the nearly-free humble bundle offers were holding down profitability of indie games).
If you replace the "en." in a wikipedia like with "simple.", it takes you to a more digestible version of most pages.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wi...
The regular wikipedia article was mostly gibberish to me, so I had to consult this link to get a basic idea of what SUSY is.
I'm told that farts just recirculate through the suit's life-support systems. They just have to endure. Space is hard.
Pretty sure most of the big stores (at least those with a perpetual inventory system) include location markers like aisle 4, shelf 5, 30 units (you can see those RGIS count tags left behind on shelves in the store with that information after a midnight inventory count).
If a product aisle 1, shelf 3, they'd just update that location in the database. So the store's indoor navigation map shouldn't just keep routing to static product locations, but just query for the current location. The underlying 3d map of the store layout would still be valid for navigating.
I like the idea of mapping public spaces like that, sounds like Google is laying a foundation for quite a lot of useful technologies with this data (whether we want them or not).
Is the combat strategy of overwhelming opposing forces by sheer numbers no longer workable? I'm sure 5th gen planes would fly virtually unopposed in many scenarios, but wouldn't the hundreds/thousands of cheap disposable drones they could get for the same price would be incredibly difficult to stop too when sent en masse?
Can you elaborate on that? Why does Luxembourg want to rent a fighter jet? What threats is that jet meant to protect against? I get why larger countries need military forces as a defensive measure, but given Luxembourg's scale, it seems like there's no military force short of nuclear weapons that they could raise that would present a deterrent against potential aggressors.
Stepping back from the specifics of this event, the issue of inadvertently pointing recording devices at other is an important hurdle for Google Glass that will need to be addressed.
1) It makes other people uncomfortable, but more importantly:
2) It makes the wearer of Google Glass uncomfortable to be making other people uncomfortable (unless they're an inconsiderate asshole).
This severely restricts the practical uses of Google Glass to only situations where public recording devices are commonly accepted, such as school sporting events, family gatherings, and the like. It's not usable in the many situations where a smartphone is acceptable. This makes Google Glass a very tough sell to the wider public. So to that end:
Sell it with a lens cover. Make the cap a different color than the rest of the frame (preferably an accenting color for fashion, or just plain black.), so that it's obvious that there's no recording going on.
The result is that walking around with an uncapped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smartphone camera held in front of you at face level. Walking around with a capped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smart phone camera aimed downwards. It's giving a clear signal to others that you're not trying to record them in secrets.
I'm sure some will point out that there are stupid people who don't understand what a lens cap is and that it means they're not being recorded. To that I would say: There are always stupid people, regardless of the situation. But this solution is a cheap and easy fix to address the majority of scenarios. Hope someone at Google picks up on this early enough. (I guess Griffin might do it if Google doesn't. I bet they can't wait to sell you a ton of inane accessories for it).
Well, let's think about it. What if some parent showed up at the swim meet with a camcorder to film their kid's performance? Soccer game? Marching band? Maybe a birthday party? Those people aren't getting punched in the face today, what if they try filming those events on their phone? When they film it on a head-mounted camera, is it punchy-time yet? No, it's fairly well understood by those present why that person brought a recording device and it's accepted that recording devices are likely to show up at these kinds of events.
Now, if someone sat down on the subway in the seat across from you and pointed a camcorder at you (whether or not you can tell it's off), that's clearly unsettling and I could very well imagine that person getting punched in the face. It seems there are already fairly clear social norms around when you can record in public. An etiquette for its use has already been established, and in reports from those using the explorer models, I'm already starting to see examples where the writer felt uncomfortable putting on Glass in places like the aforementioned subway. Word about how to recognize the appropriate etiquette will spread in time, and the usage will eventually follow (and of course we'll have people with bad behavior too, much like smartphone creep shots today). Overall, I'm not exactly in a panic about this technology. I'm also not terribly concerned about using Glass to record my kid doing things because the only time I'd take out the Glasses is in typical recording situations.
Like most first-gen hardware, it's going to be a rough experience. Doing the limited release they way they have was a good idea.
In the meantime, I think the most compelling part of Google Glass is the first-person recording. There are other wearable cameras of course, but they typically record from over-the-head views. It seems like Google Glass is a unique video recorder for parents.
Like that saying: "The best camera is the one you have with you" nearly all of the pictures and video of my son are from my phone. Our family's actual camera stopped being used after we got smartphones last year. One of the most annoying problems with the phone is that I have to position the phone, and aim the phone to record moments with my son that I want to remember later. That means I have to choose 1) between recording the moment so that my wife and I can remember it for years, or 2) watching the moment directly instead of watching it through a fucking phone. With Google Glass, I get to see the moment directly, while also getting a first-person recording for later. Plus I wouldn't have to hold it while I'm waiting for the right time to start the video or take a picture, it's ready to go.
If a consumer version of google glass comes out that isn't insanely expensive, even if was garbage for everything else, I might still buy one to just to record special events.
Here you go:
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/05/google-glass-prescription-lens-option/
It ain't cheap, but it's there.
I looked at the image gallery, it's actually 8 rotors.
I think that's mainly because that'd be someone else's platform. These guys can't sell it.
Looks like they're trying to make a very small helicopter, with a very small overhead outline to avoid getting blades stuck on things when they land, and when they drive in farther to the position of the wounded.
Does anyone know if folding blades would have worked just as well as using 6 smaller rotors? What is the trade-off in reliability & performance between folding blades vs. multiple small rotors?